Anonymous wrote:Anti-choice is really anti-freedom of religion. It is one group of people with strong religious beliefs (and don't try to hide behind a concept of morals as under a true ethics system, abortion would be a different conversation) trying to force their beliefs on others.

Actually, anti-choice is anti women's sexuality. It's the incarnation of the scarlet letter and other punitive measures to limit women's sexual freedom and to make women "pay" for having sex and getting pregnant. If this were really and truly about preserving life and ensuring every conceived embryo makes it to full term babyhood, we would, as a society, insist upon:

- Ensure healthcare, and specifically prenatal care, for all women regardless of insurance coverage
- Healthcare benefits for every single child regardless of their parent's income
- Provide affordable childcare to every single family in this country
- Ensure parental leave for all parents
- Properly fund public education
- Hold fathers as accountable for child care and support as mothers
- Provide women with free access to contraception

But we don't. Because this really isn't about life. It's about controlling women - our version of Sharia law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Haven't you all heard of Atheists for Life??

Perhaps you've heard of Catholics for Choice?

FYI, according to the head of the Catholic Church, you actually can't be considered Catholic if you support abortion. It's not like being Jewish just because your mother was Jewish. Choosing to be a member of the Catholic Church means you agree to its foundational beliefs. If you don't, you simply choose another faith more inline with your beliefs. How simple! Good that in America we have endless options.

Anonymous wrote:
Haven't you all heard of Atheists for Life??

Perhaps you've heard of Catholics for Choice?

Haven't you all heard of Atheists for Life??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Up to 75% of all conceptions never make it to term for one reason or another (much of them never even implanting in the uterus). Human reproduction is one of the least efficient modes of procreation in the animal/plant kingdom. If there is a god who sends a soul into every embryo at the moment of conception, he/she is the biggest abortionist of them all.

This is a ludicrous rationale - and I say this as someone who is pro-choice. There is a difference between a miscarriage that results for natural reasons and one an abortion which is the result of external intervention.

What is the difference? That one is caused by man (or woman) and one is caused by God?

For many of us it is insignificant, irrelevant or incorrect to say abortion and miscarriage are different.

In both instances the life of a fetus is terminated. But to equate the body rejecting a fetus for whatever reason with someone surgically ending the life of a fetus seems incongruous.

Not the best analogy but a person who is terminally ill dying of natural causes cannot be equated with same individual whose life is terminated by a physician or a relative or even by the individual's own action.

We can disagree in both instances whether the affected individual has that right but there is a difference between something happening naturally and through external intervention.

Seems incongruous to whom? Perhaps to you, but not to me. In both instances the life of the fetus ends. I don't see much difference. Why does it matter that one happens "naturally" and one happens by design? Do you view the "natural" happening as somehow more moral or righteous?

I also think your analogy is inapt. I don't really see a big moral difference between a terminally ill person who dies of natural causes and a one who decides to take their own life, whether by their own hand or by directing another to do so. I don't view one of those situations as morally ok and the other as morally wrong.

To me they both are moral choices, and I would never dream of making or legislating either choice for another human being.

From a public policy perspective, I might enact laws that would ensure that terminally ill persons who choose to die were mentally competent to do so (i.e. not depressed or improperly informed about their choices) and that the terminally ill person was making the choice freely. I might seek to use public funds to ensure that some of the factors that drive the terminally ill to commit suicide were removed from the decision equation (like ensuring access to adequate pain medication at end of life or ensuring that assets could be preserved or providing access to healthcare, etc.). I might also seek to ensure that any health professionals who assisted in the process were removed from conflicts of interest that might influence the terminally ill person's choice.

Just because something happens "naturally" doesn't mean that it is necessarily morally right.

Anti-choice is really anti-freedom of religion. It is one group of people with strong religious beliefs (and don't try to hide behind a concept of morals as under a true ethics system, abortion would be a different conversation) trying to force their beliefs on others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Up to 75% of all conceptions never make it to term for one reason or another (much of them never even implanting in the uterus). Human reproduction is one of the least efficient modes of procreation in the animal/plant kingdom. If there is a god who sends a soul into every embryo at the moment of conception, he/she is the biggest abortionist of them all.

