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

[Dan McClellan]

Just now, smac97 said:

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?

I characterized Falwell and Weyrich as having racist motivations because wanting to keep Black people out of their universities inarguably constitutes racist motivations, no matter how many times you refuse to acknowledge it. I even explicitly pointed out that I am absolutely not saying those motivations somehow transfer to those people influenced by the movement they started. 

Quote

And meanwhile, I have yet to see these supposed "underlying racist motivations." 

Then you're willfully refusing to see them, and I can't help you there. 

[Dan McClellan]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

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.

No, you absolutely didn't, and pretending that a concern for responsibility equates to calling people stupid is just absolutely laughable.

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

I characterized Falwell and Weyrich as having racist motivations because wanting to keep Black people out of their universities inarguably constitutes racist motivations, no matter how many times you refuse to acknowledge it.

One college's racist policies re: admissions and dating are "inarguably" evidence of racist motivations pertaining to the pro-life movement?  Come again?

Quote

I even explicitly pointed out that I am absolutely not saying those motivations somehow transfer to those people influenced by the movement they started. 

Oh, brother.  Bob Jones University having previously had a racist dating policy is somehow evidence that the pro-life movement was/is racist?  That's absurd.

What's next?  Are you going to suggest that the Civil Rights Movement was fraudulent because MLK, Jr. was a serial philanderer?

And in any event, what do the purported motives of a few political players from decades ago have to do with this thread (except to imply that today's pro-lifers are to be faulted)?

Quote

Quote

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,

I have yet to see these supposed "underlying racist motivations." 

Then you're willfully refusing to see them, and I can't help you there. 

No, I have not seen them.  I'll make it easy for you: CFR.  You are making the claim, so it's your responsibility to substantiate it.

Please substantiate your claim re: "underlying racist motivations" as pertaining to the pro-life movement.  I will be holding you to this CFR, too.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 17, 2019 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Dan McClellan said:

Quote

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.

No, you absolutely didn't, and pretending that a concern for responsibility equates to calling people stupid is just absolutely laughable.

I think the issue is that the infantalization of women "equates to calling people stupid."

To wit: "Ejaculating inside the vagina of a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant is not a woman's sexual behavior."  Well, then she shouldn't be participating in sexual behavior in which "ejaculating inside the vagina" is a natural and foreseeable element.  In legal parlance, it's called "assumption of the risk."

Now, if there is force or coercion involved, then that's a different story.  That's rape.  And if there is deceit involved by the man, then that changes the calculus as well (though, to be sure, woman can also resort to deceit in sexual behaviors).

But in the main, the risk of pregnancy is an inherent part of coitus.  When you excuse women from any responsibility for this risk, you infantilize women.  Implicit in your position is the idea that women, particularly women in America in 2019, are too ignorant and/or stupid to understand the risks inherent in coitus.

In other words, you did make women out to be stupid.  You absolutely did.

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD: The Utah Supreme Court recently published a decision that may have some relevance here (emphases added):

Quote

Sometimes known as the "brawl that begins with prayer," recreational basketball in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a history of getting out of hand.

There was even a movie made about it in 2006 called "Church Ball." An IMDb summary of the comedy includes the line, "What was supposed to strengthen the body, invigorate the mind and cultivate brotherly love seems to bring out the worst in these church-going ball players."

Though most incidents between opponents — typically members of the same geographic area known as a stake — don't end up in court, one case made it all the way to the Utah Supreme Court.

The court recently ruled against a Utah man who sued an opposing player after being injured in a church-sponsored game in 2012.

In his arguments, an attorney for the man invoked a quote attributed to the late Arizona Sen. John McCain during a 1989 Senate floor speech:

"While the lawlessness of MMA is a dangerous and brutal exercise, there is one sport, more vicious and cold-blooded, that takes place in Mormon meetinghouses across this great nation of ours. I speak, of course, of LDS Church basketball."

While the justices say they couldn't find the quote in the Congressional Record and that it might be "internet apocrypha," it conveys an accepted view of "church ball" among many who have "experienced this phenomenon — an athletic competition acclaimed on some local T-shirts as 'the brawl that begins with prayer.'”

"At least one of the parties to this case seems to see it that way," Associate Chief Justice Thomas Lee wrote in the court opinion.

