Is "When Does Life Begin?" a Scientific or Moral Question? Both?

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Given that Dan is insisting that this "movement" is "absolutely aimed at prioritizing the agency of men over women," the factual predicates of these claims must be easy to present to us.  Right?

-Smac

I agree, I find the notion that “the majority of arguments against abortion” are built upon this foundation of prioritizing the agency of men over women to be an unfair and inaccurate accusation and leans towards conspiracy theory in nature.

I would say that the majority of arguments against abortion are founded on prioritizing the sanctity of life and preservation of moral principles.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I would argue that the opposite is true - that pro-choicer’s arguments are founded on the premise of prioritizing the agency of women over men.  For example, if a man kills the baby against the woman’s will, it is murder.  However, if a woman kills the baby against the man’s will, it is perfectly acceptable morally and legally.  Hmmmm....

To make this about controlling women is totally wrong!  How does making abortion illegal give men more agency than women?? What if the man wants an abortion too? It equally strips him of that choice and potential influence.

[USU78]

31 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Dan, this makes no sense. This is the first time I have ever encountered someone make or take such a position. Not once in my life time, in any conversation about human sexual relations, have I hard a woman or a man say, "I really like to have sex, but boy it ticks me off when a man ejaculates!"  Not once; not even hinted at. 

You seem to be conflating birth control with having sex. Further, you are making it the primary responsibility of the male for birth control. Why? Two people have sex and both are equally responsible. To say that men are more responsible, which have stated a few times, seems demeaning to females - they are not capable of taking care of themselves and the big, strong, superior male must do it for them. 

Just a strange way of thinking I have not heard before. 

There's a lot of fiction out there that purports to be based upon actual historical occurrences, where the courtly knight pleasures his lady without achieving his own happy ending.  The alleged "coitus reservatus."

I never bought it.

[Dan McClellan]

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am talking about what you referred to---unwanted pregnancies, most of which I believe are not the result of nonconsenual unprotected internal ejaculation (sex was consensual perhaps, but one party understood protection was agreed upon while the other withheld it...say knowingly used a faulty condom or diaphragm) or rape.  Forced unwanted pregnancies (either a woman or man unwilling becoming a parent) seems to me a much less common reason for abortions than unforced, but unwanted pregnancies with both engaging in sex (one can get pregnant without internal ejaculation, though less likely of course, so I don't think it accurate to limit cause of pregnancies to solely internal ejaculation; sperm just needs some form of transportation, intentional or not) without taking precautions to avoid conception.

Perhaps I missed something in the reasoning (were you only talking about assault or rape?); if not, I don't understand why a talk about responsibility for unwanted pregnancies does not include carelessness by both the man and the woman.  Surely all causes should be considered?

I am highlighting the disproportionate burden places on women for an act that it disproportionately the result of the agency of men, which betrays the power asymmetries. Women's agency is controlled far more than that of men is, and this is no accident. There was even a Twitter thread started last year by a Latter-day Saint mother that went viral that sparked an international conversation about how men bear the primary responsibility for unwanted pregnancies. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

I am highlighting the disproportionate burden places on women for an act that it disproportionately the result of the agency of men, which betrays the power asymmetries. Women's agency is controlled far more than that of men is, and this is no accident. There was even a Twitter thread started last year by a Latter-day Saint mother that went viral that sparked an international conversation about how men bear the primary responsibility for unwanted pregnancies. 

You are supporting your position by citing . . . a Twitter thread?  Seriously?

And in that thread the author, Gabrielle Blair ("a Mormon and mother-of-six"), claimed that men are almost entirely responsible for accidental pregnancies?  You are endorsing this sentiment?  Women have no responsibility for their own sexual behavior?  This idea rather infantilizes women, does it not?

She also says that men have “zero interest in stopping abortion.”  This rather goes against your accusations in this thread of a conspiracy for men to interfere with abortion as a means of "controlling the agency of women."

