I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
That's rhetorical, right?
Have A Nice, Hot Cup O' Joe!
You know damn well the reason. In vitro is for Christ-loving couples who want to have Republican babies.
The morning after is for promiscuous heathen.
It's simple, really.
I'll take a stab at it: The morning after pill gives the decision to conceive wholly to the woman. This is antithetical to a patriarchal society like the one the American Right idealizes. The fertility stuff is not related in any way: Basically if you are rich enough, you should be able to do whatever you want.
This is a huge moral vacuum. I have friends who underwent in vitro. Not fun. Not fun. Not fun, particularly for the woman. This effort resulted in two wonderful fraternal twins, and the early abortion of a third fetus undertaken in Philadelphia because the woman's doctors told her that the risk of spontaneous abortion--losing all three--was extremely high, but that she probably could (and did) carry twins to term. Even if she spent the last 60 days of her pregnancy in bed. A right winger I brought this up with--this abortion--was firm: it's okay that all three fetuses die by chance, rather than the one by choice.
Why not the outrage from the right? Because I'll bet that the number of such abortions dwarfs the "partial birth" number. Oh, right, because these people are young, white, wealthy, suburban professionals who are very sympathetic, and desperate to have a child. I forgot.
I also couldn't help but notice that the media's favorite sinister sounding name RU-486 has been replaced by the much more benign sounding name Plan B.
If there's any small consolation in this it's that the pharmaceutical interests trump the Christian Right interests.
Cal Thomas:
LOVE the 'promiscuous heathen' in your comment! I'd much rather be one of them than a member of the Christian 'fright' (term coined by Mike Signorile's producer on SiriusOutQ which says it all).
It's simple: one reduces women to cows (was there anything more loathesome than that one retarded, inbred, crooked-brown-toothed bovine hausfrau on the cover of Time with her unnaturally spawn litter?) and the other actually interrupts the male sky god's freedom to incapacitate. Jeezus christians are so consistently immoral, the most immoral shits we know, the brave masculine heroes who scream and swat at confused, scared pregnant women on their way into clinics. Getting tired of dragging this one out: "Has there been any good thing in history that the local institutionalized church was not against?"
I'm not particularly sure if I am for making the "morning-after" pill available over-the-counter. It seems like an awfully powerful drug to make so readibly available. However, if medical experts say otherwise, then I suppose it's alright. They know way better than I do.
Promiscuous Heathens Of The World:
Spread The Good News Far And Wide!
Wasn't there a big stink about In Vitro to begin with? I thought it was an uphill battle to gain acceptance.
I seem to recall this comparison when the discussion of cloning came up.
Thumb, if it makes any difference, RU-486 is the drug mifepristone, which does end a pregnancy, while Plan B is two doses of progestin pills, taken 12 hours apart. Plan B prevents fertilization of the egg. Big discussion of this on Diane Rehm, this week.
Naturally, Concerned Women of America are against Plan B. Might make young women more promiscuous! Child abusers could continually administer drugs to the young women they are abusing!
Poor Strom. I guess it could have solved that minor difficulty he encountered.
RU-486 and the morning after pill are not the same medication, so far as I know. There seems to be a fair amount of confusion on this point, since people seem to be using the two names interchangeably. Or am I also confused? My understanding is that RU-486 is an abortion drug. The morning after pill either (a) prevents ovulation or (b) prevents an egg from being fertilized or (c) prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. In medical terms, I think pregnancy does not start until implantation, so the morning after pill is not considered to cause abortion.
It does seem like a contradiction.
If Damfacrats were wingnut religious fanatics we would be opposed to in-vitro because science is God's enemy and because in-vitro confuses and/or dilutes the "immaculate conception" theme.
Because the morning-after pill is for feminists and whores.
In vitro fertilization has a higher likelihood of multiple births, thus increasing the amount of fodder for Georgie's Holy PNAC Empire, so that sort of god-playing is perfectly fine.
If Damfacrats were wingnut religious fanatics we would be opposed to in-vitro because science is God's enemy and because in-vitro confuses and/or dilutes the "immaculate conception" theme.
Dr. D
If Democrats had to vote on it, it would be a silent vote and the ban would pass.
Perhaps the difference comes in that abortion is the termination of life, while in-vitro is the creation of life. I can be somewhat sympathetic towards such people if they hold this view.