Judd Nixon was dribbling the ball down the court to take a shot with Edward Clay chasing him to contest it. As Clay approached Nixon’s right side, he extended his right arm over Nixon’s shoulder to reach for the ball, according to court documents.

Nixon came to a “jump stop” at the foul line and began his shooting motion. Clay’s arm made contact with Nixon’s right shoulder. Nixon then felt his left knee pop and both men fell to the ground. The referee determined the contact wasn't intentional and called a common foul on Clay.

Three years later, Nixon filed a court complaint alleging that Clay's negligence caused his knee injury.

Clay asked the district court to adopt a “contact sports exception” that provides that participants in bodily contact sports are liable for injuries only when the injuries are the result of “willful” or “reckless disregard for the safety of the other player.”

The court agreed and ruled in Clay's favor, also accepting his other argument that no jury could find that he acted negligently based on the play.

Nixon appealed the ruling to the Utah Supreme Court.

In a 5-0 decision, the justices affirmed the lower court ruling, though on a slightly different legal basis.

Instead of relying on the “contact sports exception” that hinges on a defendant’s state of mind and on whether an activity qualifies as a "contact sport," the justices found basketball is inherently a contact sport, citing "boxing out" for a rebound as permitted under the rules.

"It is undisputed that Nixon was injured when Clay 'reached in' and 'swiped at the basketball,' incidentally making contact with Nixon’s shoulder," Lee wrote. "And the undisputed evidence shows that these actions are inherent in the game of basketball."

Lee wrote that the justices decided that voluntary participants in sports don't have to avoid contact that is inherent in the activity.

An injury arising from "actions {that} are inherent in the game of basketball" does not give rise to a legal claim.

The risk of injury is part of the game of basketball.  If you want to avoid such risks, don't play the game.

I will leave it to each of you, dear readers, to apply this precept to the rather weird suggstion that a woman who consents to coitus is nevertheless somehow immune from assuming the risks "inherent in the game."

😀

-Smac

Edited July 17, 2019 by smac97

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, brother.  Bob Jones University having previously had a racist dating policy is somehow evidence that the pro-life movement was/is racist?  That's absurd.

No, I have not seen them.  I'll make it easy for you: CFR.  You are making the claim, so it's your responsibility to substantiate it.

If you've not read it I'd suggest some of Robert Jones writings such as The End of White Christianity. He's a pollster specializing in Evangelicalism. He goes through the history of many of these groups. Of course many others have written on this as well. But it's pretty well recognized in the history of the era.  (Sorry was going to put a link to the Amazon page for that book but the forum keeps rejecting it)

While I think abortion is an important topic, in terms of what started the polarization it most definitely was racism. Arguably to a degree even within our own tradition although I think everyone was grateful for the revelation on the topic. It continues to surprise me that the percent of blacks who are members really hasn't significantly increased the past few decades even though we baptized a ton of African Americans in my mission at the end of the 80's. Part of that is class based - we're functionally a very middle class oriented religion and haven't really adapted in the US and Canada to attract others. Even as many people converted are from lower class people -- I think one problem with retention is not meeting their needs where many have trouble even making it to meetings let alone all the other committments.

Edited July 17, 2019 by clarkgoble

[rpn]

20 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Thanks for that insight into your thinking. I have a bit different perspective. It involves the morality of the issue and from there we would get into the issues of religious morality versus relative morality of culture and society.

Glenn

You should no that I hope I would never ever get an abortion, even if the drs said I would die or the baby couldn't live.   I certainly would never help someone get one:  I have been with someone who got one to help them after they did it and saw it as simple service.   I just believe it is God's perogative to hold each of us accountable for our choices, not for government to be deciding things which God hasn't fully established --- like when the spirit enters the body or is permanently assigned to a body and therefore has finished probation when s/he dies.

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Dan McClellan said:

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

Right, but then, in the absence of his qualification, you went on to assert that his rather general and vague response was specifically influenced by an agenda to control the agency of women. And my point is that such a presumption is unwarranted. 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Quote

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

Right, but then, in the absence of his qualification, you went on to assert that his rather general and vague response was specifically influenced by an agenda to control the agency of women. And my point is that such a presumption is unwarranted. 

Dan's assertion is all the more strange given that I was proposing reliance on "persuasion" more than reliance on the coercive power of government (criminalization).

Surely a person under the influence of a conspiracy to "control the agency of women" would prefer coercion, not persuasion?