What gives?

-Smac

[Dan McClellan]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

An "ideological movement" comprised of people with a commonly-held "agenda" (defined as "an underlying often ideological plan or program").

Oh, and it's also a "rubric" (defined as an "established mode of conduct or procedure; protocol") that is "firmly embedded in right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation."

And it's "built on a foundation of right wing authoritarian identity politics, which is absolutely aimed at prioritizing the agency of men over women."

Absolutely, mind you.  

But it's not a "conspiracy."  Got it.  🤨

Whatever you are claiming here is not an agreement of two or more people to commit a wrongful act (namely, "controlling the agency of women")?  No intent to achieve that act?

You are peddling nothing but a conspiracy theory, Dan.  And you are accusing people on this board of being part of it.  Not cool.  Not informed.  And not true.

-Smac

The movement is certainly rooted in what could be called a conspiracy. Like I stated previously, Paul Weyrich and Jerry Falwell concocted a scheme to gin up opposition to abortion in order to galvanize a politically active religious right that would shift the balance of power in government in order to protect their schools from having to segregate. We have the documents they used to plan the scheme. IN fact, here are some of the comments from Weyrich during a period when evangelicals approved of Roe v Wade:

The new political philosophy must be defined by us [conservatives] in moral terms, packaged in non-religious language, and propagated throughout the country by our new coalition. . . . When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation. . . . The leadership, moral philosophy, and workable vehicle are at hand just waiting to be blended and activated. If the moral majority acts, results could well exceed our wildest dreams."

In an interview in 1990, Weyrich noted that he tried numerous different issues as rallying cries for the religious right, including pornography, prayer in school, the Equal Rights Amendment, as well as abortion, but nothing was working. He stated, "I was trying to get these people interested in those issues and I utterly failed." It wasn't until Supreme Court rulings at the end of the 60s and the beginning of the 70s threatened the segregation of evangelical universities that evangelical leaders got on board. Elmer Rumminger, an administrator at Bob Jones University, identified desegregation as "the major issue that got us all involved." 

Falwell, Weyrich, and others enlisted the aid of Francis A. Schaeffer and a physician named C. Everett Koop, who toured the country speaking to evangelical groups about the evils of abortion and showing a film called "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?," which graphically depicted the process of abortion in an effort to freak people out. Abortion was presented as the idol of "secular humanism" in these presentations, which helped spread Falwell and Weyrich's rhetoric. Schaeffer would report back to Weyrich that evangelicals, "have been so sluggish on this issue of human life, and 'Whatever Happened to the Human Race?' is causing real waves, among church people and governmental people too." 

This was when evangelicals in government were progressives like Jimmy Carter, whom Weyrich and Falwell couldn't stand. In some part because of the opposition these two stirred up, Carter became vilified (particularly in relation to abortion) and would not win a second term. In Reagan, evangelicals found a candidate who would more forcefully denounce abortion than would Carter, and Falwell would later claim that his machinations turned the tide of the election, boasting, "I knew that we would have some impact on the national elections, but I had no idea that it would be this great." In 1982, when Bob Jones University arrived at the Supreme Court to argue for their right to segregate, Reagan--that anti-abortion champion--announced his administration would support Bob Jones. It wasn't until public outcry that he changed his mind, but he would later elevate the single dissenter on the Supreme Court in the ruling against Bob Jones to chief justice. 

So, there was something like a conspiracy sitting at the root of the contemporary salience of anti-abortion sentiment in the United States, but they just had to get the ball rolling, because once a group latches on to an ideology as main identity marker, the rest takes care of itself. The majority of all Americans support legal access to abortion, and especially women. The main drivers of the anti-abortion movement are men, who want to overrule the agency of women and control what they are able to do with their bodies. I already pointed out that providing more sex ed, contraception, and access to healthcare would be a more effective way to reduce the occurrence of abortion, but you responded that persuasion might be a better route than criminalization. Persuasion regarding what, precisely?

