Religious extremists attacking a PP in my state

[susfubb]

don't forget, Seshat, that religious fundamentalists consider an IUD as equivalent to abortion.

& let NONE of us forget our sisters regularly maimed by genital mutilation, and murdered by "honor killings." (

[Seshat]

That was a major part of my point.

And no, I don't forget them. I'm strongly in favour of education and microloans in the developing world. Both have been shown to improve women's and children's health and safety.

[BookstoreEscapee]

In a society properly educated and able to provide for offspring, with access to safe and effective prevention, the number of people who needed an abortion would be very small,

I agree with this sentiment...the key words being "properly educated" and "access to safe and effective prevention"...

How many of our students are being taught nothing but "abstinence only" which often includes outright falsehoods about the effectiveness of STD prevention and contraceptives? How many of them go on to have sex anyway, and don't bother with condoms because "they don't work anyway." I didn't realize it at the time, of course, but when I was in high school I had a very comprehensive sex ed curriculum (I graduated HS in 1993). My biggest concern is that they didn't cover STDs, birth control, and yes, even abortion, until senior year. Frankly, I think that's too late.

How many stories have I read recently about pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions because they insist that birth control = abortion, despite the overwhelming lack of evidence to support such an assumption? (And I'm not only referring to the "morning after pill" but regular everyday birth control as well.) If my doctor gives me a prescription, it is not up to the pharmacist to decide that I shouldn't be able to have it based on nothing more than what boils down to religious conviction. I'm lucky to live in an area where there are a dozen pharmacies within 10 minutes of my house. Not every woman has the option of just going down the street, and even if they do have that option, they shouldn't have to go to such lengths to fill a perfectly valid and legal prescription. I wouldn't go to a doctor who would refuse to prescribe BC on moral grounds, either (whether or not that was my objective in seeing the doctor). For one thing, it is not the doctor's job to police my morality; aside from that, a doctor who seriously subscribes to poorly supported "science" is not someone I trust to be taking care of my health.

Even given those things, I believe that safe, legal abortion should always be an option. There are just too many things in this world that can go "wrong"...there's rape, and no amount of "God wants this baby to be born" would make me OK with carrying a child conceived out of violence, and even if I were to give the child up for adoption, I would still have to live through 9 months of being constantly reminded of the trauma, followed by the lasting physical consequences of carrying a pregnancy and giving birth; birth control is never 100% and sometimes despite the best of intentions and the most careful actions, things happen at bad times; finding out that your (wanted, planned) child has a catastrophic birth defect that will kill them shortly after birth...I sincerely doubt I could go through a pregnancy and childbirth only to watch my baby die.

If I were to become accidentally pregnant as a result of my own informed actions, I seriously doubt I would have an abortion. But who am I to tell someone else that it's not the right decision for them and their circumstances? Who are you to tell me the same?

I don't know who said it, but I will always believe in the "mantra" that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare."

[Pedersen]

no amount of "God wants this baby to be born" would make me OK with carrying a child conceived out of violence

See, here's something that bothers me about this particular thread: I've not seen a reply to my question that I posted.

The gist of the question is this: God is omnipotent. All powerful. Capable of doing absolutely literally anything, including rewriting the laws of physics should He so choose. And he's not able to force a woman to carry a baby to term that He's decided He wants born?

What gives? Is he all powerful, or not? If so, then why doesn't he just prevent abortions from being possible? If not, then he's not really the Christian god anyway.

I'm still waiting for that answer from anybody who can give it.

[AFPheonix]

Perhaps god doesn't really mind, and these people are putting words into his mouth by claiming it's against his will to have abortions?

It's not like it would be the first time people have dragged God's name into something, regardless of whether it fit with the rest of the dogma we have available in ancient texts.

[Boozy]

See, here's something that bothers me about this particular thread: I've not seen a reply to my question that I posted.

Pedersen, what you are asking is a version of the age-old question "If God is all-powerful and all-good, why does he let bad things happen?" This question has been studied by many great philosophical thinkers, such as Plato and Augustine.

So despite my great respect for the minds of my fellow Fratching members, I think it unlikely that we'll find an answer to that question here.

If it leads you in the right direction, Pedersen, I will say that "free will" has been put forward for the last few millennia as a possible theological explanation.

[Dreamstalker]

Caused a woman to give birth to a male child without intercourse with a human

<nitpick> Immaculate Conception is the lack of original sin. Nothing to do with the lack of a male.

