Boots & Sabers - The blogging will continue until morale improves...

Behold The Beauty of HD | Home | Hitler's a Cowboys Fan

Friday, January 18, 2008

Mailing Plastic Babies

Peggy Bell didn’t know what to do with the tiny plastic fetus she received in the mail, so she recycled it.

The 51-year-old insurance agent said she wasn’t going to send it back to the anti-abortion group that mailed it to her.

The Racine chapter of Wisconsin Right to Life sent the plastic statues and literature to Bell and other city residents to mark next Tuesday’s anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.

[...]

She found the plastic fetus in her mailbox Tuesday in a manila mailer addressed to “Resident.” The model of a roughly 2-inch fetus came with a card detailing the development of an 11- to 12-week-old “pre-born.”

Posted by Owen at 0710 hrs

(0) Trackbacks

Culture + Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

Add | Remove

Way to far in my opinion.

While I agree with the message, mailing something like this is just taking things over the top.

And I as well as LOTS AND LOTS of other people do not take kindly to this type of in your face advertising.
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 0815 hrs

I don’t think it’s all that outrageous. But I do think it’s a completely wasted effort. Nobody who doesn’t already share the pro-life worldview is going to be swayed by receiving a plastic fetus in the mail. If they think this kind of thing actually furthers their cause, they’re even more delusional than I thought.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 0906 hrs

I consider myself to be pro-life… but I get SO pissed at the pro-life crew when they do whacko stuff like this. I suppose this isn’t super bad, but I really detest the placards of aborted babies up and down city streets during the warmer months. I don’t want my daughter to see those.
Posted by Fuzz on January 18, 2008 at 0909 hrs

Maybe next time they should send it dripping in blood, that will really get their point across.
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 0913 hrs

Yeah. If their point is that they’re a bunch of nut cases.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 0918 hrs

Too far!
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1017 hrs

I thought about writing on this when my plastic baby came in the mail on saturday.

Then I thought, the pro baby killers will be rabid, the anti-baby killers will shrug their shoulders.

Why bother.

I made the right choice.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1120 hrs

Too far and a waste of resources. But Fred’s right.
Posted by tee bee on January 18, 2008 at 1123 hrs

But what about the people who like to eat babies for breakfast, Fred? We don’t shrug, we salivate.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 1147 hrs

If the idea is to sway minds and change things .. too far. If the idea was to irritate and annoy then it’s spot on.
Posted by Brian on January 18, 2008 at 1151 hrs

Send the literature, but don’t send the plastic fetus. I am pro-life and think it’s a bit too far.
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1201 hrs

The voice of reason winds up being Mr Pelican Pants?

Hell is freezing over.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1211 hrs

Fred,
Nobody is a “pro baby killer.” The people on that side of the debate ususally disagree about whether it’s a baby. Even if you think they’re wrong on that issue, you’re still mischaracterizing how they feel about “killing babies.”

I think this promotion is annoying. People like this shouldn’t send me ANYTHING. I don’t want it. At least with their annoying literature I can put it in the return envelopes for all the damn credit card offers I get.
Posted by Jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 18, 2008 at 1213 hrs

I’d mail a dead pig fetus back.
Posted by Kristopher on January 18, 2008 at 1230 hrs

Oh come on JIJARWM. Fred would never mischaracterize anything. That would not be in the spirit of a fair debate. We all know Fred is 100% committed to “real debate”.

I am just kidding Fred.

I hope you know I was just teasing with that whole insult thing. I did not mean to step over any boundaries. I meant to be somewhat ironic with my out of line remark. I was intentionally throwing out a ridiculous slam, which I never had a history of doing, to draw attention to the abuse that was habitually thrown around. I can see how it was hurtful and I apologize. I don’t think you are a dolt, and you are probably not that old. The other two were just plain rude. Certainly not something that I would think deserve a ban, but hey it is your place and you can control your “debate” anyway that you see fit.
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1240 hrs

Tell you what 3rd way, start your own thing and make your own rules.

You role into my joint and lay down a nasty insult and then want to make me the bad guy?

