Loosening my pro choice stance.

[1994Californication]

Until two nights ago i used to think the pro lifer movement was just another faction of religiously charged pseudo science like Young earth creationism.But after reading this essay in opposition to abortion on RW I'm uncertain if I could ever call myself "pro-choice" anymore. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Why_I...e_abortion

"In the late 1960's the pro-choice movement made a deliberate, strategic decision to trivialize the abortion debate by dismissing all pro-life arguments as mere Catholic dogma. This made it easy to gloss over the inconvenient, undeniable scientific embryological fact that human life begins at conception in favor of specious arguments regarding church/state separation and accusation that religion "is being forced down our throats." Planned Parenthood today still insists that the question of when life begins is a religious one which varies from woman to woman, apparently mind-dependent rather than reality-dependent. They do draw the line at the old Mayan practice of throwing infants into volcanos, although I don't see why, under their theory, that wouldn't be a protected exercise of religion as well. I've seen more of a reliance on science - embryology, ultrasound - on the pro-life side than on the pro-choice side. In fact, the mainstream pro-choice organizations oppose showing women who are considering abortion ultrasound pictures of the child on the grounds that they are "confusing." It should be noted that the pro-choice side isn't opposed to raising religious arguments when it suits them. Planned Parenthood has hired clergy to promote abortion from a theological standpoint. The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice devotes its very existence to that endeavor. Ironically, even the atheistic Freedom from Religion Foundation employs a religious argument when it comes to abortion - it argues that the practice should be permitted because it isn't expressly forbidden by the Bible."

[Minimalist]

WTF does any of that have to do with forcing a woman to be saddled with a kid she does not want for 18 years because a bunch of religitards think she should have kept her legs together?

[ignoramus]

So you have a problem with an 8 celled "being" being aborted?
If not, what about 16 celled?

Where do you draw the line between biology in motion and a human being?
Just curious, that's all.

[Reforged]

Just because it looks like a baby doesn't mean it is a baby. However, it *does* resemble one so such pictures would be distressing.
Similar to how if I showed pictures of a horrific car crash from a movie to someone who suffered a real car crash they would find that distressing and I would be abit of a nob.

[brewer]

"In the late 1960's the pro-choice movement made a deliberate, strategic decision to trivialize the abortion debate by dismissing all pro-life arguments as mere Catholic dogma. This made it easy to gloss over the inconvenient, undeniable scientific embryological fact that human life begins at conception in favor of specious arguments regarding church/state separation and accusation that religion "is being forced down our throats." Planned Parenthood today still insists that the question of when life begins is a religious one which varies from woman to woman, apparently mind-dependent rather than reality-dependent. They do draw the line at the old Mayan practice of throwing infants into volcanos, although I don't see why, under their theory, that wouldn't be a protected exercise of religion as well. I've seen more of a reliance on science - embryology, ultrasound - on the pro-life side than on the pro-choice side. In fact, the mainstream pro-choice organizations oppose showing women who are considering abortion ultrasound pictures of the child on the grounds that they are "confusing." It should be noted that the pro-choice side isn't opposed to raising religious arguments when it suits them. Planned Parenthood has hired clergy to promote abortion from a theological standpoint. The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice devotes its very existence to that endeavor. Ironically, even the atheistic Freedom from Religion Foundation employs a religious argument when it comes to abortion - it argues that the practice should be permitted because it isn't expressly forbidden by the Bible."

bold mine

Not. Change to ....."potential" human life begins at conception....

Define conception. Easiest is fertilization of ovum with sperm. That's a sad definition for human life. That does not take into account of the millions of things that need to take place to develop into a viable human that can sustain life on it's own, even with the aid of medical science.

Want evidence? Look up Molar Pregnancy. Look up Ectopic Pregnancy Stats. Look up the stats for estimate of fertilized eggs that do not implant. Look up fatal birth defects stats (cdc). Go to any pathology web site and look at placental/uterine pathology.

You can give credence to this over simplified wiki essay if you like. I choose not to.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Not. Change to ....."potential" human life begins at conception....millions of things...need to take place to develop into a viable human that can sustain life on it's own.

An infant cannot sustain life on its own. Everyone is born vulnerable and dependent on others for care and sustenance.

For complex organisms life starts as a fertilized egg. Someone can still believe abortion should be allowed on other grounds, just not a scientific one. Your proposed addition of 'potential' shows that when it comes to the issue of abortion you are anti-science.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Just because it looks like a baby doesn't mean it is a baby.

Just because it doesn't yet look human doesn't mean it isn't one.

[The Grand Nudger]

The unwilling mother is also human, and..importantly, legally so... in ways that an unborn child is not. You wont find many people arguing -for- abortion. You'll find plenty making a compromise on the issue of a woman's rights. That's law, that's governance, that's society. You take issue?

[rexbeccarox]

Until two nights ago i used to think the pro lifer movement was just another faction of religiously charged pseudo science like Young earth creationism.But after reading this essay in opposition to abortion on RW I'm uncertain if I could ever call myself "pro-choice" anymore. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Why_I...e_abortion

"In the late 1960's the pro-choice movement made a deliberate, strategic decision to trivialize the abortion debate by dismissing all pro-life arguments as mere Catholic dogma. This made it easy to gloss over the inconvenient, undeniable scientific embryological fact that human life begins at conception in favor of specious arguments regarding church/state separation and accusation that religion "is being forced down our throats." Planned Parenthood today still insists that the question of when life begins is a religious one which varies from woman to woman, apparently mind-dependent rather than reality-dependent. They do draw the line at the old Mayan practice of throwing infants into volcanos, although I don't see why, under their theory, that wouldn't be a protected exercise of religion as well. I've seen more of a reliance on science - embryology, ultrasound - on the pro-life side than on the pro-choice side. In fact, the mainstream pro-choice organizations oppose showing women who are considering abortion ultrasound pictures of the child on the grounds that they are "confusing." It should be noted that the pro-choice side isn't opposed to raising religious arguments when it suits them. Planned Parenthood has hired clergy to promote abortion from a theological standpoint. The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice devotes its very existence to that endeavor. Ironically, even the atheistic Freedom from Religion Foundation employs a religious argument when it comes to abortion - it argues that the practice should be permitted because it isn't expressly forbidden by the Bible."

You have no say in the choices I make about my body, and if you think you do, kindly fuck off.

[Silver]

Abortion cookies.

Yummeh.