[USU78]

37 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

 

I am highlighting the disproportionate burden places on women for an act that it disproportionately the result of the agency of men, which betrays the power asymmetries. Women's agency is controlled far more than that of men is, and this is no accident. There was even a Twitter thread started last year by a Latter-day Saint mother that went viral that sparked an international conversation about how men bear the primary responsibility for unwanted pregnancies. 

Biology sucks.

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

The movement is certainly rooted in what could be called a conspiracy. Like I stated previously, Paul Weyrich and Jerry Falwell concocted a scheme to gin up opposition to abortion in order to galvanize a politically active religious right that would shift the balance of power in government in order to protect their schools from having to segregate. We have the documents they used to plan the scheme. IN fact, here are some of the comments from Weyrich during a period when evangelicals approved of Roe v Wade:

The new political philosophy must be defined by us [conservatives] in moral terms, packaged in non-religious language, and propagated throughout the country by our new coalition. . . . When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation. . . . The leadership, moral philosophy, and workable vehicle are at hand just waiting to be blended and activated. If the moral majority acts, results could well exceed our wildest dreams."

In an interview in 1990, Weyrich noted that he tried numerous different issues as rallying cries for the religious right, including pornography, prayer in school, the Equal Rights Amendment, as well as abortion, but nothing was working. He stated, "I was trying to get these people interested in those issues and I utterly failed." It wasn't until Supreme Court rulings at the end of the 60s and the beginning of the 70s threatened the segregation of evangelical universities that evangelical leaders got on board. Elmer Rumminger, an administrator at Bob Jones University, identified desegregation as "the major issue that got us all involved." 

Falwell, Weyrich, and others enlisted the aid of Francis A. Schaeffer and a physician named C. Everett Koop, who toured the country speaking to evangelical groups about the evils of abortion and showing a film called "Whatever Happened to the Human Race?," which graphically depicted the process of abortion in an effort to freak people out. Abortion was presented as the idol of "secular humanism" in these presentations, which helped spread Falwell and Weyrich's rhetoric. Schaeffer would report back to Weyrich that evangelicals, "have been so sluggish on this issue of human life, and 'Whatever Happened to the Human Race?' is causing real waves, among church people and governmental people too." 

This was when evangelicals in government were progressives like Jimmy Carter, whom Weyrich and Falwell couldn't stand. In some part because of the opposition these two stirred up, Carter became vilified (particularly in relation to abortion) and would not win a second term. In Reagan, evangelicals found a candidate who would more forcefully denounce abortion than would Carter, and Falwell would later claim that his machinations turned the tide of the election, boasting, "I knew that we would have some impact on the national elections, but I had no idea that it would be this great." In 1982, when Bob Jones University arrived at the Supreme Court to argue for their right to segregate, Reagan--that anti-abortion champion--announced his administration would support Bob Jones. It wasn't until public outcry that he changed his mind, but he would later elevate the single dissenter on the Supreme Court in the ruling against Bob Jones to chief justice. 

So, there was something like a conspiracy sitting at the root of the contemporary salience of anti-abortion sentiment in the United States, but they just had to get the ball rolling, because once a group latches on to an ideology as main identity marker, the rest takes care of itself. The majority of all Americans support legal access to abortion, and especially women. The main drivers of the anti-abortion movement are men, who want to overrule the agency of women and control what they are able to do with their bodies. I already pointed out that providing more sex ed, contraception, and access to healthcare would be a more effective way to reduce the occurrence of abortion, but you responded that persuasion might be a better route than criminalization. Persuasion regarding what, precisely?

Sources for the claimed quotes, please.

[Dan McClellan]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are supporting your position by citing . . . a Twitter thread?  Seriously?

A twitter thread that sparked newspaper articles, interviews, and discussions literally around the English-speaking world. 