The old idea of the homunculus still has us in its grasp?
Before microbiology, all anyone saw was semen and blood, so they reasoned that the man had the fertile power (semen), the woman was only soil (for "planting," we still use the term "implantation" in speaking of pregnancy, the semen). So the man gave the woman the "homunculus," which she, basically, incubated.
Not too far a stretch, then, to being against the "morning after" pill, which interrupts the "man's work" (fertilization), whereas in-vitro is usually understood as a "female problem" (man is fertile, woman needs help).
Same reasoning why men connect their "masculinity" to their ability to procreate. Still the old idea that the man is doing all the work.
Variations on the joke that children get colds, men get the flu, and women get on with it, are appropriate here....
Yeah, RU 486 is the abortion pill, the day after pill just keeps you from getting preggers after sex. And it is not that strong of a drug - it is the equivalent of about four birth control pills. RU 486 is however a very strong drug. I hate when people mix this up, bugs me almost as much as when people think that global warming and the ozone hole are the same thing. Maybe it should bug me more, because it has more consequences. You can be opposed to abortion and RU 486, and for the day after pill, and teenage girls with unwanted pregnancies need to know this.
Perhaps the difference comes in that abortion is the termination of life, while in-vitro is the creation of life. I can be somewhat sympathetic towards such people if they hold this view.
Adam 4-4-2
Taking a morning after pill would not necessarily be an abortion. No fertilization may have occured.
So, it could very well be the Schroedingers cat of abortion.
Before microbiology, all anyone saw was semen and blood, so they reasoned that the man had the fertile power (semen), the woman was only soil (for "planting," we still use the term "implantation" in speaking of pregnancy, the semen). So the man gave the woman the "homunculus," which she, basically, incubated
Robert M. Jeffers
Reminds me of that whole fucking the ground for crop fertility.
Is that where "cornhole" originated?
Huge difference.
Plan B is the moral equivalent of putting the condom on a day or two after you screw, and the sperm and egg never make the connection. No side effects for the woman.
RU-486 is the moral equivalent of terminating a very early pregnancy without a surgeon.
I can see no real argument against over the counter Plan B. Over the counter is important as you gotta take it quick, and the Dr. may not be availible on weekends, holdays and Wednesday nooners. Also, what if you are trying to be good and the rubber bursts?
I can see anti-abortionists getting agitated over 486.
Plan B could prevent millions of unwanted pregnancies each year in the same manner as taking prescription birth control(a good thing to all, right?).
I’ve read 486 ain’t the most pleasant thing in the world.
They can be against it the way a lot of them are against abortion and against birth control. Seems to me that the easiest way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. But what the hell do I know?
And while several of you have correctly pointed out that Plan B does prevent implantation, in the far right view, life begins at conception, so stopping implantation IS a form of abortion. I think they're crazy. I mean seriously, it's not okay to protect a woman's health, it's not okay to prevent pregnancy, but it is okay to pursue this expensive and pretty much unnatural pursuit of pregnancy called in vitro. I guess anything to produce more christian babies.
"I'm not particularly sure if I am for making the "morning-after" pill available over-the-counter. It seems like an awfully powerful drug to make so readibly available."
Not more powerful a 'drug' than, oh let's say a couple of quick shots of Wild Turkey taken by a kid who just got a driver's license and the use of daddy's car. 'Plan B' is a strong dose of a natural hormone which prevents the implantation of an egg, and thus the question of fertilisation is moot. It is not a strong drug of any kind. RU-482 is not particularly frightening either, prescribed and administered properly. The problems that have occurred with RU-482 have, as always, resulted from idiot medical conduct - a girl effectively undergoing a form of toxic shock reaction unsupervised, being dismissed by her E.R. as having 'flu.
But let's be real blunt here. Neither Plan B nor RU-482 have one damn thing to do with anyone except the woman - and her medical advisor - involved. All the threats, scare tactics, shouting at clinics - all of it - are invalid, simply because a woman's body belongs to her, and it is up to her what to do with it, when, how and why.
Glad that people have clarified the difference between RU-486 (which is never available without a prescription in the countries where it's legal) and the morning-after pill (aka emergency contraception aka Plan B), which is generally available from family planning clinics, over the counter, or by request from a pharmacist.