I wouldn't know, since I reject the existence of such an influence (indeed, I doubt the existence of the conspiracy itself, and Dan has yet to respond to my CFR about it), and I reject the notion of "control{ling} the agency of women," and - again - I propose persuasion more than coercion.

-Smac

Edited July 17, 2019 by smac97

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Dan McClellan said:

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

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

The former.

Agree to disagree. 

 

Quote

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

Not necessary. I'm familiar with the discussion; we talked about it here as well. No need to rehash it in this thread though. 

 

[Calm]

10 hours 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. 

My apologies if I am not clear, operating on little sleep today which is likely impacting my comprehension as well as expression so if I have missed something, my apologies.  

I agree that women's agency is controlled far more than men by unwanted pregnancies.  If a pregnancy is not terminated in some fashion, the man and woman involved are not automatically committed equally.  A man has the option of walking away.  The fetus/baby goes with the pregnant woman if she tries to walk out.  Government can try and force accountability on men, but even if they garnish wages, they cannot force a man to care for the fetus with his own actions.  A woman can be comatose and still caring for the fetus in terms of her own body providing what the baby needs to grow.

There is also no physical effect on a man's body if he chooses to become a biological parent while there are lifelong and sometimes often detrimental effects on a woman's body if she chooses to become a biological parent.

And most cultures even today continue the unequal demands of women in most areas of parental care (financial responsibility may be expected more of men than women, I haven't looked into this enough to make a claim one way or the other though from an anecdotal type of survey, my perception is most societies look down on women who abandon their children more than men as in women who walk away from their children are more likely to be viewed as mentally or emotionally ill as opposed to immature or irresponsible).

However, it seems like you as well as this blogger are arguing that because a subset of men are irresponsible to the point of risking pregnancy for a slightly more intense experience of pleasure****, this means that men in general are much more responsible for unwanted pregnancies than women.  This doesn't seem to follow for me.  There is a subset of governments that try to dominate every aspect of their citizen's lives (totalitarian), yet this does not mean all governments are therefore responsible for the results of totalitarian behaviors.

If it can be established the majority of men rate their pleasure as more important than risk to women's bodies, that might be relevant...but that some do without knowing what percentage....just not seeing how that works.  That there are rapists doesn't imply that all men view women as potential victims to be taken advantaged of.  Without statistical support, not seeing this as much worth as an argument.

****She also errs in claiming a man must have an orgasm in order for a pregnancy to occur.  This is not true (why the withdrawal method does not work).  Nor do I see the fact that men have greater opportunity to be involved in a pregnancy in their lifetime given their typical lifelong fertility as relevant to establishing level of responsibility because in each case of pregnancy a fertile woman is also involved.  Nor is a woman's ability to have an orgasm without intercourse or even a partner and therefore no risk of pregnancy relevant either; men can do the same ( and that fact is likely causing significant problems for society due to increased accessibility of porn).

 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Calm

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

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.

Instructions say “take as soon as possible after unprotected intercourse or a known or suspected contraceptive failure”.  Says nothing about taking before ovulation only, or testing for ovulation first.   Clinical pharmacology states that it works by altering endometrium and “inhibits implantation”. 

Yes it works by preventing ovulation where ovulation has not yet occurred, but it also works by inhibiting implantation post fertilization.  

If you could guarantee that people would not use it post ovulation, I am sure the anti-abortion community would have no problem with it. Of course that could only be guaranteed as a prescribed medication only after performing an ovulation test - pro-choicer’s don’t seem to like that option.

Edited July 17, 2019 by pogi

[Dan McClellan]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

My apologies if I am not clear, operating on little sleep today which is likely impacting my comprehension as well as expression so if I have missed something, my apologirs.  

I agree that women's agency is controlled far more than men by unwanted pregnancies.  If a pregnancy is not terminated in some fashion, the man and woman involved are not automatically committed equally.  A man has the option of walking away.  The fetus/baby goes with the pregnant woman if she tries to walk out.  Government can try and force accountability on men, but even if they tarnish wages, they cannot force a man to care for the fetus with his own actions.  A woman can be comatose and still caring for the fetus in terms of her own body providing what the baby needs to grow.

There is also no physical effect on a man's body if he chooses to become a biological parent while there are lifelong and sometimes often detrimental effects on a woman's body if she chooses to become a biological parent.