Quote

And in that thread the author, Gabrielle Blair ("a Mormon and mother-of-six"), claimed that men are almost entirely responsible for accidental pregnancies?  You are endorsing this sentiment? 

Absolutely. It's true.

Quote

Women have no responsibility for their own sexual behavior? 

Ejaculating inside the vagina of a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant is not a woman's sexual behavior. 

Quote

 

This idea rather infantilizes women, does it not?

 

No, it does not. It's an act performed by a man. 

Quote

She also says that men have “zero interest in stopping abortion.”  This rather goes against your accusations in this thread of a conspiracy for men to interfere with abortion as a means of "controlling the agency of women."

That part's quite rhetorical, but by prioritizing criminalization over the demonstrably more effective means of reducing abortion, the vast majority of the anti-abortion movement does reveal that it has something other than stopping abortion as the primary goal.

[Dan McClellan]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Sources for the claimed quotes, please.

Sure. Most of them should be in here, but let me know if any are not.

ETA: Any missing ones might be in here, and this one more directly highlights the movement's desire to control the agency of women.

Edited July 17, 2019 by Dan McClellan

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Dan McClellan said:

Ejaculating inside the vagina of a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant is not a woman's sexual behavior. 

Not entirely clear that that's the case.

If I engage in behavior where it's foreseeable that the most likely outcome is precisely that, am I not consenting to it, and is not my coital behavior + my implied consent a behavior inconsistent with the alleged disinclination to get pregnant?

[Dan McClellan]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I agree, I find the notion that “the majority of arguments against abortion” are built upon this foundation of prioritizing the agency of men over women to be an unfair and inaccurate accusation and leans towards conspiracy theory in nature.

I would say that the majority of arguments against abortion are founded on prioritizing the sanctity of life and preservation of moral principles.

So then why do the vast majority of anti-abortion advocates oppose emergency contraception, which only functions prior to the joining of the sperm and the egg? That's not in any way, shape, or form about the sanctity of life, but it is a part of every last anti-abortion policies I've ever seen.

[Dan McClellan]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Not entirely clear that that's the case.

If I engage in behavior where it's foreseeable that the most likely outcome is precisely that, am I not consenting to it, and is not my coital behavior + my implied consent a behavior inconsistent with the alleged disinclination to get pregnant?

Are you really trying to argue that a man's ad hoc decision to ejaculate without the consent or knowledge of a woman is her fault because she ought to have known that he would make that decision? in what percentage of the cases I described do you estimate the woman calculated the odds that that would happen and decided to proceed anyway without any further input or action? If she tells him not to when she perceives that that might be his intent, is the victim still to blame?

[Dan McClellan]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I similarly find efforts to ascribe the particular pro-life sentiments expressed on this thread as part of some agenda to "control the agency of women" to be unnecessary and disconcerting. Most of us are influenced in complex and nuanced ways by a variety of ideological perspectives, a fact which should make us less inclined to naively stereotype others. There is no evidence that I can see that smac97 subscribes (consciously or unconsciously) to an agenda which "prioritizes the agency of men over women." I believe one would have to make a number of over-generalizations to reach such a conclusion.   

When I mentioned that increased access to comprehensive sex education, to contraception, and to women's healthcare was a more effective means of reducing the occurrence of abortion than criminalization, he responded that he thought "persuasion" might be more effective than criminalization. What kind of persuasion was he talking about?

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Are you really trying to argue that a man's ad hoc decision to ejaculate without the consent or knowledge of a woman is her fault because she ought to have known that he would make that decision? in what percentage of the cases I described do you estimate the woman calculated the odds that that would happen and decided to proceed anyway without any further input or action? If she tells him not to when she perceives that that might be his intent, is the victim still to blame?

I'm not only trying, I'm successfully debunking the notion that the nubile human female who engages in coitus can reasonably be thought not to understand that it is not only a possible but nearly all of the time an inevitable result, absent artificial measures [French letters and whatnot].  Folks what believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Sure. Most of them should be in here, but let me know if any are not.