RU-486 is a 'chemical abortifactant'; it's useful for early abortions because it removes the need for surgery. But the process is not pleasant, and you need a consultation and to be able to call a doctor in case of complications. Which perhaps explains why it's not ideal for the US market, where people aren't always able to call a doctor, thanks to the wonders of private insurance. In France, for instance, an abortion with RU-486 requires four visits to the doctor, two of which involve discussing options and providing information on the procedure.
http://students.washington.edu/
a...486_950411.html
Anyway, easy access to emergency contraception prevents abortions. It's that simple.
the same way that you kill thousands of innocent Iraqis to give them freedom
the same way that you kill thousands of innocent Iraqis to give them freedom
That kind of sums it up, doesn't it? there is no logical consistency to most of their positions.
The hypocrisy of those that are against the Plan B drug, yet approve of in-vitro comes into play not because in-vitro is "unnatural", but because of the dispostion of pre-embryos that are created during the process. 3 or 4 actually get transfer to the womb, any others are either frozen for future use, or simply destroyed. According to religious and/or anti-abortion advocates, pre-embyos have souls like fetus's and thus deserve protection. So being morally opposed to Plan B, but not in-vitro, is a bit of a disconnect.
OT, but LeFigaro is reporting that, on 10 October, a French investigating magistrate, Renaud Van Ruymbeke, officially recorded a possible French prosecution against Richard Cheney regarding irregularities in the eventual awarding of a Nigerian natural gas contract to Halliburton and a French concern, Technip, regarding the "corruption of foreign entities in commerical negotiation." This would mean, I take it, bribing Nigerian public servants. This is the fruit of international convention.
Please, please, please, please, please...
The morning after pill doesn't just prevent implantation, it can prevent fertilization from every occuring. From what I understand, it is really the same process and hormones as birth control pills. And the only reason bc pills aren't over the counter is that their can be effects from long term usage. Anyway, the majority of the people I know who are anti-abortion are not anti-birth control pills, and shouldn't be anti-day after pill.
Will this country ever grow up about shhh [sex]?
Please don't draw a line from Plan B to IVF or I might have to worry about the legality of IVF too. Seriously. Many people do oppose it, and if you were paying attention you would know that Italy just drastically reduced its likely availability and efficacy by measures that are too complex to go into here. Whoever noted that IVF does end up in the destruction of embryos is correct, it often does, although it also more frequently just results in unused, perpetual frozen material. The truth is that Plan B will hardly ever interfere with implantation if used quickly and correctly because fertilization can only occur in a 12-24 hour once a month, and sperm have to be there ready to roll for it to happen.
In the future, radical conservatives will outlaw sexual intercourse entirely, claiming that it is no longer necessary for procreation, since other methods like in-vitro are possible. The morning after pill will be used to save women from fertilizations created the old fashioned way.
It's not about human life, innnocent or otherwise. It's about sex. Sex scares us. We can't control it. It doesn't stay within the box (marriage between a man and a woman). Looking human sexuality in the face, in its multifarious variety, challenges our certainties. Without our prescribed categories, we might have to think! That would be too hard.
Barabara: The point that IVF is a moral problem is that it results in more children, rather than fewer. As does amneocentisis and late-term abortion: more couples are willing to risk difficult pregnancy knowing that they can control the result (reasonably). Couples who can't have kids, do. If the GOP wants to take the stand as the party that advocates perpetually-infertile suburban middle-class white couples, or the spontaneous abortion of multiple pregnancies, hey, I say let it. Like those couples should be forbidden the use of modern medicine because Ralph Reed and the Pope have, you know, qualms.
Terror suspect found hiding 20 feet under White House
Some religious groups strongly opposed IVF. After all, God makes babies! They predicted that babies created in a Petri dish would be born without souls. Some people expected the babies to be born horribly deformed. If you look back to the way IVF was discussed in 1978, people were talking about human-animal hybrids, monstrous babies, eugenics, and all kinds of scary reproductive engineering. But not only was the first IVF baby, Louise Brown, born healthy, thousands more babies were born healthy after her. Now that people have gotten used to it, IVF is accepted as a medical treatment for anyone having difficulty conceiving a baby. Even good Christian parents now use this method to conceive their babies. Catholics are still forbidden to use birth control. How many famlies now have ten to sixteen children? They don't. They use birth control because of the realities of society today. They just don't tell their church. They'll get used to Plan B too.