Have the courtesy to do it to my face please instead of dragging Owen’s place ino your bad behavior. I’m sure he does not want it.

Owen, my apologies.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1254 hrs

JIJARWM.

I know you will not get this, but to pro-life persons that 11 week old in the womb is not a zygote or an embryo or a non-viable tissue mass, it is a baby. An innocent little child doing nothing but trying to survive and thrive.

To persons not in favor of infanticide people who support the whole abortion on demand society we live in are pro baby killing. That is exactly how that segment views that behavior and those in favor of that behavior.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1300 hrs

Fred, I know you don’t get this, but to us baby-killer-types, a fertilized human egg is not a person, and it does not merit the same moral or legal considerations due to you and me.

I still maintain that the majority of pro-lifers aren’t really about abortion or babies--they’re about sex, and controlling who can have it, and making darned sure that there are dire consequences for those who do it outside of their rules. This is the only motivation that actually fits their behavior.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 1303 hrs

I get that Scott, you think I’m crazy, I think you are evil and we will likely never move beyond that on this subject.

That is the entire reason why when I got that letter and the little plastic baby in the mail I made the choice to not even write about it as in the end we’d be calling each other names and never finding any common groud.

I think I made the right choice.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1312 hrs

Back to the original question, I have never been confronted with a plastic doll in my mailbox, so I am unsure as to how I would react. I can tell you that I agree with Fuzz (comment #3) wholeheartedly. The pictures of aborted fetuses is not something I want my seven year old seeing.
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1312 hrs

I too apologize Owen.

I just wanted to take the opportunity to address Fred and apologize in public. I would do that at his place, but I was banned. I never did and I never will try and tell you how to run your place Fred. I did not appreciate how you conduct your “debate” and I vowed not to return. Again I am sorry for the rude manner in which I said goodbye, it was in poor judgement.

I don’t wish to discuss that incident any furter, I am sorry that we had to put a damper on Owen’s party with such foolishness. I usually attempt to be a gracious guest.

Back to the point at hand…

A fetus is a fetus. Look it up in a medical dictionary. It cannot survive outside of its mothers womb. It is not a baby.
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1312 hrs

If you are going to call people “baby killers” or anything of the like, you then bear the burden of proving that fetus’s are babies. Your belief notwithstanding, throwing the term around without backing it up is fairly idiotic. It skips the debate in favor of a cheap shot.

Sending a fetus in the mail, aside from being in poor taste, isn’t any better. It’s poor marketing, it’s rude, and it does not advance the argument.

I guess it makes the point that, at a certain stage of development not specified, a fetus sort of looks like a baby. However, by that logic, we also should not kill the plastic fetus that came in the mail.
Posted by PaulNoonan on January 18, 2008 at 1321 hrs

My email is not so hard to find 3rd Way, nice try.

If you had an ounce of class you would have tried to reach out and apologize, instead you ran around and got every left wing attack site to come after me because of your bad behavior.

Now you offer mock apologies interlaced with snark on other sites.

So us all a favor, drop it.

If you are serious email me and we can discuss it like adults.

Apologies again Owen.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1321 hrs

I still maintain that the majority of pro-lifers aren’t really about abortion or babies--they’re about sex, and controlling who can have it, and making darned sure that there are dire consequences for those who do it outside of their rules. This is the only motivation that actually fits their behavior.

And you base this on what scott?

Your feelings?

The whole statement about controlling sex, and consequences thing on its very face is contradictory.

See typically those of us on the conservative side also believe that there should be consequences for our actions.

One of the consequences of sex is the possibility of conception.

This is why typically they will not choose abortion. -Notice I said typically-

What I find truly amazing is that Libs on the other hand have NO problem with the Government banning trans-fats and twinkies in school, and yet when it comes to abortion their battle cry suddenly becomes You have no right to tell us what we can and cannot do with our bodies.
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1327 hrs

Have you ever had to consile a parent who could not carry a child to term Paul?

I can assure you to that parent that fetus (as you would call it) is very much a child, their child. Would you possibly be that cruel to tell them “hey buck up, no sorrow that was not a baby, that was a fetus.” That’s pretty cruel.