[Pedersen]

<nitpick> Immaculate Conception is the lack of original sin. Nothing to do with the lack of a male.

Interesting. I never knew that about the Immaculate Conception. Thank you.

Of course, the Immaculate Conception doesn't change the fact that, according to (at minimum Catholic) Christian belief in the Virginal Conception, which states that a woman (Mary) gave birth to a male child (Jesus) without intercourse with any human being.

As such, my Biblical miracle still stands.

Oh, and for free will, here's an article which expresses my issues with that idea more eloquently than I will right now. Suffice to say that God does strip away free will when it is convenient to Him to do so.

As such, my original question still stands: Are the Christians stating the God is limited by modern medical science?

[BookstoreEscapee]

George Carlin came up in the 10 Commandments thread (OK, I brought him up, I love GC), and someone posted a link to the video, and then I came across this one...which is topical here..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvD...eature=related

and I have to say, I tend to agree.

[Sylvia727]

I don't know who said it, but I will always believe in the "mantra" that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare."

I believe in birth control that does not harm other people, including preborn people. Your beliefs may vary, of course, but many people agree on the morality of pre-conception birth control methods. So if the ideal birth control, 99% or 100% effective, was spread throughout a properly educated society, then how many pregnancies would occur? The rapes of women trying to conceive or who didn't have an active sex life at the time. I don't know the numbers, but I have heard a statistic that less than 1% of rapes result in pregnancy. Usually, there's a 1 in 30 chance that the women is even fertile on any given day. With growing advancements in criminal forensics, more and more criminals are using condoms and spermicides to avoid leaving evidence. I can't believe that rape-babies would be a significant factor in this debate.

I'm not necessarily arguing for fetus rights, since I too have trouble seeing how this could be accomplished without infringing on the mother's rights. How about her right to drink alcohol? To ride a motorcycle? To engage in any activity that's remotely dangerous? But I think the society could be developed where fetuses had rights, or partial rights.

[Boozy]

Usually, there's a 1 in 30 chance that the women is even fertile on any given day. With growing advancements in criminal forensics, more and more criminals are using condoms and spermicides to avoid leaving evidence. I can't believe that rape-babies would be a significant factor in this debate.

To nitpick: Women with the average cycle of 28 days are fertile for about 20% of that cycle, or 6 days. Sperm can live up to five days, and the egg lives for up to 24 hours.

75% of rapes are committed by men already known by the victim, and thus most rapists do not bother wearing a condom for purposes of concealing their identities. Their plan is to intimidate the victim into silence and/or claim consensual sex.

And let's not forget that rapes happen in areas of the world where war and pestilence is prevalent, a condom cannot be found for miles, and women have no money and no support for the children they already have.

Even so, I don't like focusing too much on the victims of rape when discussing abortion. At its heart, this is an issue about who controls a woman's body.

[Sylvia727]

Alright, rape is more complicated than I first thought. But I still don't see rape babies as a significant factor.

Even so, I don't like focusing too much on the victims of rape when discussing abortion. At its heart, this is an issue about who controls a woman's body.

I think this is a common miscommunication. For me, the issue is who has the right to destroy a life. I think women should control their own bodies, but that they don't have the right to kill another being for this right. In most cases, the woman was in control of her own body when she chose to have sex.

I still admire and respect Planned Parenthood for their efforts to end the epidemic of unwanted pregnancies. Even though I condemn abortion, it is a fact of life here. I think the best way to eliminate abortion as an issue is to provide a better, less harmful alternative.

[BookstoreEscapee]

I agree, conceptions from rape are probably a very small percentage, but it's still a possibility. I also agree that's not really the point.

if the ideal birth control, 99% or 100% effective, was spread throughout a properly educated society

That "perfect" birth control is probably never going to exist, unfortunately. The closest things we have are probably the pill, used correctly and consistently, or the IUD. Not every woman can use hormonal methods, and the IUD isn't ideal for every woman, either. What we need is honest education and communication between patients and doctors to determine the best method for each individual woman. I agree with the underlying premise, though - if every sexually active woman used a reliable method of BC, unwanted pregnancies will be dramatically lessened, which should be the goal. (But "99% effective" still leaves room for error.) Hence the "rare" part.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I believe in birth control that does not harm other people, including preborn people.