You link is to an article entitled "The Historian’s Pickaxe: Uncovering the Racist Origins of the Religious Right."

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an overt racist and eugenicist who sought to use abortion to reduce the number of children born to minority parents.

Sadly, she succeeded:

Quote

Abortion and Race
For decades, abortion has disproportionately eliminated minority babies.

In America today, the average black woman is almost five times more likely to have an abortion than the average white woman.¹ Part of this disparity owes to the fact that, statistically, black women get pregnant more frequently than white women,² but even if we control for pregnancy, black babies are still more than three times more likely to be aborted than their white counterparts.³ No matter what your opinion of abortion, the fact that it disproportionality eliminates members of the minority community is a significant sociological problem.  

Here’s what it looks like by the numbers. According to the latest census data, just over 12% of the U.S. population is black,⁴ and yet somewhere between 28-36% of all 2014 abortions were performed on black babies. The Guttmacher Institute puts that number at 28%, based on voluntary survey data from 8,380 respondents.⁵ The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) places the number at 36%, based on actual counts of every abortion performed in the 30 states/districts that collect and report abortion data by race.⁶ By comparison, non-Hispanic white women make up 61% of the population but account for only 38-39% of all abortions.⁷

See also here:

Quote

Abortion’s Devastating Impact Upon Black Americans
Abortion cannot be allowed on economic, social, or racial grounds—to afford a higher standard of living, for the convenience of uncommitted relationships, or because a minority racial group is involved.

When Stacey Abrams lost her bid for Georgia governor last November, she explained away her loss with the common liberal talking point that racism deprived her fellow African-Americans and other minorities of their fundamental right to vote. Her campaign was largely focused on turning out the minority vote.

In contrast, her silence was deafening concerning a far more potent factor holding down the black vote: namely, the staggering number of abortions in the black community. The inconvenient truth of “black genocide” significantly decreased the potential black population of Georgia over the past fifty years. 

...

Even pro-abortion groups like the Guttmacher Institute admit that “black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion.”

These abortion numbers have curtailed population increases in the African-American community. Michael Novak calculated in 2002 that without the incidence of abortion, the African-American population would show at least a 36-percent increase. Even this number does not take into account the number of children who may have been born to those who were aborted.

...

Nationally, the Centers for Disease Control point out that nearly half of all pregnancies among black women end in abortion (472 per 1,000), while among white women only 16 percent of pregnancies are aborted (161 per 1,000). In New York City, where Planned Parenthood is headquartered, more black babies are aborted than are born alive (1,180 abortions for every 1,000 live births).

...

Indeed, pro-life advocates have consistently argued that blacks have been specifically targeted by the abortion industry. After all, in 1939, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, stated her desire to “exterminate the Negro population.” In fact, research done a few years ago by the Life Issues Institute found that “79 percent of abortion-offering Planned Parenthood facilities are within walking distance of black or Hispanic neighborhoods,” and “62 percent are near black neighborhoods.”

Moreover, I skimmed through your article, and found it to be a cobbled-together diatribe.  No meaningful evidence of racism as the basis for opposing abortion.

More to the point, why would supposed racists oppose abortion, given its success at reducing the minority population?

Racism and the pro-life position conflict with each other.  However, racism and the pro-abortion position dovetail quite well (Margaret Sanger, take a bow).  😞

-Smac

[Dan McClellan]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I'm not only trying, I'm successfully debunking the notion that the nubile human female who engages in coitus can reasonably be thought not to understand that it is not only a possible but nearly all of the time an inevitable result, absent artificial measures [French letters and whatnot].  Folks what believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

You didn't answer my questions. 

[pogi]

44 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

So then why do the vast majority of anti-abortion advocates oppose emergency contraception, which only functions prior to the joining of the sperm and the egg? That's not in any way, shape, or form about the sanctity of life, but it is a part of every last anti-abortion policies I've ever seen.