The left has built in this marvelous defense mechanism to rationalize baby killing by pretending that mass, or fetus or zygote or whatever they want to call it is. This mailing obviously challenges that assumption.

People don’t like their assumptions challenged, hence the outrage.

I think of abortion as killing an innocent child. You think of abortion as discarding an non viable tissue mass.

Rationalize it as you will, I’ll never be able to understand it.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1329 hrs

For the record Scott, I have never even considered your hypothesis.

I wish people would choose adoption over abortion.

Killing that innocent life is WRONG it pretty much ends there.

It has nothing to do with sex.

Your point is confused I bet because many persons who are opposed to abortion prefer promoting abstinence over condoms. You obviously see that as some massive intrusion into persons sex lives.

One certain thing, abstinence has worked every time it has been tried.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1340 hrs

It’s too bad that we can’t package and send in an envelope what it feels like to have a baby in the womb.

To feel it turn, move and kick so hard it wakes you up at night. To feel the hic-cups that sometimes go on for an hour. To hear the heart beat every four weeks at the doctor appointment. To see the heartbeat on the ultrsound screen at just six weeks. To see the arms, legs and toes furiously moving around at 16 weeks. To watch blood pump through all four chambers of the babies heart. Maybe then…

If that experience could be packages in an envelope and mailed, then I would pay the postage.
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1343 hrs

Fred, I don’t like using emotion to judge something as serious as life and death. By your example, if I started to think of you (or anyone else) as a non-human and genuinely felt that you were not, had no emotional attachment, etc., that killing you would be OK. I’m not really cool with the implications of that logic.

It’s sad when a couple who intended to have a baby suffers from nature’s abortion, but it does not speak to whether or not the fetus/baby was actually a live human being. It is the perspective of the fetus/baby that must be considered, not the perspective of the parents.

The parents rights are a seperate issue.
Posted by PaulNoonan on January 18, 2008 at 1358 hrs

And you base this on what scott?

Your feelings?

No, I base it on my observations of the behavior and statements of pro-lifers. Consider: if you tell them that sex ed and contraceptives are more effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies (and thus abortions), they aren’t interested. Even when you hypothetically (as I did on my own blog) ask them if they would press a magic button making it so that no woman ever became pregnant unless she wanted to no matter how sexually active she was, they say no--they would not push it.

Ergo, they aren’t primarily interested in preventing unwanted pregnancies and abortions. They are more interested in a) making everyone subscribe to their view of who should be having sex and for what purpose, and b) making sure that there are dire consequences (such as disease and unwanted pregnancies) for those who do not adhere to it.

If there’s a better explanation, I’d like to hear it.

those of us on the conservative side also believe that there should be consequences for our actions.

You see? That’s exactly what I’m talking about. You want there to be risks and negative consequences for having sex for any purpose but married procreation. No solution will please you if it reduces those risks--even if that solution prevents abortions. I rest my case.

If someone wanted to have a thoughtful discussion on when a fertilized egg becomes a person deserving our full moral consideration and legal protection, I’d love to have that discussion. Undoubtedly, we would discuss fetal development and what constitutes personhood--and we would probably admit that this is a process that occurs gradually over the gestation period. Perhaps we would find some agreeable places to draw lines, saying “at this stage, this is what moral and legal considerations are appropriate” and “at this other stage, a different set of rules will apply.” And we would base them on our best understanding of human development.

We would not say things like “baby killer” and walk way. Nor would we mail plastic fetuses to each other. Such a discussion is by no means impossible. We could choose to have it. I just find very few people actually want to.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 1446 hrs

Fred,
I only took issue with your characterization of one side as pro baby killing. “Pro” means “in favor of.” It refelcts how that person feels about something, not how you feel about it. Pro-choice people are not in favor of killing babies because they don’t believe that a zygote is a baby. Even if they’re wrong about that, their mental state can not be described as being in favor of killing babies unless they believe the thing being killed is a baby. It really is that simple.