Brian, I don't understand your point, but I'll elaborate mine. IVF is the micromanipulation of gametes to ensure fertilization, and sometimes implantation. It can result in higher order multiple pregnancies, but usually doesn't anymore, at least not more than triplets, because the technology is now sufficiently sophisticated. There is actually a different technique that is much more likely to result in HOM pgs, because it involves less manipulation. Amniocentesis and the rest of it (nuchal fold scans, CVS, and so on) can and often is performed on just about every pg woman who is 33/34 or over, whether she used IVF to get that way or not. I have often wondered how "selective reduction" could take place with so little fracas, and the reason is that, pure and simple, most people do accept the lifeboat analogy that it's better to save as many as possible. Just as most people think it's reasonably okay to abort a severely deformed fetus. It's easier to demonize a woman who doesn't want to get pg than one who does. It's a good girl/bad girl strategy, it's unfair, and I certainly hope it doesn't work.
Stem cells: hundreds of thousands of fertilized embryos (aka babies) are thrown out or otherwise destroyed annually in IVF procedures and their aftermath. But to use them to actually improve people's lives -- whether to treat Parkinson's or regenerate spinal nerves and enable the pralyzed to walk again* -- excites the vehement opposition of the religious fright. (Motto: always and everywhere doing everything possible to prevent human happiness on this earth; save it for heaven.)
*Jesus said : For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose, and departed to his house.
Since Strom was mentioned, does anyone think that massa's son having sex with a 16-year old maid was in any way consensual?
chimp hater loves a playa: the same way that you kill thousands of innocent Iraqis to give them freedom
Only with less flower-throwing.
.
Michael Kinsley made the same argument a few weeks ago, though it was IVF versus stem cells.
Robert M. Jeffers, you said, "Before microbiology, all anyone saw was semen and blood, so they reasoned that the man had the fertile power (semen), the woman was only soil (for "planting," we still use the term "implantation" in speaking of pregnancy, the semen). So the man gave the woman the 'homunculus,' which she, basically, incubated."
Sort of correct, but to give you a good correction, I'd have to look something up, and I don't feel like it right now. What you've described in Aristotelien reproductive theory (women are women, i.e. defective men, because they didn't cook at high enough a temperature in the womb, and so forth), which really doesn't take in the medieval West until the 13th century. Prior to that, we have Galanic reproductive theory, in which both partners are equal participants. Of course, medical practice _really_ starts to get professional in the 13th century, so there you go.
Love,
Cranky Medievalist
You need medieval answers? I'm your (long-winded) guy.
Well, for anyone who wants to really follow this, I urge you to look at the recommendations of the Presidents Bioethics Panel, which were put out in October. They would outlaw the use of donor sperm and eggs, as well as prohibiting IVF clinics from using frozen embryos for any purpose other than human reproduction (i.e., they would outlaw all research uses not just federally funded ones). I suppose they might try to outlaw IVF as well, if they thought they could get away with it. Just because Plan B opponents aren't protesting today about assisted reproduction doesn't mean it isn't in their sight for tomorrow or the day after. Trashing one humane technology at a time is enough. Besides, if they showed their hands then more people might object. Do you think they don't know that?
If you are interested the bioethics stuff can be found here:
http://www.bioethics.gov/topics/
...tech_index.html
Sorry I don't do links.
Slightly OT: I think a lot of the resistance to using blastocytes for stem cell research is the notion that the instant of conception, when the spermatozoan unites with the ovum to create a zygote, somehow creates a soul so that we have a kind of person, not just undifferentiated cells. I have no idea where this idea originates. It's not scriptural. Someone just made it up, without thinking through the problems. One problem is that the blastocyte can later divide (identical twins). This means an additional soul is required, but the magic instant of conception is already past--so souls must *not* depend on conception after all. And, by the way, the two blastocytes will often merge back together: one person, but now two souls hanging around, so one must be let go.
Even more of a problem: two ova and two spermatozoa, with two conceptions (and thus two souls): fraternal twins. But sometimes these, too, fuse and make one person. How does one choose which soul must be downsized? One potato, two potato? (A fascinating article on this situation can be found in the New Scientist, Nov 15, 2003, page 34.)