Nitpick: There is no such thing as "preborn". That's a term developed by anti-choicers in their efforts to convince Joe and Jane Public that a 6-week-old embryo is the equivalent of those cute little infants you see in advertisements. Either you're born or you're not.

Nitpick II: *All* birth control, from the regular kind to the EC, (adverse hormonal side effects aside for those it applies to) *does not* harm anyone. This is another misconception spread by the anti-choice groups in an effort to restrict women's access to BC. Pregnancy is not defined until a fertilized egg actually implants in the uterus. All BC - any BC - does is prevent that fertilization or implantation from taking place. An egg or sperm is akin to a single ingredient needed to make a loaf of bread; a fertilized egg is akin to having mixed those ingredients together, and a loaf of dough in the oven, so to speak, would be akin to an actual pregnancy.

I can't believe that rape-babies would be a significant factor in this debate.

Tell that to any female that's been raped and found herself pregnant as a result of that violence.

But I think the society could be developed where fetuses had rights, or partial rights.

Fetuses already have rights - the reason that prosecutors in murder cases where a pregnant woman has been killed go for two counts instead of one is because there's an automatic assumption (which I would guess proves true more often than not) that the pregnancy is wanted - it's a fact that the most dangerous time for a woman, especially if she's in a high-risk relationship, is when she becomes pregnant. High-profile cases like the Laci Petersen murder are an example.

To use a Biblical-based one, there's a passage in the Old Testament where penalty is assigned to a hypothetical situation, that being where an attacker strikes a pregnant woman. If the woman herself dies, the perpetrator gets a death sentence (if memory serves me well enough). However, if the perp causes the fetus to miscarry but the woman survives, said perp is then made to pay a monetary or material fine to the woman's family as compensation for that loss (as large families back then were desirable, since more people meant more help around the farm, and the relative lack of sanitary conditions and medical knowledge meant more pregnancies often ended poorly).

In contemporary society, laws recognize that while it is definitely desirable for a pregnant female to abstain from things like smoking and drinking alcohol for the duration of that pregnancy, there is no *mandatory* law (yet) stating such. Because then you get into the whole area of infringing on an *adult's* free will, and you'll be hard-pressed to find anybody who thinks that taking away somebody else's smokes and booze is always a good thing. (Even I, a VEHEMENT nonsmoker, as much as I *despise* cigarettes, I would not deny somebody else the right to imbibe as they please, provided they aren't bothering me with it - which, so long as I make the effort to avoid places where smokers tend to congregate, isn't a problem)

As Boozy pointed out, it's ultimately not about "saving babies." It's about who gets to control a woman's life. Even now, there are laws pending, or laws in existence, that are specifically worded so as to theoretically make it *illegal* to have birth control of any kind - regardless of the fact that some women *need* it to control conditions like PCOS. It's no coincidence that the anti-choice groups are behind this even as they wave their anti-abortion signs - if enforced by an active presence (and make no mistake, if such people got enough power, they'd do it in a heartbeat), such laws would screw over thousands if not millions of women badly.

And, on one more note, here's something to think about: If the anti-choicers cared so much about "saving babies" (which I don't for one second believe they do), why is it they only seem to care *before* the birth, and tend to disappear like smoke on the wind after a child's been born? Why do they tend to oppose things like education reforms, or tax breaks for struggling families, or welfare for those who do need it? It's like they're saying, "we made you do what *we* wanted, now tough, you're on your own." Real nice sentiment there, eh?

[Sylvia727]

Nitpick: There is no such thing as "preborn". That's a term developed by anti-choicers in their efforts to convince Joe and Jane Public that a 6-week-old embryo is the equivalent of those cute little infants you see in advertisements. Either you're born or you're not.

And the term "pro-choice" doesn't gloss over the possible implications of murder? The term "pro-life" doesn't gloss over the possible implications of control and limited rights? Most political terms are euphemisms developed to put a positive spin on a certain agenda. It's not limited to any one party or issue.

Also, if one is not yet born, but if left to nature's course will be born in the future, isn't this individual in a state of prebirth? I don't see how "preborn" doesn't exist. There may be more precise terms, but I fail to see the overwhelming flaw in this one.

Nitpick II: *All* birth control, from the regular kind to the EC, (adverse hormonal side effects aside for those it applies to) *does not* harm anyone. This is another misconception spread by the anti-choice groups in an effort to restrict women's access to BC. Pregnancy is not defined until a fertilized egg actually implants in the uterus. All BC - any BC - does is prevent that fertilization or implantation from taking place. An egg or sperm is akin to a single ingredient needed to make a loaf of bread; a fertilized egg is akin to having mixed those ingredients together, and a loaf of dough in the oven, so to speak, would be akin to an actual pregnancy.