It helps to understand what emergency contraception does and does not do, and essentially this is an argument about when pregnancy begins. 

First, it is incorrect to say that emergency contraception prevents the fertilization of the egg as you claim. It doesn’t do that.  It works after fertilization and before implantation.  Pro choicer’s argue that pregnancy doesn’t happen until implantation, pro lifer’s argue that pregnancy begins at fertilization.  

If it is true that the vast majority oppose emergency contraception, then it just means that the majority believe that life begins at fertilization.  It is a matter of perspective and belief of when life begins and has nothing to do with men controlling women.  Surely you recognize that it is not just men who oppose emergency contraception?  

https://www.verywellhealth.com/the-emergency-contraception-debate-906719

Edited July 17, 2019 by pogi

[Ryan Dahle]

30 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

When I mentioned that increased access to comprehensive sex education, to contraception, and to women's healthcare was a more effective means of reducing the occurrence of abortion than criminalization, he responded that he thought "persuasion" might be more effective than criminalization. What kind of persuasion was he talking about?

I dunno, exactly. But I think it would be wise to hear his own explanation before presuming that it must stem from any particular ideology, despite any perceived similarities that it may have (at a general level) with the rhetoric commonly used by political ideologues that one disagrees with. 

Moreover, I'm not sure he articulated his views on sex ed, contraception, etc. Did he? 

Edited July 17, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[Amulek]

41 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You are supporting your position by citing . . . a Twitter thread?  Seriously?

A twitter thread that sparked newspaper articles, interviews, and discussions literally around the English-speaking world. 

Because it was deep, insightful, and thought provoking? Or because it was classic new-media click-bait nonsense? 

 

[Dan McClellan]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You link is to an article entitled "The Historian’s Pickaxe: Uncovering the Racist Origins of the Religious Right."

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an overt racist and eugenicist who sought to use abortion to reduce the number of children born to minority parents.

Sadly, she succeeded:

See also here:

Yeah, I know all about Margaret Sanger. I'm not suggesting the original underlying racist motivations of those who catalyzed America's anti-abortion movement transfer over to those influenced by that movement, I'm just pointing out that the people influenced by it are agents for its results.

Quote

Moreover, I skimmed through your article, and found it to be a cobbled-together diatribe.  No meaningful evidence of racism as the basis for opposing abortion.

Of course not. The people responsible for it explicitly saying it was about protecting segregation doesn't in any way indicate it was about protecting segregation. 

Quote

More to the point, why would supposed racists oppose abortion, given its success at reducing the minority population?

Because the argument about it reducing the minority population is an argument that anti-abortion advocates developed after the fact as a way to try to arrogate a putative anti-racist motivation that could be used as a rhetorical bludgeon against progressives (just as you use it below). Those same advocates certainly have no interest in improving the quality of life and education level of those minority populations, who disproportionately suffer primarily because of their disproportionate concentration in urban poverty. Show me anti-abortion activists teaching comprehensive sex ed or providing free contraceptions to WOC in urban settings before you insist racists can't oppose abortion.

Quote

Racism and the pro-life position conflict with each other. 

Just laughably untrue. The anti-abortion movement overlaps significantly with the white nationalist movement. Sow me a MAGA hat-wearer or a Confederate flag waver who supports legal access to abortion. 

Quote

However, racism and the pro-abortion position dovetail quite well (Margaret Sanger, take a bow).  😞

See above.

[Dan McClellan]

8 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I dunno, exactly. But I think it would be wise to hear his own explanation before presuming that it must stem from any particular ideology, despite any perceived similarities that it may have (at a general level) with the rhetoric commonly used by political ideologues that one disagrees with. 

Moreover, I'm not sure he articulated his views on sex ed, contraception, etc. Did he? 

I have asked what kind of "persuasion" he was talking about, but he has not answered that question.

