#57080: Carl Buell (OGeorge) — 01/09  at  02:23 PM
It's a good thing this isn't Imperial America and I'm not the Emperor. If it were up to me I'd give every 14-year-old male in the country a state-sponsored vasectomy and only after his second consecutive tax return was filed would he be allowed to "reconnect". The women have had to pay the price for too long.

#57081: Jim Harrison — 01/09  at  02:31 PM
Overpopulation is eventually going to settle the abortion issue. Even right wingers tend to excuse current Chinese policies that lead to widespread abortions because they recognize that the Chinese absolutely must limit population growth if they are not to sink back into misery. We're not to the Chinese point yet, but we'll get there.

#57083: paul — 01/09  at  02:35 PM
Sorry to weigh in again, but I was just reminded of a story in Paul Auster's collection of user-submitted stories (I thought my father was god[1]).

There was a story in there, I think from the Dakotas, where the writer's mother reacted to the discovery of the skeletal remains of a long-missing classmate. The girl was popular, pretty, and seemed to have a bright future, but she disappeared and no one knew where she had gone.

Years later, a farmer discovered a skeleton and upon examination, it has a smaller one, almost birdlike inside it. The girl had died of a botched abortion alone in a farmer's field, all the promise of her life gone, and her family likely never knew what happened. I flash between imagining her feeling alone and dying in that field and the feeling of the father of the child helpless, perhaps unable to imagine the consequences beyond the here and now. Did he stay with her to the end? Or did he leave her to her fate? Did he even know?

And some people want to go back to those days?

1. http://tinyurl.com/aad99

#57090: Jeffahn — 01/09  at  03:34 PM
Mr Meyers,

I don't understand the logic behind this post. I appreciate that you're not fond of much to do with religion, but I fail to see how this relates ET versus ID/C.

Do you realise that some non-religious people do have valid concerns (cheifly legal & etheical) with abortion on demand? You do not *have* to be religious to be a moderate pro-lifer.

I know that there's the whole socio-economic/political side to the abortion debate, so I'm not going to officially advocate my position here, but I'd like you consider that the all pro-lifers are not neccessarily religious in the same way that all ID/Cers are.

Fair enough?

Anyone can reply to this, btw.

#57091: — 01/09  at  03:47 PM
My experiences match mcubed's.

However, my experiences are largely limited to three sources: pro-lifers I know personally from southern New Jersey, mainstream media, and the Internet, with all its sundry message boards and blogs. I feel that these three, even in combination, do not allow me to generalize to anything like a "consensus ideology" for the pro-life movement. In fact, I wonder whether anyone can really get at something that big.

Most of the pro-lifers I know personally match mcubed's description - these people have (to my mind, understandable) qualms over the moral and philosophical ramifications of treating a fetus as a cell mass and not as a human-to-be.

#57094: — 01/09  at  04:12 PM
Jeffahn,
You're projecting quite a bit here. PZ doesn't even mention religion in this post. He's not an evolution/religion blog-bot; he can have an interest in matters that aren't necessarily related to evolution and religion.

The fact that, despite the above, you read this as a religious issue speaks volumes, I think.

#57096: — 01/09  at  04:26 PM
In ref. to post 57058 by paperweight:

These are the exact pieces of info that people who are anti-reproductive rights (i.e. against the right to choose) need to digest. People are going to have sex, and if they are going to have sex, they need to be smart and educated about it.

Serious sex education is required for everyone in today's society (and not just the "wait till marriage" or "STD horror" show type education), contraception must be readilly available for those who require it, people need to make smart and informed decisions, and, of course, rape (all forms) should be eliminated from our culture.

Of course, accidents will happen with contraceptive...rape (sadly) will occur. A person's right to choose must be preserved (though, if it was me, I would most likely choose life...but that's just me...and it depends on the circumstances, but I digress). What shocked me is that 1/2 of all pregnancies are unintended. That reflects that the problems in this country dealing with sex, contraceptives, and education, are very great indeed.

Thank you, paperweight, for listing these factors so concisely and not commenting excessively on my level of empathy (which, unfortunately, you know squat about).

#57097: — 01/09  at  04:28 PM
G-Do: I feel that these three, even in combination, do not allow me to generalize to anything like a "consensus ideology" for the pro-life movement. In fact, I wonder whether anyone can really get at something that big.

My estimation is that most of the posters here don't want to ponder a "consensus ideology" of the pro-lifers, they simply want to wallow in their own prejudices and traffic in insults and barbs. In short, they're not anymore broad-minded or thoughtful than the people they are criticizing, though they are more hypocritical since it is clear they believe themselves to be more broad-minded and thoughtful.

If anyone is really interested, there's currently an interesting back-and-forth discussion of some of these issues going on between Daily Dish (Andrew Sullivan's blog) and the Corner on the National Review. Specifically, it addresses the issues of what can/can't, should/shouldn't be considered "life" with regard to zygotes, embryos, spontaneous abortions, and so on, and the ethical implications thereof. But I suspect most posters here want to remain secure in their own smugness and continue to disparage pro-lifers as residents of "Buttfuck, Texas," in Ali Baba's words.