I understand how pills and IUDs work, but abortion is commonly referred to as birth control. I was trying to distinguish between methods that prevent pregnancy and methods that terminate pregnancy. If pregnancies were prevented with greater efficiency, than there would be less need to terminate them.

I like your bread analogy though. One could extend it further--at which point is the dough granted the status of bread? When it is removed from the oven? When it is edible, even if undercooked? Or is it always bread, is the breadiness kneaded into its very core?

Tell that to any female that's been raped and found herself pregnant as a result of that violence.

Rape is a tragedy. But it's not a significant factor, no matter how painful it is. Rape pregnancies are the exception to the rule--maybe they should be the exception to the laws on fetus rights. I don't know, and frankly it's irrelevant to the greater issue.

Fetuses already have rights -
<snip>

Yes, they have one or two, mostly by-products of laws designed to serve someone else's needs. I don't see how someone can be tried for the murder of a nonperson, or why it's illegal for someone else to forcibly terminate a pregnancy, but perfectly legal for the mother to do so. The movement to give fetuses rights would actually give them rights, not just when it was convenient. It's not a movement I particularly agree with, actually, but it's important to distinguish what it would and would not do.

Because then you get into the whole area of infringing on an *adult's* free will,

And this is the main reason I think fetus rights would be difficult to allow or enforce. Someone trying to protect the life of a fetus would end up encasing the mother in a plastic rat ball, with nutrionally-balanced and tasteless food poked in through the air holes. And while there may be some people who agree with this, the majority doesn't. So I guess we're safe, for at least a very little while longer.

As Boozy pointed out, it's ultimately not about "saving babies." It's about who gets to control a woman's life.

That's your motivation for getting involved. But rational pro-lifers aren't trying to control women. Through their eyes, your denial of the damage caused to babies looks as alien as their denial of the damage done to women looks to you. Other people get to have opinions also, even if you don't agree with them. By denying that their point of view exists, or that it is somehow less valid than yours, you signal that you are not interested in meeting them halfway. This attitude makes people more hostile and less cooperative, reinforcing the stereotype that pro-lifers are selfish and unreasonable.

Even now, there are laws pending, or laws in existence, that are specifically worded so as to theoretically make it *illegal* to have birth control of any kind - regardless of the fact that some women *need* it to control conditions like PCOS. It's no coincidence that the anti-choice groups are behind this even as they wave their anti-abortion signs - if enforced by an active presence (and make no mistake, if such people got enough power, they'd do it in a heartbeat), such laws would screw over thousands if not millions of women badly.

I don't like those right-wing nutjobs either. As Seshat said in another thread, I won't judge you by your crazies if you don't judge me by mine.

I have PCOS, which is why I take birth control medication. If/When I go off my meds, my cramps leave me curled up whimpering. So they can pry my birth control out of my cold dead fingers--right after I exercise my 2nd Amendment rights to own a shotgun

As I've said before, preventing unwanted pregnancies is probably the best solution. Most birth control is perfectly harmless, and most rational folk will grant you the right to put whatever medicines--or poisons--you want into your own body.

And, on one more note, here's something to think about: If the anti-choicers cared so much about "saving babies" (which I don't for one second believe they do), why is it they only seem to care *before* the birth, and tend to disappear like smoke on the wind after a child's been born? Why do they tend to oppose things like education reforms, or tax breaks for struggling families, or welfare for those who do need it? It's like they're saying, "we made you do what *we* wanted, now tough, you're on your own." Real nice sentiment there, eh?

I can't speak for anyone but myself, and I hope that you will not judge an entire movement based on a certain group of supporters. I do support education reforms, raising the poverty line, reforming the welfare/medicaid system, and yes, greater education about and access to birth control methods. Many pro-lifers do, at least the ones I hang out with.

And here's something for you to think about: what's so wrong about walking a mile in the other person's shoes? Both sides need to grow up and try to work out a better solution that leaves everyone happy. Unfortunately, the attitude I hear from some pro-choicers is "Haha, the government sided with us, so stick it up your butt!" and the attitude I hear from some pro-lifers is "You're all evil and going to hell."