[Dan McClellan]

8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Because it was deep, insightful, and thought provoking? Or because it was classic new-media click-bait nonsense? 

The former. You're welcome to go read the discussion and let me know what your objections are.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

Yeah, I know all about Margaret Sanger.

And yet you are characterizing her ideological opponents, the ones who are working against the wholesale extermination of millions of babies (a horribly disproportionate number of which are minorities) as the ones with racist motives?

Huh.

Quote

I'm not suggesting the original underlying racist motivations of those who catalyzed America's anti-abortion movement transfer over to those influenced by that movement,

Funny, it sure looked like that.

And meanwhile, I have yet to see evidence of these supposed "underlying racist motivations."  So where is it?

Quote

Quote

Moreover, I skimmed through your article, and found it to be a cobbled-together diatribe.  No meaningful evidence of racism as the basis for opposing abortion.

Of course not. The people responsible for it explicitly saying it was about protecting segregation doesn't in any way indicate it was about protecting segregation. 

Ah.  So the absence of evidence of racism is, in your view, evidence of racism.

This thread is getting weird.

Quote

Quote

More to the point, why would supposed racists oppose abortion, given its success at reducing the minority population?

Because the argument about it reducing the minority population is an argument that anti-abortion advocates developed after the fact as a way to try to arrogate a putative anti-racist motivation that could be used as a rhetorical bludgeon against progressives (just as you use it below).

Ah.  So the explicitly racist motives Margaret Sanger used to create America's abortion industry are ignored, but evidence-free insinuations of racism (heck, I think we're past insinuations and into outright accusations) against pro-lifers are fine?

Yeah, this is getting weird.

Quote

Those same advocates certainly have no interest in improving the quality of life and education level of those minority populations, who disproportionately suffer primarily because of their disproportionate concentration in urban poverty.

CFR, please.  Chapter and verse.  Evidence, please, that these "advocates certainly have no interest in improving the quality of life and education level of those minority populations."

I will hold you to this.  We've been indulging you since you're new here, but your aburdities are getting out of hand.  You dont' get to make wild claims like this without substantiation.  Please review the board rules about CFRs, then either substantiate your claim above or retract it.  If you don't, I will report you to the mods.

Quote

Quote

Racism and the pro-life position conflict with each other. 

Just laughably untrue.

I think it's quite true.  I've never seen any argument advanced by pro-lifers that advocates for the preservation of the unborn, but only for white babies.  

My concern about abortion has nothing to do with race.  In fact, the decimating effect of the abortion industry on minorities is one of its more overtly ugly aspects.  It's not enought that Sanger and her followers formulated an industry to kill babies.  They did so with the specific intent of killing babies based on the skin color of their parents.

Again, I expect you to either retract or substantiate your assertion above.

-Smac

Edited July 17, 2019 by smac97

[Dan McClellan]

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

It helps to understand what emergency contraception does and does not do, and essentially this is an argument about when pregnancy begins. 

First, it is incorrect to say that emergency contraception prevents the fertilization of the egg as you claim. It doesn’t do that.  It works after fertilization and before implantation.  Pro choicer’s argue that pregnancy doesn’t happen until implantation, pro lifer’s argue that pregnancy begins at fertilization.  

If it is true that the vast majority oppose emergency contraception, then it just means that the majority believe that life begins at fertilization.  It is a matter of perspective and belief of when life begins and has nothing to do with men controlling women.  Surely you recognize that it is not just men who oppose emergency contraception?  

https://www.verywellhealth.com/the-emergency-contraception-debate-906719

Ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel are designed to prevent the release of an egg and are only considered effective by the medical community if used prior to ovulation, so no, that's not accurate. It has never been demonstrated to be effective at preventing fertilization after ovulation or to prevent implantation after fertilization.

[USU78]

27 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

You didn't answer my questions. 

Of course I did.  It is silliness to expect us to believe that our sistern are as stupid as you make them out to be.