It's really disappointing that so many people on both sides of contentious issues like abortion don't actually want to engage people who disagree with them in meaningful discourse, preferring instead to oversimplify. But I guess it's a lot easier to set up a strawman and knock it down than actually listen to what people are saying.

#57098: PZ Myers — 01/09  at  04:40 PM
Wait...you want to encourage informed discussion of a difficult issue, and you refer us to NRO vs. Sullivan? Yikes.

I don't think pro-lifers are necessarily ignorant. I do think they've shackled themselves to a purely emotional argument, however.

#57099: Justin Slotman — 01/09  at  04:43 PM
That map looks like utter b.s. I mean--Illinois? Michigan? DELAWARE?!

#57100: Kristine Harley — 01/09  at  04:55 PM
Regarding the high rate of miscarriage and the ignorance of this phenomenon by the anti-choice camp, Dianne writes: "The two possible (non-exclusive) reasons I can think of are 1. They don't know enough biology to know that this problem exists. In which case, why are we paying any attention to their ramblings on a subject they know nothing about? 2. They don't really believe that an undifferentiated ball of cells is a person and are only pursuing a ban on abortion in order to harass women."

Unfortunately, I think that there is a third explanation. 3. Anti-choice folks, while believing that an undifferentiated ball of cells is a person, have no problem with ascribing anything done to this "person" by "God" (like miscarriage, birth defects, poverty, or you-name-it), as being natural, or even "God's will." I remember a letter to the editor in the STrib that made this very argument.

#57102: — 01/09  at  05:04 PM
PZ -- Wow, that was fast ... you read the discussions at DD and NRO already? Including the letters from the doctors regarding the state of knowledge about pregnancies, false pregnancies, moles, spontaneous abortions, etc., already?

And still you came to the rather simplistic conclusion that the arguments are purely emotional? I'm not even sure what that means, "purely emotional." You mean valuing human life is "purely emotional"? I would say it involves ethical and/or moral concerns. Or do you mean ethics and morals are pure emotion?

Oh, wait, you didn't bother checking it out. You prefer to remain uninformed.

I rest my case.

#57103: — 01/09  at  05:08 PM
I had pretty much the same reactions as Kristine and Dianne vs spontaneous abortions. Also, since sexeducation and contraceptives will prevent spontaneous abortions too, it makes it illogical for antiabortionists to argue against those measures however their main issue turns out.

#57105: — 01/09  at  05:10 PM

My estimation is that most of the posters here don't want to ponder a "consensus ideology" of the pro-lifers, they simply want to wallow in their own prejudices and traffic in insults and barbs.

It says as it slings insults and barbs...

But I guess it's a lot easier to set up a strawman and knock it down than actually listen to what people are saying.

It says as it props up and tackles it's own strawman...

Don't lecture me about hypocrisy you holier-than-thou ass-hat.

#57106: — 01/09  at  05:12 PM
Oh, one more thing...

I rest my case.

I hope you mean it.

#57107: — 01/09  at  05:12 PM
Half of all pregnancies to American women are unintended; half of these end in abortion.

Can this be true, that 25% of all pregnancies are aborted? Per Eleanor, above, that may not include abortions of planned pregnancies, and we don't know how the spontaneous abortion rate figures in. But still... isn't that a lot?

I'd like to see a state-by-state comparison of the quality of adoptions nationwide. Hopefully, states that outlaw abortion in the future (and have practically outlawed today) will have a feasible alternative in place.

Safe, Legally Available, and Rarely Needed

#57108: PZ Myers — 01/09  at  05:26 PM
Ummm, mcubed...I'm a developmental biologist. I'm fairly familiar with all of the arguments out there, and I know NRO and Sullivan by reputation. And by "purely emotional", I mean that the basic argument is an emotional attachment to babies (which is just fine) which is transferred to a relatively undifferentiated zygote.

#57109: — 01/09  at  05:40 PM

Jeffahn: ...some non-religious people do have valid concerns (cheifly legal & etheical) with abortion on demand...

Some people have valid concerns about alcohol abuse - but the intelligent and aware ones realize that the crude tactic of Prohibition was and would be a grotesque failure. Unfortunately, the "pro-life" movement as a whole has not reached that level of understanding; for that matter, hardly any of the individuals within it have grasped that blatant and prolonged lying isn't acceptable either (judging by the extreme rarity of any such activists criticizing the endless disinformation & distortions from their colleagues). Even (some) creationists show a higher ethical standard.

As a 15-year clinic escort, I've dealt with hundreds of anti-choicers face to face. Admittedly, the ones who come out to harass women on the streets are by definition at the lower end of the moral spectrum, but in my experience it is quite fair to characterize the typical "anti" as closed-minded, hypocritical, and utterly incapable of imagining the lives & perspectives of the women they target.

Call your senators to oppose the Alito nomination <bold>tomorrow</bold>.