So why not use more honest terms? Why not call the two sides pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights? Afterall, the issue is whether such a thing is a right, isn’t it?
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 18, 2008 at 1459 hrs

Even when you hypothetically (as I did on my own blog) ask them if they would press a magic button making it so that no woman ever became pregnant unless she wanted to no matter how sexually active she was, they say no--they would not push it.

Ergo, they aren’t primarily interested in preventing unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

Hey Scott, questionable cause arguments don’t work on thinking people.

If there’s a better explanation, I’d like to hear it.

No you wouldn’t. You’re quite happy with your little conclusion and then grouping everyone into your little picture of reality.
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1611 hrs

I’m sure asking a question on Scott’s blog is a fair scientific sample.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1613 hrs

So can either of you jokers answer his question?
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 18, 2008 at 1615 hrs

You see? That’s exactly what I’m talking about. You want there to be risks and negative consequences for having sex for any purpose but married procreation. No solution will please you if it reduces those risks--even if that solution prevents abortions. I rest my case.

Perhaps someone would like to inform scott that marriage, does not automatically cure venereal disease? anymore than marriage prevents abortions. Besides marriage is when sex stops remember?

If someone wanted to have a thoughtful discussion on when a fertilized egg becomes a person deserving our full moral consideration and legal protection, I’d love to have that discussion.

BULLSHIT!! -Sorry Owen and Wendy- Every time someone says they believe an egg becomes human at conception, you accuse us of being religious right wing zealots.

So NO that is not a conversation you are willing to have. Why not just come out and admit that?

Nor would we mail plastic fetuses to each other. Such a discussion is by no means impossible. We could choose to have it. I just find very few people actually want to.

Perhaps you would like to go back to the beginning and reread the comments? Everyone of us said it goes entirely too far. So what point are you trying to make by making it sound as though
we are all condoning this behavior?
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1617 hrs

As a pro-baby-killing Democrat, I read about the latest news that abortions (baby kiiling) is at its lowest point in decades.

I truly believe that this is an accurate news item. Have any of you dealt with any of the stupid clerks in stores lately?

Too bad the abortion rate is down. For the sake of my sanity, WE NEED MORE ABORTIONS!

More abortions-fewer stupid young store clerks
(With thanks to J. Lott)
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1629 hrs

Normally, I don’t get into these debates because neither side EVER changes their minds… EVER… but my question to the pro-choice crowd is this: do you honestly believe that a human does not become a human until they pop out of the womb? That somehow, mysteriously, a fetus does not have a conscious until they are exposed to air and light? There is obviously some remnant of brain function as soon as the fetus’s heart starts beating. So, if there is a brain telling the heart to beat - how could you assume that the fetus is not having any other humanly thoughts? Because it hasn’t had any outer-womb experiences yet? If that’s the case, then a fetus is not a human just as Barrack Obama is not a politician. ZING.

Seriously, though, if a fetus’s heart stops beating in the womb, it is considered, “dead.” At that point, they pull the lifeless fetus from the mother’s womb - a D&C;. If a fetus isn’t “alive,” in the first place, then why bother calling it dead? Why bother removing it?
Posted by Fuzz on January 18, 2008 at 1633 hrs

As warned for many years since abortion was legalized, euthansia is now coming to Wisconsin Senate for debate.

Could you warn people about this threat?

PS: How fitting that the access word for submission is hell.
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1644 hrs

A fetus is a fetus. Look it up in a medical dictionary. It cannot survive outside of its mothers womb. It is not a baby.

Take that in the other direction now… A person is in an accident, and can’t survive off of life support. There’s every indication that they will get better and be able to leave the “womb”, but since they’re wholly dependent at this specific point in time, they’re not a person? I understand your sentiment, 3rdWay, but just find the explanation of it a little simplistic and flawed.

For the record, this is me playing Devil’s Advocate. I can see two sides to the debate, although mine does come down on the side of the baby.
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1651 hrs

I usually avoid this debate at all costs. I don’t think it is worth having because it is bound to degrade into people being pissed off. (see Fred, again we agree on something).

