Anti-life crowd outraged that the unborn are cared for.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by nationalist
Tell that to my girlfriend and see what she tells you. I'm sure that she and her fellow feminists for life wouldn't agree wih you on this. You'd probably get about an hour lecture about how abortion objectifies women as sex objects even more than they are now.

I highly doubt that, since it was feminists who intiated the movement to legalize abortion and who are at the heart of the fight to keep it legal. The right to control one's own body is at the heart of feminism.

As for the anti-choice momvement being anti-woman, it's very simple. Most of the anti-choice movement is also opposed to the use of contraception, sex education, women being able to get divorces, women having jobs (other than being secretaries at their church), women wearing pants. While (for example) you won't be able to look up the now defunct Operation Rescue and see those things as part of it's platform, you can go track down things Randal Terry and other leaders say in their churches, in their ministries, etc. The "pro-life" position is merely the spearhead of a larger crusade against the freedom of women.

[Lincoln]

Most of the "anti-choice" crowd are women. And I never met one who did not wear pants as well as a dress if they chose. I think you are way off Che...

[Lincoln]

I personally know several pro-life women who work at providing services for women and their children. Some provide safe houses for abused women and yes some *gasp* have jobs besides working as a secretary in a church!

[Seeker]

"In short, new fetal research argues for keeping abortion legal in the first two trimesters of pregnancy and prohibiting it in the third."

From Lincoln's fetal sentience site.

This seems reasonable, except in cases of a threat to the mothers life.

And I'll bite your 'bullet':
Y
es, of the small percentage of late-term abortions, and of that the smaller percentage that aren't performed for emergency reasons, I would have to consider the remainder 'murder' in order to remain intellectually honest with myself.

[nationalist]

Once again Che, I'm amazed with your outlook. Simply baffled. It is a fact: not all feminists are pro-abortion.

http://www.feministsforlife.org

Women have the right to choose: they have the right to choose to keep their legs shut. If they want to have sex, then they should be able to deal with the consequences. Why should the life of an innocent person be deprived simply because its parents couldn't control themselves? I don't even agree with abortion of a rape child. The child was innocent, and was as much a victim of the crime as its mother was. If you are just itching to kill someone, then why not kill the rapist? He'd surely deserve it more. The only justifiable abortion IMO is when the mother's life is in immidiate danger, and she will die if the baby is not aborted.

If you want to read some feminist thought that is anti-abortion, simply read some Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Susan B. Anthony. I know, these ladies are relatively obscure, but I think that they do have some relevant things to say on the topic of women's rights.

Also, why do you think that being pro-life means that I am for keeping the little woman in the kitchen? I think that much of your argument stems from fundamentalist garbage, be it from the right or from the left. Why does the fact that I want to allow an innocent child (or eventual child if you are going to argue about the exact status of a fetus. Whatever you believe, the fetus will almost certainly become a sentient human in a span of time that is too short to argue over the semantics of a situation) mean that I think women are inferior? I don't.

Abortion represents the breakdown of society rather than societal progress. A society that advocaes infanticide is a society in decay. [Line edited to placate Boris Gudonov]

[CyberGnu]

Women have the right to choose: they have the right to choose to keep their legs shut. If they want to have sex, then they should be able to deal with the consequences. Why should the life of an innocent person be deprived simply because its parents couldn't control themselves?

Actually, the same innocent person is deprived of life if his/her parents decide to control themselves as well.

If you argue that something with the potential to become a humn is a human, then we're starting to deal with mathematical issues....

[CyberGnu]

Che, I have to disagree with you, though. Many anti-abortionists are surely misogynic, but that doesn't equate the two...

I personally think it is just a question of not enough science education in school.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
If you argue that something with the potential to become a humn is a human, then we're starting to deal with mathematical issues....