It's not that complicated, folks. God just wants us to create more Christians. If a Christian woman decides to help nature along, that's all the better, and if some embryos have to be destroyed, well it can't be helped. There's a limit to how many fetuses even the most godly woman can carry. But when a non-Christian slut takes the morning after pill, she's destroying a potential human being who could have been adopted and raised by a good Christian family.
Will we have to start using the phrase Huxlian now, as in Brave New World?
Yes, Beth.
Also, as previously stated, odedience - good
self determination - bad
As Invigilator said above, it's all about sex. Given current birth control technology, it's impossible to be 100% sure that heterosexual intercourse won't lead to a child being born. Abortion and morning-after pills take away that threat against pre/extramarital or promiscuous sex.
Compare to the 'rape, incest, or life of the mother' exceptions that are often invoked as exceptions to anti-abortion laws. Life of the mother is (or should be) a no-brainer. Rape and incest (where usually incest is with a minor and effectively non-consensual) are ok because the woman didn't _choose_ to have sex in those cases. So as long as you can still say 'if you choose to have sex, you take the risk of having to have a child', killing a fetus is just fine.
-allen
There is no way to square the two positions.
Obligatory 1984 reference:
Doublethink, baby!
we contributed to it too, but many of the shorter comments here are extremely bitter and humorless versions of the Pickler theme posts, with people competing to make obvious the disgusting hypocrisy of date-rapist dekes grown into policy-making but no less mysogynist men. sad and not the thing to use on your indoctrinated relatives.
If Republican men were the only ones who got pregnant, you could get a condom in every Happy Meal, a Morning-After Gumball, and an abortion from a Kwik-Trip.
A.
I can see no real argument against over the counter Plan B.
or:
There is no way to square the two positions.
Sure, try this one on for size:
If you are a woman, and you have sex, you're obliged to have children. Childbirth is the punishment for sex. That's the only argument these religious right types have.
Since in-vitro fertilization doesn't involve sex, it flies under their radar.
There's a new birth control pill for men:
You take it the morning after and it changes your blood type.
kei and yuri, cows do not have litters, they can have twins, and as a city girl, i have never heard of triplets, but what do i know. Pigs have ltters, DOGS have litters. but yes, that front grill on her was scary.
I personally have no biological clock, so i am personally of the mind set that infertal women should just buck up and consider adoption.
but since it IS so accepted now. un-used embryos MUST be used for research, and the fucking religious nuts should shut the fuck up. we no longer live in the 1400's.
so FUCK george and the Jeebus lovers.
I think it's all about controlling women: Plan B and RU-486 can be her sole decision, but in vitro would require her husband's agreement (almost everywhere). If in vitro is indeed widely (and wrongly) assumed to be usually due to the woman's infertility, and the man's need to transmit property to his own undoubted lineage, then we still have a long way to go, baby.
Also, if you think about it, the morning after pill is doing no more than the body often does naturally: less than half of fertilized eggs actually survive long enough to implant, much less establish a pregnancy. So, if a pill that does the same thing is bad and immoral, then you really should lock up every last woman who has ever had sex. Oh the pains of ignorance...
Adam 4-4-2, the morning after pill is available over the counter here in the U.K.. Long may that continue.
Back in college, my roommate's boyfriend's condom broke, and we spent the first few hours that Saturday morning trying to find some doctor or clinic that could give her a prescription for the Morning After Pill. Unsuccessful, we then started doing our own research, since I had a few extra packets of birth control pills lying around (cycle regulation; should have just been giving them to said roommate instead). When we got matching dosages between Princeton's emergency contraception website and the advice from 800-Not-2-Late, I dosed her up: 4 of my medium-powered pills immediately, then 4 12 hours later. She threw up a few hours after taking that second set, but aside from that, no side effects.
At the time, I was still on the fence between pro-choice and pro-life politically (I was and still am quite anti-abortion for myself). I considered it my Christian responsibility to do all in my power to prevent one of my friends from being faced with deciding between an abortion and a pregnancy that would seriously jeapordize her academic career (knowing she'd choose the abortion). I've long considered being very pro-birth control as a primary component of being anti-abortion. If you're anti-birth control and anti-abortion, but not strongly pro-aid for mothers and children (not tied to mouthing the words some group wants you to mouth), you are merely wanting to control the behavior of others.