This is a ludicrous rationale - and I say this as someone who is pro-choice. There is a difference between a miscarriage that results for natural reasons and one an abortion which is the result of external intervention.

What is the difference? That one is caused by man (or woman) and one is caused by God?

For many of us it is insignificant, irrelevant or incorrect to say abortion and miscarriage are different.

In both instances the life of a fetus is terminated. But to equate the body rejecting a fetus for whatever reason with someone surgically ending the life of a fetus seems incongruous.

Not the best analogy but a person who is terminally ill dying of natural causes cannot be equated with same individual whose life is terminated by a physician or a relative or even by the individual's own action.

We can disagree in both instances whether the affected individual has that right but there is a difference between something happening naturally and through external intervention.

The point is that anti-choice fanatics fetishize the embryo by stating a that baby begins at conception, whereas to point out how utterly precarious and even toss-away life is at that early stage is to show that nature/God has no such qualities qualms about the sanctity of a zygote and its supposed equivalence to the life of a human being who is already in the world.

Yes, and the same disconnect occurs regarding IVF and the discarding/freezing of embryos.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Up to 75% of all conceptions never make it to term for one reason or another (much of them never even implanting in the uterus). Human reproduction is one of the least efficient modes of procreation in the animal/plant kingdom. If there is a god who sends a soul into every embryo at the moment of conception, he/she is the biggest abortionist of them all.

This is a ludicrous rationale - and I say this as someone who is pro-choice. There is a difference between a miscarriage that results for natural reasons and one an abortion which is the result of external intervention.

What is the difference? That one is caused by man (or woman) and one is caused by God?

For many of us it is insignificant, irrelevant or incorrect to say abortion and miscarriage are different.

In both instances the life of a fetus is terminated. But to equate the body rejecting a fetus for whatever reason with someone surgically ending the life of a fetus seems incongruous.

Not the best analogy but a person who is terminally ill dying of natural causes cannot be equated with same individual whose life is terminated by a physician or a relative or even by the individual's own action.

We can disagree in both instances whether the affected individual has that right but there is a difference between something happening naturally and through external intervention.

The point is that anti-choice fanatics fetishize the embryo by stating a that baby begins at conception, whereas to point out how utterly precarious and even toss-away life is at that early stage is to show that nature/God has no such qualities qualms about the sanctity of a zygote and its supposed equivalence to the life of a human being who is already in the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Up to 75% of all conceptions never make it to term for one reason or another (much of them never even implanting in the uterus). Human reproduction is one of the least efficient modes of procreation in the animal/plant kingdom. If there is a god who sends a soul into every embryo at the moment of conception, he/she is the biggest abortionist of them all.

This is a ludicrous rationale - and I say this as someone who is pro-choice. There is a difference between a miscarriage that results for natural reasons and one an abortion which is the result of external intervention.

What is the difference? That one is caused by man (or woman) and one is caused by God?

For many of us it is insignificant, irrelevant or incorrect to say abortion and miscarriage are different.

In both instances the life of a fetus is terminated. But to equate the body rejecting a fetus for whatever reason with someone surgically ending the life of a fetus seems incongruous.

Not the best analogy but a person who is terminally ill dying of natural causes cannot be equated with same individual whose life is terminated by a physician or a relative or even by the individual's own action.

We can disagree in both instances whether the affected individual has that right but there is a difference between something happening naturally and through external intervention.

If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then whose to say that God didn't intend for the woman to choose to have the abortion?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Up to 75% of all conceptions never make it to term for one reason or another (much of them never even implanting in the uterus). Human reproduction is one of the least efficient modes of procreation in the animal/plant kingdom. If there is a god who sends a soul into every embryo at the moment of conception, he/she is the biggest abortionist of them all.

This is a ludicrous rationale - and I say this as someone who is pro-choice. There is a difference between a miscarriage that results for natural reasons and one an abortion which is the result of external intervention.

What is the difference? That one is caused by man (or woman) and one is caused by God?

For many of us it is insignificant, irrelevant or incorrect to say abortion and miscarriage are different.

In both instances the life of a fetus is terminated. But to equate the body rejecting a fetus for whatever reason with someone surgically ending the life of a fetus seems incongruous.

Not the best analogy but a person who is terminally ill dying of natural causes cannot be equated with same individual whose life is terminated by a physician or a relative or even by the individual's own action.