And most cultures even today continue the unequal demands of women in most areas of parental care (financial responsibility may be expected more of men than women, I haven't looked into this enough to make a claim one way or the other though from an anecdotal type of survey, my perception is most societies look down on women who abandon their children more than men as in women who walk away from their children are more likely to be viewed as mentally or emotionally ill as opposed to immature or irresponsible).

However, it seems like you as well as this blogger are arguing that because a subset of men are irresponsible to the point of risking pregnancy for a slightly more intense experience of pleasure****, this means that men in general are much more responsible for unwanted pregnancies than women.  This doesn't seem to follow for me.  There is a subset of governments that try to dominate every aspect of their citizen's lives (totalitarian), yet this does not mean all governments are therefore responsible for the results of totalitarian behaviors.

I'm not arguing that all men bear responsibility because this subset is responsible for what I would say is the majority of unwanted pregnancies (I disagree that they're responsible for ALL unwanted pregnancies), which is what the government example suggests. What I'm arguing is that unwanted pregnancies are overwhelmingly the product of the agency of men, and usually over and against the agency of women. 

Quote

If it can be established the majority of men rate their pleasure as more important than risk to women's bodies, that might be relevant...but that some do without knowing what percentage....just not seeing how that works.  That there are rapists doesn't imply that all men view women as potential victims to be taken advantaged of.  Without statistical support, not seeing this as much worth as an argument.

I'm not arguing that that responsibility transfers onto all men. 

Quote

****She also errs in claiming a man must have an orgasm in order for a pregnancy to occur.  This is not true (why the withdrawal method does not work).  

Yes, preejaculate is a different story

Quote

Nor do I see the fact that men have greater opportunity to be involved in a pregnancy in their lifetime given their typical lifelong fertility as relevant to establishing level of responsibility because in each case of pregnancy a fertile woman is also involved.  Nor is a woman's ability to have an orgasm without intercourse or even a partner and therefore no risk of pregnancy relevant either; men can do the same ( and that fact is likely causing significant problems for society due to increased accessibility of porn).

I've got no argument here.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

What I'm arguing is that unwanted pregnancies are overwhelmingly the product of the agency of men, and usually over and against the agency of women. 

Absent force, coercion or deceit, this is an absurd argument, and one that infantilizes women.

-Smac

Edited July 17, 2019 by smac97

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

What I'm arguing is that unwanted pregnancies are overwhelmingly the product of the agency of men, and usually over and against the agency of women. 

Unless unwanted pregnancies are “overwhelmingly” the product of rape or “stealthing (secretly removing the condom)” there is no basis for this argument.

Edit: smac97 beat me to it.

Edited July 17, 2019 by pogi

[Hamba Tuhan]

19 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

I am willing to acknowledge that there were societies where personhood extending all the way to fertilization may have been normative, but I do have to take issue with the notion that the cognitive orientations we label right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation are not identifiable in the ancient and non-Western worlds.

As a professionally trained historian, I am inherently suspect of all attempts to impose ideologically laden and politically charged labels onto past societies. Categories of being just don't work that way. I'm also suspect of attempts to align such labels one-to-one with certain behavioural norms. As you indicated, things are always much 'muddier' than that, and the historical discipline is littered with failed attempts to state with any authority that certain social structures or orientations always result in certain behaviours.

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As a professionally trained historian, I am inherently suspect of all attempts to impose ideologically laden and politically charged labels onto past societies. Categories of being just don't work that way. I'm also suspect of attempts to align such labels one-to-one with certain behavioural norms. As you indicated, things are always much 'muddier' than that, and the historical discipline is littered with failed attempts to state with any authority that certain social structures or orientations always result in certain behaviours.

This∆.

There is, moreover, the following: Falwell was a died in the wool antiMormon. It was no secret. He would burn Books of Mormon at the pulpit in his church in Lynchburg.

Dan intimates that the Brethren followed Falwell's lead in taking a strong and uncompromising anti-abortion stand, which is patently ridiculous. Falwell wouldn't have figured for even an instant. Rather, they took as a starting point the Common Law and Anglo-Saxon ethics and an Angloamerican Protestant worldview.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

What I'm arguing is that unwanted pregnancies are overwhelmingly the product of the agency of men, and usually over and against the agency of women. 