I could respect anti-birth control/anti-abortion types who want to more fully care for women giving birth in sub-optimal situations, but I have yet to meet anyone who would dramatically increase food stamp, housing and tuition assistance in exchange for the repeal of Roe v. Wade.
The GrOPer fantasy, er, philsophy is this:
1) Until male orgasm, anything goes. Everything from the mildest rudeness, to pinching, to groping, to rape, to gang rape, to sexual servitude, sadism, Christian snuff parties...all of it, pre-orgasm, is fine.
2) Post-orgasm, the guilt must be preserved. But since it is unpleasant and unholy, the woman is naturally designed by god to carry it. And carry it to term, as necessary, even at cost of her life (3/5 a male life in any case). At some point (scripture is not clear on it), guilt becomes a baby.
3) They come out, if the doctors and judges can wrest them from the women in time. Women are otherwise disposed to kill and eat their birth products-- they are devourers. Women must be prevented from devouring successful implantations of male will.
4) Usually the new child is OK, but sometimes God punishes, and they come out looking like guilt, with broken pieces, so it is clear that even God had given up on saving these parents. Birth defects are expressions of God's hatred for human beings. In any case, the father is free to abandon any imperfect (or unwanted) children, because men feel guilt anyhow, so just add it to the list.
5) Even if they come out with the right pieces in the right places, male children should still be cleaned up, removing a crucial piece of atavistic guilt. This is often called 'Removing Arnold's Collar.' Tattooing with numbers and 'barcodes' are also common practices.
6) In-vitro is OK, because glass is clean, unlike vaginas. The womb collects the guilt, which flows from the vagina. From this guilt, God produces products; from the vagina, the Devil produces pleasure. It's a constant battle, and the woman always loses. God hates pleasure, but he wants to fill the wombs with products, because he's got a soul tormenting business going.
7) RU or aren't U? Christians hate people, once they are alive, just as God hates people, once they are dead.
PS: http://ec.princeton.edu, which is the site I mentioned in my last comment. It gives dosages for many common mono-phasic pills sold around the world. However, I'd much prefer that this was silly information to be bothering people with because they could just find the nearest pharmacy and plop down $10 and get a nice package of Plan B or Preven for the asking.
And a giant, humongous WORD goes out to this:
I have yet to meet anyone who would dramatically increase food stamp, housing and tuition assistance in exchange for the repeal of Roe v. Wade.
A Texan in Maryland
You've just encapsulated my problem with being "pro-life" politically. That, and the everlasting conceit of the right that the entirety of the left is just dancing down Main Street shouting "Abortion! Whopee! Gimme two, doc!"
That's why I end up voting with the pro-choicers, though abortion is repellent to me. They seem to want to solve the problem instead of screaming at women who are poor or scared or both.
A.
Like the last few commentors, I'm uncomfortable with abortion, though I consider myself pro=choice. I don't know when life begins, like I don't know if there's a God or not. Since there's no way to prove when life begins and fully refute the pro-lifers' claims of murder, I don't see how this debate can end. Really, in a civilized, educated world, there shouldn't be any unwanted pregnancies in the first place. It's really not that hard to use birth control, especially considering that people who aren't in serious committed relationships should always be using condoms.
Awesome, Texan. Best post of the thread, at least.
ain't the politics of sex fascinating?
the problem with pro-life/pro-choice is just that: its really two different arguments. As far as I've seen, pro-choicers argue for the woman's right to have a choice whereas pro-lifers argue that you are killing a baby. So its really hard to get to a point where there can be any sort of headway or discourse, because one side is focused on rights and the other on whether a fetus (or embryo) is a life or not. That's why its so hard for many to "pick a side", IMHO. I too have the problem of being a liberal who feels obscenely uncomfortable with abortion, and like someone else said, i think if it came down to it, I'd be anti abortion for myself, but as athanae pointed out, i usually end up on the pro-choice side because of all the underlying class unfairness issues. Lets just all be careful with our penises and vaginae, ok?? 
Seraphiel on 12.20.03@6:29 pm:
"In vitro fertilization has a higher likelihood of multiple births, thus increasing the amount of fodder for Georgie's Holy PNAC Empire ..."