We can disagree in both instances whether the affected individual has that right but there is a difference between something happening naturally and through external intervention.

Excellent point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Up to 75% of all conceptions never make it to term for one reason or another (much of them never even implanting in the uterus). Human reproduction is one of the least efficient modes of procreation in the animal/plant kingdom. If there is a god who sends a soul into every embryo at the moment of conception, he/she is the biggest abortionist of them all.

This is a ludicrous rationale - and I say this as someone who is pro-choice. There is a difference between a miscarriage that results for natural reasons and one an abortion which is the result of external intervention.

What is the difference? That one is caused by man (or woman) and one is caused by God?

For many of us it is insignificant, irrelevant or incorrect to say abortion and miscarriage are different.

In both instances the life of a fetus is terminated. But to equate the body rejecting a fetus for whatever reason with someone surgically ending the life of a fetus seems incongruous.

Not the best analogy but a person who is terminally ill dying of natural causes cannot be equated with same individual whose life is terminated by a physician or a relative or even by the individual's own action.

We can disagree in both instances whether the affected individual has that right but there is a difference between something happening naturally and through external intervention.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Up to 75% of all conceptions never make it to term for one reason or another (much of them never even implanting in the uterus). Human reproduction is one of the least efficient modes of procreation in the animal/plant kingdom. If there is a god who sends a soul into every embryo at the moment of conception, he/she is the biggest abortionist of them all.

This is a ludicrous rationale - and I say this as someone who is pro-choice. There is a difference between a miscarriage that results for natural reasons and one an abortion which is the result of external intervention.

What is the difference? That one is caused by man (or woman) and one is caused by God?

For many of us it is insignificant, irrelevant or incorrect to say abortion and miscarriage are different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Up to 75% of all conceptions never make it to term for one reason or another (much of them never even implanting in the uterus). Human reproduction is one of the least efficient modes of procreation in the animal/plant kingdom. If there is a god who sends a soul into every embryo at the moment of conception, he/she is the biggest abortionist of them all.

This is a ludicrous rationale - and I say this as someone who is pro-choice. There is a difference between a miscarriage that results for natural reasons and one an abortion which is the result of external intervention.

yes and no. pro-lifers act like every abortion, even very early ones, are some kind of wrenching, horrific, assault against humanity. when the fact is, 50-75% of embryos just die naturally without anyone really making a big deal about it. it demonstrates that embryos aren't really super!sad!babies! in there. I mean think about it - if pro lifers actually though embryos were the same exact thing as children, they'd be fighting hard to stop miscarriages and would hold funerals for everyone one.

Anonymous wrote:Up to 75% of all conceptions never make it to term for one reason or another (much of them never even implanting in the uterus). Human reproduction is one of the least efficient modes of procreation in the animal/plant kingdom. If there is a god who sends a soul into every embryo at the moment of conception, he/she is the biggest abortionist of them all.

This is a ludicrous rationale - and I say this as someone who is pro-choice. There is a difference between a miscarriage that results for natural reasons and one an abortion which is the result of external intervention.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Up to 75% of all conceptions never make it to term for one reason or another (much of them never even implanting in the uterus). Human reproduction is one of the least efficient modes of procreation in the animal/plant kingdom. If there is a god who sends a soul into every embryo at the moment of conception, he/she is the biggest abortionist of them all.

Exactly. Can someone clarify, if God is so cavalier about the life of embryos and fetuses, why do we have to hold them up as holding more moral weight than the women whose bodies are their host?

Amen. I think this is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg hints at when she says that she's not a fan of the privacy reasoning that currently supports Roe v. Wade and thinks that support for abortion is just as or more credibly argued as an equality issue. When women's bodies are systematically subordinated to a cluster of cells, what you are saying is that they are second class citizens whose lives and liberty and pursuit of happiness can never be as important as that cluster of cells. We are worth less than even the unborn.

As Alice Stone Blackwell said, "It is very little to me to have the right to vote, to own property, etc., if I may not keep my body, and its uses, in my absolute right."

Thank god we have 3 female justices on the Supreme Court and one who is deeply knowledgeable about equal rights.". If RvW is overturned, you can be sure that those three women will issue blistering dissents from the bench.