My problem with this is my experience is a number of women complaining they just weren’t thinking when they had unprotected sex, as in they didn’t want to ruin spontaneity by stopping to think about condoms or diaphragms or whether they had forgotten the pill recently.  The perception I got was they saw it as possible to stop the flow and use safe sex practices, but they made the choice not to because of what they personally wanted out of the experience. 

 I never had those conversations with men so there is no way of me to judge even anecdotally, but given my experience I find it problematic to say most unwanted pregnancies are the result of men’s agency over and against women...at least in the US and Canada. This POV may be a result of growing up in California where a sexually proactive woman was seen as the norm even in my youth. I remember one time as a teen on a work break, my fellow female employees talking about their sex lives and judging the value of their boyfriends. There was nothing passive in their conversation. One was annoyed with the passivity of her current boyfriend in fact and was talking about dumping him to get someone more interested in having sex iirc.  I recognized at the time some were having fun trying to shock the little naive Mormon girl, so it may not have been an accurate portrayal, but it was consistent with known areas of their behaviour (I wasn’t actually shocked much therefore).  Of course there’s no reason to apply that globally as women in other cultures are not always viewed as sexual beings as much as in the Bay Area in the 70s and various other places I have lived in the US and Canada, but it leads me to want to see some stats before drawing conclusions. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

8 hours 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:

Now you are just creating a story out of whole cloth. The American anti-abortion movement was started by "Small groups of Catholic doctors, nurses, lawyers, and housewives joined together to oppose liberalization. In 1967 the National Council of Catholic Bishops aided their campaigns with support, money, and the formation of the National Right to Life Committee."  Falwell and company came very late to the game. 

Come on, stop the nonsense. Either study it out and get the facts or stop making wild accusations. I know you are better than this. 

Edited July 18, 2019 by Storm Rider

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

My problem with this is my experience is a number of women complaining they just weren’t thinking when they had unprotected sex, as in they didn’t want to ruin spontaneity by stopping to think about condoms or diaphragms or whether they had forgotten the pill recently.  The perception I got was they saw it as possible to stop the flow and use safe sex practices, but they made the choice not to because of what they personally wanted out of the experience. 

 I never had those conversations with men so there is no way of me to judge even anecdotally, but given my experience I find it problematic to say most unwanted pregnancies are the result of men’s agency over and against women...at least in the US and Canada. This POV may be a result of growing up in California where a sexually proactive woman was seen as the norm even in my youth. I remember one time as a teen on a work break, my fellow female employees talking about their sex lives and judging the value of their boyfriends. There was nothing passive in their conversation. One was annoyed with the passivity of her current boyfriend in fact and was talking about dumping him to get someone more interested in having sex iirc.  I recognized at the time some were having fun trying to shock the little naive Mormon girl, so it may not have been an accurate portrayal, but it was consistent with known areas of their behaviour (I wasn’t actually shocked much therefore).  Of course there’s no reason to apply that globally as women in other cultures are not always viewed as sexual beings as much as in the Bay Area in the 70s and various other places I have lived in the US and Canada, but it leads me to want to see some stats before drawing conclusions. 

This is also my experience.  I have talked with a number of women who dealt with unwanted pregnancies, many of whom chose to terminate the pregnancy by abortion.  In none of these situations did the woman describe being a victim of the pregnancy.  They all consented all the way. I know that this degree of anecdotal evidence doesn't prove or disprove anything.  However, it does make me highly suspicious of unsubstantiated claims to the opposite.  

Not incidentally, I have yet to talk with a woman who received an abortion who didn't regret it. These are not LDS or even especially religious women.  The vicious effects of the guilt and emotional agony are painful to see. And to make matters worse, these women feel that they have no one they can talk to. They see the more religious crowd as judging them for having an abortion and therefore deserving of their anguish, while the pro choice crowd is often active in seeking to silence them. 

[clarkgoble]

On 7/16/2019 at 8:59 AM, smac97 said:

I don't think that's the only debate.  Frankly, I don't think "when the spirit enters the body" is a part of the legal discussion at all.

Personhood is the debate.  When, in the Zygote-to-fetus-to-newborn-to-toddler-to-child-to-teen-to-adult process does personhood spring into existence?

I don't know for certain.  Again, that's not really part of thelegal debate.

If you had been a black man living in slavery in the Antebellum South, would you agree that your status in life "has to be left up to each individual [slave owner] because the Constitution demands that?"  I doubt it.  