YOU ARE A LEGENT SERAPHIEL! My thoughts precisely. The cannon fodder for future wars has to come from somewhere after all ...
Thanks for putting my thoughts into words!
Man, this thread's still going. Just to toss my $0.02 in here, I seem to recall reading somewhere that one of the books of the Apocrypha (Talabamian response: Apocra-what?) stated clearly and unequivocally that the soul was to enter the baby at the moment of birth, when the baby takes its first breath. Damned if I can recall which book, at 4 in the morning, though.
Still, I don't think it'd settle them down anymore than Jesus' muted response to the centurion and his 'very special' male slave quiets them down on homer sexuals..
"every sperm is sacred..."
is there any doubt that women are still relegated to 2nd class citizens? If women were in power - do you think that there would be ANY controversy regarding these types of drugs?
There should be similar outrage from the right regarding intrauterine devices (IUDs) which prevent fertilized ova from implanting in the uterus.
The answer to this and similar questions is that it's somehow different when the right benefit by it. Many have noted the silencing of moral outrage over IVF because many religious people have benefitted by it. The same thing will happen with stem cell research and Plan B, eventually.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm always offered a prescription at my doctor's appointments.
Pardon me for coming off all snarky, but &; Great, just what we need. More rich, suburban white people. Sterilize 'em all! In a generation or so when they all die out, watch North America become a nicer place.&;
Seriously, though, I think looking for consistency of position here is a waste of effort. These people don't operate according to the rules of logic, and must be naturally immune to cognitive dissonance (therefore?).
I see your problem, Atrios...you're making a common mistake: assuming that "pro-lifers" (or pro-birthers, as they should more rightly be called, because their concern for humans ends after birth) are bound by the same rules of hypocricy as sane, ethical people.
IV methods create more babies...that's all they care about. Those more than 120,000 children in the US waiting to be adopted...screw em! They're already alive, so who cares. We've got to make MORE babies, damnit!
Why? Well...that's the big question. Don't try coming at their position from a perspective of reason...you'll just give yourself a headache.
Interesting conversation at this time of the year when many people acknowledge 'the virgin birth' -- there was a time, centuries ago, when men did not know their role in this whole process -- read Jean Auel's "Clan of the Cave Bear". And interesting that these small-minded people who don't even acknowledge scientific progress for most things, at this point have to acknowledge it for their own point of view, but shut the door quickly for others' points of view. I remember when IVF was first touted as a silver lining for those who couldn't conceive the regular way --- there was some outcry from the right at that time, but they didn't have the manipulative power they do now. There's no doubt that if IVF were just being discovered, rather than a 25-y-o technology, it would be different.
I wonder if the twins are still virgins?
No one should get to second guess a woman's reproductive choices. Which means taking OTC emergency BCPs or deciding at the age of 45 to roll the dice with IVF, with or without donor sperm or eggs, or adopting. You all seem to assume that IVF is considered to be okay by the American Life League (or whoever it is that testified at the FDA hearing). Many pro-lifers are adamently against IVF, and their fondest hope is to get a definition of "human person" via things like opposing the morning after pill that will then be used to go after lots of other things, like IVF. OTOH, many pro-life groups are truly not against either IVF or the morning after pill. There's a pro-life group whose main mission is to facilitate the "adoption" of frozen embryos. And for Christ's sake, stop getting your information on birth control from the RC Church, the organization that is most likely to disseminate inaccurate info to make it seem evil and risky -- the IUD is more likely to block fertilization than implantation (studies have been done on this), and most IUDs have low dose progesterone, which definitely blocks fertilization.
There was a time in my life when I needed the morning after pill and couldn't get it. There was another time in my life when I needed IVF. All of these should be available to women who want and need them.
I highly recommend Kathy Rudy's "Beyond Pro-Life and Pro-Choice."
"A Handmaid's Tale" is their playbook, folks.
And Texan got it right. Once the baby's born they do not give one thin damn -- I have had them tell me this over and over and over and over again.
"Why should I have to prove that I'm pro-life by caring about someone else's unwanted brat?"
Well, boys and girls -- there you have it. It's not about the baby's life: it's about punishing the woman.
If men could get pregnant, birth control and abortion would be as uncontroversial as aspirin, and people who opposed abortion would have the same status as people who think the earth is flat.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