#57111: ema — 01/09  at  06:24 PM
You mean valuing human life is "purely emotional"?

mcubed,

If you value human life you must be a strong supporter of abortion, seeing how a female carrying a pregnancy to term has a 1:10,000 risk of death vs. 1:263,000 for terminating a pregnancy (for legal, 1st trim abxs).*

And one more point. An abortion does not terminate/kill/whatever you want to call it a zygote-/embryo-American, or even a fetus/baby/child/intrauterine unborn. An abx terminates a pregnancy (as in, the products of conception do not = free floating fetus/etc).

*Williams 21ed, p1518

#57113: — 01/09  at  06:33 PM

3. Anti-choice folks, while believing that an undifferentiated ball of cells is a person, have no problem with ascribing anything done to this "person" by "God" (like miscarriage, birth defects, poverty, or you-name-it), as being natural, or even "God's will."

They may say this, but do they "accept god's will" or "natural consequences" when it comes to themselves and their born children? Not generally. Most anti-choicers (like most pro-choicers) vaccinate their children, give them antibiotics when they have ear infections, cast broken bones, etc. And if they or their child is unlucky enough to have an incurable illness, they aggitate for research to find a cure and approve of the use of their tax dollars to fund research into the cure of that and other diseases. So, why don't they do the same for their just-conceived "children"? I must go back to my previous two theories.

But perhaps I'm missing something. Jeffahn? Can you explain why anti-choicers seem unwilling to put their money where their mouths are in terms of finding the reason for the pandemic of early spontaneous abortion? If one considers all concepti to be people then it is a huge public health problem. Much larger than heart disease, cancer, diabetes, or abortion.

#57114: — 01/09  at  06:34 PM
, but I think there are many more who are genuinely troubled by the ethical or moral questions posed by willfully destroying something that will become a human life.

Mcubed, I don't disagree with you, exactly--I know such people exist.

However, everyone who opposes abortion claims to be motivated by their devotion to the preservation of life.

And if that were so, how on earth could they possibly rationalize supporting, as most of them did, an administration that went to war so casually, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of people, and that insists on maintaining a perogative to torture human beings?

Clearly, they are lying. What's consistant with their actions is a phobia about sex.

#57115: Orange — 01/09  at  07:16 PM
I don't have any references handy to back me up on this, but I wouldn't see Illinois going to the red side any time soon. As far as I know, there are no parental notification laws, no waiting periods, no huge legal obstacles between women and abortion. Tack on a governor who decreed that pharmacists must dispense emergency contraception, and IL should look as non-red as MN.

#57116: — 01/09  at  07:30 PM

illegal abortions

My mother always told my sisters, that she would definitely prefer them not to.. but if they did, to see a doctor. We know someone, that many years ago attempted one.. illegally.. with an untwisted hangar on the side of a river. Its definitely not pretty, I'll leave you with that. She almost died from blood loss.

#57119: — 01/09  at  08:47 PM
Well, that's democracy for you. Damn if people sometimes vote the wrong way (i.e., to restrict the practice of ripping the limbs of babies, crushing their skulls, etc., etc.).

#57121: — 01/09  at  08:56 PM
PZ Myers: I mean that the basic argument is an emotional attachment to babies (which is just fine) which is transferred to a relatively undifferentiated zygote.

I didn't mean uninformed about the biology, I meant uninformed about the objections, as indicated by the off-handed manner in which you summarized the reasons people would vote for restrictions on abortion. I think your analysis is simplistic, I think the anti-abortion arguments I've read are far more complex and considered than "an emotional attachment to babies." Ultimately, I don't find the arguments convincing, but I wouldn't be so quick to belittle or dismiss them as you are. And frankly, I think one of the reasons the anti-abortion movement has gained such steam is precisely because many pro-choice advocates are so often condescending and downright insulting. (See, for example, your charming commentator, "yorktank.")

As I made clear in my first comment, I'm staunchly pro-choice -- something that seems to be lost on "ema." Most of the people I know in my life who disagree with me on this are not Bush supporters, nor were they in favor of the Iraq War, nor are they in favor of torture -- a combination of beliefs that seems inconceivable to "Molly, NYC." I also do not pretend that abortion is just another medical procedure, having had the sobering experiences of accompanying two different friends to the clinic (one of whom was having her second abortion). I can't dismiss my friends' misgivings and regrets about their experiences as the result of mere "emotional attachments." I won't pretend that every woman who's had an abortion, or every couple who's taken the decision jointly, has been affected in the same way as every other, but the experience can and frequently does leave psychological scars that go deeper than any other medical procedure I've had experience with (directly or indirectly), and that includes the experiences of numerous people I know and have known who struggle with HIV, as I do. I think that says something about the complexity of the issue that you appear unwilling to acknowledge.

Ultimately, we all like to believe that the positions we align ourselves with are the reasonable positions that reasonable people would hold. Frankly, I expect a degree of small-mindedness, bigotry and derisiveness on the part of some who hold opposing views, and I'm always glad to find people in the opposition who are, in fact, reasonable and articulate, even if unpersuasive. I would count Sullivan as one of those, and it's unclear to me whether you've taken his comments (and those he refers to) under consideration or if you're only aware of what his ilk has to say "by reputation" (which, uncharitably, could mean you're content to rely on received opinion). What pains me is to find small-mindedness, bigotry and derisiveness among people whose positions I agree with.