The legal debate is largely about the constitution and questions of privacy and autonomy. While personhood doesn’t enter into the legal debate maybe it should. We should also note that the legal debate is informed by the legislative debate which can be shaped by items not yet part of the legal debate. After all the legislature shaped legality.

I think for Mormons personhood is essential and ought affect how we view the legal issues. Much as for Catholics and many Evangelicals the idea that the soul is created at conception shapes their view.

The slavery issue isn’t a good analogy since Africans were obviously thinking persons. Ethically it was impossible to justify the horrific actions people took which was why so often people particularly in the south attempted to justify it scripturally instead. With first trimester abortion things are far different since there is no great similarity to adult persons. Again that doesn’t mean it is right. But it means it different reasoning.

Edited July 18, 2019 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

Never mind

Edited July 18, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Dan McClellan]

7 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Now you are just creating a story out of whole cloth. The American anti-abortion movement was started by "Small groups of Catholic doctors, nurses, lawyers, and housewives joined together to oppose liberalization. In 1967 the National Council of Catholic Bishops aided their campaigns with support, money, and the formation of the National Right to Life Committee."  Falwell and company came very late to the game. 

Come on, stop the nonsense. Either study it out and get the facts or stop making wild accusations. I know you are better than this. 

Catholics had long opposed abortion, but after Roe v. Wade, evangelicals were not opposed, even saying it was a Catholic issue. The executive director of of the NRLC said in 1973, "The only reason that we have a pro-life movement in this country is because of the Catholic people and the Catholic Church." When it formally incorporated that year, however, it began to distance itself from its Catholic roots in order to attract more Protestants. It was Falwell and company that turned it into an evangelical issue, which is what made it a national issue that politicians had to address. Had that not happened, we wouldn't be talking about it today. 

[Dan McClellan]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

My problem with this is my experience is a number of women complaining they just weren’t thinking when they had unprotected sex, as in they didn’t want to ruin spontaneity by stopping to think about condoms or diaphragms or whether they had forgotten the pill recently.  The perception I got was they saw it as possible to stop the flow and use safe sex practices, but they made the choice not to because of what they personally wanted out of the experience. 

 I never had those conversations with men so there is no way of me to judge even anecdotally, but given my experience I find it problematic to say most unwanted pregnancies are the result of men’s agency over and against women...at least in the US and Canada. This POV may be a result of growing up in California where a sexually proactive woman was seen as the norm even in my youth. I remember one time as a teen on a work break, my fellow female employees talking about their sex lives and judging the value of their boyfriends. There was nothing passive in their conversation. One was annoyed with the passivity of her current boyfriend in fact and was talking about dumping him to get someone more interested in having sex iirc.  I recognized at the time some were having fun trying to shock the little naive Mormon girl, so it may not have been an accurate portrayal, but it was consistent with known areas of their behaviour (I wasn’t actually shocked much therefore).  Of course there’s no reason to apply that globally as women in other cultures are not always viewed as sexual beings as much as in the Bay Area in the 70s and various other places I have lived in the US and Canada, but it leads me to want to see some stats before drawing conclusions. 

Certainly there are such cases (which is why I don't agree with attributed responsibility unilaterally to men), but even there, the responsibility is at best split 50/50, as the man obviously made the same decision not to care. 

[Dan McClellan]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As a professionally trained historian, I am inherently suspect of all attempts to impose ideologically laden and politically charged labels onto past societies. 

As a professionally trained historian, I agree with you there regarding the label, but the underlying cognitive architecture is trans-historical and trans-cultural, even if the socio-material manifestation of its influence is more historically contingent and situationally emergent.

Quote

Categories of being just don't work that way. I'm also suspect of attempts to align such labels one-to-one with certain behavioural norms. As you indicated, things are always much 'muddier' than that, and the historical discipline is littered with failed attempts to state with any authority that certain social structures or orientations always result in certain behaviours.

I'm absolutely not saying there is a perfect 1:1 correspondence between the underlying cognitive orientations and the behaviors. I'm suggesting the cognitive orientation is there and that there is not-insignificant overlap in some of the behavior. 

[Dan McClellan]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

Unless unwanted pregnancies are “overwhelmingly” the product of rape or “stealthing (secretly removing the condom)” there is no basis for this argument.

Edit: smac97 beat me to it.

So if a woman consents to have sex without a condemn, she is consenting to have a man ejaculate inside her, no matter what she says or does to prevent it? That's really your contention?