Jump to content


Pro-Choice GOP Warns Party That Contraception Fight Will Be A Disaster


86 replies to this topic

#1 cmk

    Chief Cook and Bottle Washer

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 7540 posts
  • LocationBennington, VT, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Known Universe

Posted 09 February 2012 - 09:57 AM

Well, yeah:

Quote

“I think this week’s outrage over the Komen decision should be a warning to the Republican party about how quickly there was a mass outrage over further and further attacks on general women’s health,” Kellie Ferguson, executive director of Republican Majority for choice, told me Wednesday. “You could see the same backlash on attacks on contraception.”

Ferguson calls the Republican rhetoric on contraception “crossing the line” — taking the discussion away from choice issues (where Republicans can find some broader, if still national minority constituency) and into the realm of the fringy extreme.

“For the last number of years, we in the pro-choice community in general — and we specifically as Republicans — have been saying as this pandering to a sort of social conservative faction of voters continues, you’re going to see the line pushed further and further and further,” she said. “And we’re now crossing the line from discussion of when we should regulate abortion to when we should now regulate legal doctor-prescribed medications like birth control, which is woven in the fabric of society as an acceptable medication.”

She pointed to widely-reported polling showing that a majority of Americans — and a majority of Catholics — support the White House policy and urged her party to take a step back before it’s too late.

Charles M. Kozierok - Administrator, TalkRadioSucks.com

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." -- Herbert Spencer

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." -- Bill Maher


"Our new Government['s] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition." -- Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy

#2 Traveler

    Rambling Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13364 posts
  • LocationPhilly Area

Posted 09 February 2012 - 10:07 AM

Yeah, it is fun to watch the electorate wake up. Every day brings a new version of crazy to amuse us.
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."-- Winston Churchill
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices" Voltaire

#3 balconesfault

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 10:08 AM

Problem is that the constitutionally minded Republicans realize that contraceptive freedom is tied directly to abortion rights, via the penumbra of the right to privacy.

#4 cmk

    Chief Cook and Bottle Washer

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 7540 posts
  • LocationBennington, VT, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Known Universe

Posted 09 February 2012 - 10:11 AM

View Postbalconesfault, on 09 February 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

Problem is that the constitutionally minded Republicans realize that contraceptive freedom is tied directly to abortion rights, via the penumbra of the right to privacy.

I don't think it's quite that simple. There is no second life to take into account with contraception.
Charles M. Kozierok - Administrator, TalkRadioSucks.com

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." -- Herbert Spencer

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." -- Bill Maher


"Our new Government['s] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition." -- Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy

#5 primrose

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 933 posts
  • LocationNew York State

Posted 09 February 2012 - 10:13 AM

But in any event, they keep redefining contraception as abortion. The New IUD prevents through a lot of different measures, hormones, thinned lining etc. but they still claim it's abortion. They've even claimed the pill can be abortion.

#6 Rue Bella

    Emerging from a state of cryogenic denial

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8099 posts
  • LocationSoCal

Posted 09 February 2012 - 10:19 AM

Quote

She pointed to widely-reported polling showing that a majority of Americans — and a majority of Catholics — support the White House policy and urged her party to take a step back before it’s too late.

A poll from 2/7: http://www.plannedpa...efit_020712.pdf

Besides religion/reproductive issues, what else do the Republicans have to attack Obama? The economy seems to be improving. Stocks are up. We are getting out of Iraq and soon Afghanistan. Osama is dead. We've seen the birth certificate. Obama is still black, but hearing his name and seeing his image for the past 4 years has made him familiar and far less frighteningly 'foreign'.

There are many vocal Obama haters on the right, but judging by the low Republican voter turn-out, maybe everyday republican people don't hate him as much as their elected and media leaders do. Especially when you look at their candidates...
What is wrong with these people? ~ PG

California Secession - Let my people go!

#7 balconesfault

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 10:22 AM

The pill is an abortifactant. Now, functioning perfectly, it will prevent ovulation - but sometimes that doesn't work and the concurrent thinning of the lining of the uterus prevents implantation if fertilization does occur.

Which is akin to being an abortifactant some percentage of the time.

If you believe that as soon as the egg is fertilized, you've created a human being, there's no way around saying that the pill and the IUD kill human beings.

#8 cmk

    Chief Cook and Bottle Washer

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 7540 posts
  • LocationBennington, VT, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Known Universe

Posted 09 February 2012 - 10:24 AM

View Postbalconesfault, on 09 February 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

The pill is an abortifactant.
The last time I said this, a few people claimed it wasn't. I don't really feel medically qualified enough to really understand the complexities here. I'm sure most other people don't understand it either.

