PDA

View Full Version : Bush trying to equivalate birth control with "abortion"



Static_Martyr
08-02-2008, 01:19 PM
http://www.weartv.com/newsroom/poll/cents_form.shtml

Our local news ran this story last night. Agree? Disagree? Discuss?

Here's what I wrote:

That's ridiculous; the politics of abortion and birth control have no place in the medical industry. This is clearly an effort to control people's person lives on behalf of the extreme right; the oft-cited concern is that women won't make children if they're taking birth control. Last time I checked, it was a personal right to choose whether or not to have children; trying to cut off access to birth control is just a political ploy to try and force women to choose not to have sex. And that's not even talking about the women who take birth control pills for medical reasons not related to actual sex---such as regulating periods. This is a depressing turn for women's rights, indeed....

What's the consensus around here, if any?

Sunny
08-02-2008, 05:25 PM
i'm not at all surprised. the religious right has been using the "birth control=killing babies" rhetoric for a good while.

that being said, the article implies that *regular* birth control pills, which are used PRIOR to conception - wouldn't be affected by this. this is really about "morning after" pills which can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.

i hate the "when does life begin?!?!?" question in regards to abortion, as if it fucking mattered. the question should be "do we believe women deserve basic bodily autonomy?" instead. i believe life begins at fertilization, as in, sperm meets egg, and it sure as hell does not make me pro life.

Rag Doll
08-02-2008, 07:56 PM
The entire thing worries me. Let's say that the morning after pill does end up being banned/impossible to get/whatever. That starts a slippery slope into banning or further regulating even more forms of birth control. Pretty terrifying.

lost_nvrfound
08-02-2008, 09:34 PM
I have a feeling this is just a diversion to cover up real shit hitting the fan. Just like his stand on gay marriage.

Llamas
08-03-2008, 12:10 AM
So stupid... that would mean that not having sex at all would have to be illegal, too.


i hate the "when does life begin?!?!?" question in regards to abortion, as if it fucking mattered. the question should be "do we believe women deserve basic bodily autonomy?" instead. i believe life begins at fertilization, as in, sperm meets egg, and it sure as hell does not make me pro life.
I think it matters. I don't believe in terminating human life. I don't believe that sperm + egg = life, at all, either. I believe life happens around the 2nd trimester, and up until then, abortion should be legal.

However, a morning after pill is not killing anything... that's just ridiculous.

Little_Miss_1565
08-03-2008, 12:27 AM
Elle (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000702/): For that matter, any masturbatory emissions, where the sperm is clearly not seeking an egg, could be termed reckless abandonment.
Professor Callahan (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001255/): You've just won your case.

Very yes indeed.

Jebus
08-03-2008, 12:57 AM
i hate the "when does life begin?!?!?" question in regards to abortion, as if it fucking mattered. the question should be "do we believe women deserve basic bodily autonomy?" instead. i believe life begins at fertilization, as in, sperm meets egg, and it sure as hell does not make me pro life.
I really like that thought experiment where you just assume life begins at conception (fertilized egg) and that even a fetus has a right to life. You argue for abortion under those two premises which the pro-lifers have set. Imagine a woman gets an ill world famous violinist attached to her while both are unconscious. In order to survive, he needs use of her kidneys so if he's detached from her, he dies. All he needs is 9 months recuperate. The violinist does have a right to his life, but he definately doesn't have the right to use the woman's body. She could technically detach herself from him without violating his right to life because he doesn't have the right to use a woman's body like that. The same can be argued for a fetus.

I also really hate when pro-lifers say abortion is only okay in situations of rape. If everyone has the right to life, why would an exception be made for the rape baby?

Sunny
08-03-2008, 05:31 AM
I think it matters. I don't believe in terminating human life. I don't believe that sperm + egg = life, at all, either. I believe life happens around the 2nd trimester, and up until then, abortion should be legal.


but honestly, that's a completely arbitrary developmental cut off. so what makes a human human? having human DNA? the ability to think? ability to have facial expressions? ability to sustain life outside the womb?

life, as we know it, is roughly defined by certain cellular functions and DNA. a fetus has both, and it's genetically a separate entity from the mother, although it cannot sustain life apart from her. life doesn't just magically "happen" 2 months in and up until then the fetus is just some sort of a... non-living, non human glob. it's a stage in the development of a human being.

if you think that's a pro-life argument, think again.

a fetus cannot sustain life outside of the "host organism" of his mother, and it is ultimately up to the mother whether she wants to continue carrying it. i believe that to be her inalienable right. when "life" begins should be ultimately irrelevant.

nieh
08-03-2008, 09:05 AM
a fetus cannot sustain life outside of the "host organism" of his mother

This is actually an argument used by a lot of people for why it's not alive at that point, but I've never understood how that's any different from a parasite that can't live without a host. Those are alive, so why not the fetus? From the instant the cell meets the egg (hell, even before then), it meets just about every requirement for being alive shy of being able to reproduce, which is the same as an infant or young child would be. When does it gain consciousness or a "soul" or when does the fetus's life become as important as the mother's or at what point should a fetus gain legal rights are all valid questions though. Those are the areas that should be open for debate, not whether or not it's alive.

Sunny
08-03-2008, 09:16 AM
absolutely. thank you. i don't understand how "beginning of life" is even up for debate. beginning of consciousness, now that's an entirely different thing.

there is a difference between being alive and being sentient/self aware.

Static_Martyr
08-03-2008, 12:14 PM
Wow. All interesting points here (and so far, no flaming!). That's encouraging.

Hey, do you guys mind if I quote some of these posts for a discussive blog article later?

sKratch
08-03-2008, 01:32 PM
I had a rather irrelevant/inappropriate random thought. I don't mean it seriously, but it's just funny to consider:

Vegetarians should be against abortion.

Sunny
08-03-2008, 01:37 PM
needs moar salt. ;(

on a similar note, it's pretty funny how many "pro-life" politicians are pro-death penalty AND pro-war. ;p