No we're not. We're dealing with simple facts, not philosophical issues. Even if you don't think that the fetus is human, it will be in less than nine months. That is not very much time. You can squabble over semantic debates or you can face reality and know that having an abortion is ending a life that would almostcertainly exist 9 months from now. Even if you don't think that the fetus is a person, it will become a person. By having an abortion, you are ending a life that will begin shortly. Your actions have the same effect in ten months whether you aborted the fetus before birth or killed the baby right after birth. The end result is the same: a life that wouldhave otherwise existed 10 months from now doesn't. This isn't the same as contraception, because when you use a condom, you are decreasing the chances of fertilization, not destroying something that has already been fertilized and will will become a person.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I just have one question:

Why is the central issue constantly avoided by the pro-choice crowd? If the figure (for 1992) is "only" 17,000 or so does that make it Okay? Are we suposed to all argue about numbers now to evade that fact that innocent sentient human life is being purposely destroyed? or should we do as Ron Jeremy and Mac did and make a big joke about it?

What central issue Lincoln? Are you proclaiming that a lump of eight cells or a tadpole-like thing has sentience? This sort of loaded questions aren't getting you anywhere.

[chequita guevara]

Does FFL stand for anything besides being an anti-choice group? You can call yourself a feminist but that doesn't make you one. These people are so obscure they aren't even argued against in the Feminist movement.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What central issue Lincoln?

I think that he's referring to the evidence of brain activity in the third trimester fetus.

[CyberGnu]

Why is fertilization so magical?

A zygote right after fertilization has a 40% of being a person. A 3 month old fetus has maybe a 90% change of becomin a person.(*) A particular sperm has maybe 1/100000% chance of becoming a person.(*) Any sperm in a unimpeded ejaculation has roughly 10% chance of reaching fertilization, and thus 4% chance of being a person. Any sperm in an ejaculation where a condom is used has a 10/10000% chance of resulting in fertilization, and thus 4/10000% of becoming a person.

When you argue that a zygote is a person, you are only saying that 'tissue with a 40+% chance of becoming a person is a person'. I reject your definition based on propabilites.

A definition should have a valid scientific background. I personally think congnicense, i.e. changes in brainwave pattern based on non-reflex stimulation, is the best definition. This happens roughly at the end of the second trimester, which is also where most law has put the last time to make an abortion.

(*) Educated guesses for the propabilites.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Does FFL stand for anything besides being an anti-choice group? You can call yourself a feminist but that doesn't make you one. These people are so obscure they aren't even argued against in the Feminist movement.

I'm sure that the person who made this website is some kind of White-Suprmecist Male Chauvinist Fascist pig who chains women up in his basement for purely sexual purposes. Why else would he be against abortion? Afterall, Che seems to know what all women really believe. Anyone else must be wrong! He shouldn't be bothered to look at any web page that he doesn't want to...

Do you have any arguments besides dogma, Che? Do you have any female friends that aren't rabid leftists? I don't mean to be confrontational with you, but you seem to be from bizzaro world or something. I don't know whether to get angry or just erupt with laughter when I read your posts. Besides, you didn't address anything that I said.

I know plenty of women, some are pro-choice, some aren't. The ones who aren't aren't necessarily Christian fundamentalists. To say that a woman can't want equality and be pro-life is assisinine. Pro-life college girls don't come to college to be housewives you know.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
A definition should have a valid scientific background. I personally think congnicense, i.e. changes in brainwave pattern based on non-reflex stimulation, is the best definition. This happens roughly at the end of the second trimester, which is also where most law has put the last time to make an abortion.

Biologically, a zygote is a human--it's got a significantly different diploid DNA sequence from that of its mother, so it's an independent human entity. It might not live to maturity, but that doesn't change its biological classification--newborns might not live to be teenagers, but they're still human. Sperm cells and egg cells are not independent human entities, since they're still entirely composed of the same DNA as whoever's manufacturing them (except that they're haploid, instead of diploid).

Legally and ethically, the biological definition of "human" doesn't cut it. The law doesn't consider it murder to take a brain-dead patient off of life support, even though the patient is still biologically a human being--ethically the patient is already dead. Similarly, up until the third trimester an embryo/fetus isn't ethically a human, since it has no brain activity (it isn't even brain-dead, since its brain was never alive to begin with).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by nationalist
Look at the Roman Empire.

Oh lord. No matter how many merits an argument may have, whenever a cliche like this is thrown in, it makes it all look like crappy hyperbole.

Comparing the current state of America with a decaying Roman Empire is not only a tired old chestnut, it's a sign of a lack of either knowing history or of understanding modern society.

Can we at least find a more creative inaccurate analogy?