View Postbalconesfault, on 09 February 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

If you believe that as soon as the egg is fertilized, you've created a human being, there's no way around saying that the pill and the IUD kill human beings.
Even if that is technically true, there's a large chunk of the population that has a much bigger problem with surgical abortion of a fetus that shows up on an ultrasound than they do a pill that prevents implantation.
Charles M. Kozierok - Administrator, TalkRadioSucks.com

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." -- Herbert Spencer

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." -- Bill Maher


"Our new Government['s] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition." -- Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy

#9 balconesfault

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 10:31 AM

"Even if that is technically true, there's a large chunk of the population that has a much bigger problem with surgical abortion of a fetus that shows up on an ultrasound than they do a pill that prevents implantation."

I get that. I'm not one of them - but in my mind the two extremes of the argument are at one end, someone who would argue that a woman should be able to abort a fetus even when it is fully viable and delivery could be induced with little risk to the mother ... and at the other end those who argue that a clump of cells with no functional nervous system is a human being which must be protected from the mother.

#10 Rabiner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3723 posts
  • LocationCulver City, CA

Posted 09 February 2012 - 11:16 AM

View Postbalconesfault, on 09 February 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

"Even if that is technically true, there's a large chunk of the population that has a much bigger problem with surgical abortion of a fetus that shows up on an ultrasound than they do a pill that prevents implantation."

I get that. I'm not one of them - but in my mind the two extremes of the argument are at one end, someone who would argue that a woman should be able to abort a fetus even when it is fully viable and delivery could be induced with little risk to the mother ... and at the other end those who argue that a clump of cells with no functional nervous system is a human being which must be protected from the mother.

I'm definitely more to the second position. I'm uncomfortable with abortion once a fetus has reached viability and there is no risk to the mother carrying the fetus.
Government in particular has an obligation to dismiss any employee who claims a right to discriminate against citizens. - Garret Epps

#11 Raskolnik

    Brainwashed Bigot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts
  • LocationSukhāvatī

Posted 09 February 2012 - 11:19 AM

I get what you are saying balcones but I still think there is a qualitative difference between potentially preventing implantation as part of an hormonal regimen specified to prevent ovulation on the one hand, and directly attacking the zygote or preventing the implantation of an egg that is already known for certain to be fertilized on the other.

#12 cmk

    Chief Cook and Bottle Washer

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 7540 posts
  • LocationBennington, VT, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Known Universe

Posted 09 February 2012 - 11:34 AM

View PostRaskolnik, on 09 February 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

...directly attacking the zygote or preventing the implantation of an egg that is already known for certain to be fertilized on the other.

Okay, but can you also accept the inherent difference between these?
Charles M. Kozierok - Administrator, TalkRadioSucks.com

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." -- Herbert Spencer

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." -- Bill Maher


"Our new Government['s] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition." -- Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy

#13 balconesfault

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 11:40 AM

There's also a big difference between driving my car across a playground and driving 60 mph through a school zone when class has just let out. Until I hit a kid - in which case the difference is moot.

#14 Raskolnik

    Brainwashed Bigot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts
  • LocationSukhāvatī

Posted 09 February 2012 - 11:47 AM

Quote

Okay, but can you also accept the inherent difference between these?

Yes, absolutely, I think it is worse to directly attack the zygote than to indirectly prevent it from living by preventing implantation. This BTW is the basically the same principle operative in the reasoning why, according to Catholics, it is acceptable to remove the fallopian tube of a woman who is experiencing an ectopic pregnancy, but not to use abortifacent drugs. In the latter case you are directly attacking the child, while in the former case you are operating on a diseased organ and the fetus unfortunately dies as an indirect result of the operation.

Quote

There's also a big difference between driving my car across a playground and driving 60 mph through a school zone when class has just let out. Until I hit a kid - in which case the difference is moot.

Sure. Which is why the Church teaches that any kind of artificial contraception is ultimately impermissible. But I think that the goal of preventing abortions trumps the goal of never ever having even a single zygote terminated before its time. Just because I accept the proposition that life begins at conception does not mean that I think killing a two-day-old zygote is exactly as morally reprehensible as killing a two-month-old fetus (to say nothing of a viable baby), even if they are all morally wrong.

#15 cmk

    Chief Cook and Bottle Washer

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 7540 posts
  • LocationBennington, VT, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Known Universe

Posted 09 February 2012 - 11:54 AM

Balcones, I'm not following your analogy.

Raskolnik, thanks for having a reasonable and consistent view on these matters.

Personally, I view the issue from a libertarin standpoint, recognizing that abortion involves rather unique circumstances of clashing rights, which really invalidates comparisons to most other situations, even ones that also involve clashing rights.
Charles M. Kozierok - Administrator, TalkRadioSucks.com

"The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools." -- Herbert Spencer

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." -- Bill Maher


"Our new Government['s] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition." -- Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy

#16 drdredel

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2419 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 12:01 PM

I know I'm asking for serious trouble here (and tell me to go away and mind my own business... ) but what is the qualitative difference (and specifically what was the rationale given... again... I know that the Church is not too long on things like rationale... for saying that deliberately practicing the rhythm method (only having sex when the woman is ovulating, thus wasting the sperm at a time when pregnancy is not possible, thus deliberately avoiding pregnancy, and using a condom, which in essence is the exact same thing.
The Blind have lost their sense of "sight";
The Deaf have lost their sense of "hearing";
Republicans have lost their sense of "common".

#17 Tom

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 795 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 12:03 PM

I'm a bit unclear on what distinction you're drawing, Raskolnik.

In one post, you say that preventing the implantation of an egg that is already "known for certain to be fertilized" and "directly attacking the zygote" are equivalent.

Quote

on the one hand, and directly attacking the zygote or preventing the implantation of an egg that is already known for certain to be fertilized on the other.

In another post, you say that they are not equivalent, and preventing implantation is less bad by being indirect.

Quote

I think it is worse to directly attack the zygote than to indirectly prevent it from living by preventing implantation



Could you clarify? Unprotected sex does not intrinsically mean a fertilized egg, as all the couples who try for months to conceive before succeeding can attest. And there's a large window of time after sex when the fertilization can actually take place. Taking oral high-dose estrogen after unprotected sex can prevent ovulation if is hasn't occurred yet, or it can prevent implantation, or it can prevent neither if the egg doesn't actually get fertilized. If the egg has been fertilized, there is a definite chance that it would fail to implant anyway, because that is the nature of the process. So it is really unclear exactly what the effect of the drug is in any given case, all you know is that sometimes it is responsible for preventing implantation and sometimes it isn't.

#18 balconesfault

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 09 February 2012 - 12:09 PM

Tell me then why aborting a zygote is better than aborting a two month old embryo?

#19 Raskolnik

    Brainwashed Bigot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts
  • LocationSukhāvatī

Posted 09 February 2012 - 12:29 PM

Quote

Tell me then why aborting a zygote is better than aborting a two month old embryo?

A two-month-old fetus has a rudimentary nervous system (nervous tissue development begins during the third week of pregnancy) and can feel physical pain. In general, the more developed the fetus, the more reprehensible the sin of killing it. Consciousness is relatively inchoate and undeveloped immediately following the moment of conception. The longer the fetus develops, the more refined the consciousness of the fetus, the more sinful it is to kill the fetus.

#20 Raskolnik

    Brainwashed Bigot

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts
  • LocationSukhāvatī

Posted 09 February 2012 - 12:34 PM

Quote

Unprotected sex does not intrinsically mean a fertilized egg, as all the couples who try for months to conceive before succeeding can attest. And there's a large window of time after sex when the fertilization can actually take place. Taking oral high-dose estrogen after unprotected sex can prevent ovulation if is hasn't occurred yet, or it can prevent implantation, or it can prevent neither if the egg doesn't actually get fertilized. If the egg has been fertilized, there is a definite chance that it would fail to implant anyway, because that is the nature of the process. So it is really unclear exactly what the effect of the drug is in any given case, all you know is that sometimes it is responsible for preventing implantation and sometimes it isn't.

Yes, you are basically making my argument against balconesfault for me (thanks!). Preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg is indirectly abortifacent, which is one of the reasons why according to Catholic teaching hormonal contraception is ultimately impermissible. But the chance of hormonal birth control failing to prevent ovulation but not failing to prevent implantation is rather small. And, as I've said, to me the goal of preventing abortion trumps the goal of eliminating any and all cases of zygotes being terminated before their time.

But in answer to your question, I included those two because they are in the same basic moral category--inducing the death of a zygote--but when asked by cmk, I clarified that even though they are in the same basic category, there is a subtle difference in terms of their acceptability. It is always worse to directly and intentionally kill than to kill indirectly as the unintended result of a separate action.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users