It all revolves around the question Fuzz asked. Since he asked it here goes… One side has their stance about a microscopic collection of cells having the same rights as a human and the other side is a little fuzzier on when humanness really begins. I usually take a cop-out and say I don’t have an opinion because this is a woman’s issue, and I as a male don’t have a right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. I do believe foremost in civil rights (of humans) and that a woman should have a right to choose whether or not she wants to stop a biological process taking place in her body.

On the otherhand as a parent it is hard not to feel that aborting a wiggling little preperson with little fingers and toes is not wrong. So the question is where is the line where preperson collection of cells ends and little person with rights begins. My logic tells me it is the moment when the fetus can survive outside of the womb. I am no expert but I would assume that happens somewhere around half way through the process. At any other point I don’t see how it can be qualifed as a life, it is a potential life.

I will now commence my path straight to hell.
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1654 hrs

I do not know when human life begins, nor do any of you. However, I do know when human life has not yet begun with 100% certitude. Before an ebryo has developed a brain, that embryo is not human. You are nothing without your brain. When your brain stops functioning, you are dead.

I think not, therefore I am not.
Posted by PaulNoonan on January 18, 2008 at 1654 hrs

Michael, I stand by every word of what I said in comment 29 above, even if you seem to think I don’t really mean it. I can assure you I do. I’m still waiting for an answer to my questions, too.

but my question to the pro-choice crowd is this: do
you honestly believe that a human does not become a human until they pop
out of the womb?

An interesting and fair question. I’ll hedge and say this: personhood doesn’t go from zero to 100% at the moment of birth, no. That is to say, it’s gradual and takes place over time during gestation. It may agree, however, that full personhood does not occur until the moment of birth, though. But that doesn’t mean that the fetus is a zero and totally unworthy of any consideration at 8.9 months gestation.

If you think that’s a bullshit answer, let’s see if you can do better. Is a just-fertilized human egg a person? I mean, can you really look a person in the eye and say that a microscopic single-celled entity is their moral and legal equal?

Not fair? I think it’s quite as fair as your question to me was.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 1659 hrs

Paul: an interesting comment worthy of discussion…
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 1700 hrs

Fuzz,
I don’t. I’d say my answer to your question is close to Paul’s. I waiver back and forth between “when it has a brain” and “when it can survice outside the womb.” I would definately say that it’s some point before it is actually born, but well after “conception.” But as Paul noted, none of us actually knows the answer.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 18, 2008 at 1706 hrs

Now if we can just get a conservative to agree that a microscopic bundle of cells does not have the same rights as the rest of us we can call the nobel people and let them know that we are all worthy of the peace prize.
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1710 hrs

Actually, Michael, nobody in this entire thread mentioned religion at all or religious right wing zealot until you did.

And Scott’s not trying to make it sound as if anyone here is condoning the sending out of these little plastic fetuses. Stop trying to confuse the issue.

If someone wanted to have a thoughtful discussion on when a fertilized egg becomes a person deserving our full moral consideration and legal protection, I’d love to have that discussion.

This is the point where you inserted an epithet and changed the subject. Now, want to try again?
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1712 hrs

I don’t think we have to know with absolute certainty. We know a lot about physical development. We know a lot about the interests of pregnant women. I’d say we have enough information to draw some lines in that proverbial sand. If we revisit them later with newer information, so be it.

Some may want to take the uncertainty and lean all our decisions in favor of fetal personhood, others may take that same set of unknowns and want to lean it the other way. But that’s still a debate we can have. It’s a way forward.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 1712 hrs

22 weeks is the earliest a premie has survived.
Posted by Fred on January 18, 2008 at 1716 hrs

Ok, this will likely tick many of you off, I am assuming the majority of you are men and therefore I refer to my comment #27.

Reading the previous discussion of viability and brain development, etc. I just wonder if you were able to experience what I described if you would think about this in a totally different way.

Just wondering…
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1718 hrs

A fair point, but I would argue that survival does not really speak to the issue of personhood.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 1718 hrs

Well, KT, we’re not women, nor are we going to become them for the purposes of this discussion. Like it or not, men and women have to grapple with these decisions together. If there’s something we men are not getting, or that you want better represented in the discussion, lay it on us.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 1720 hrs

All right the pro-baby killers had their say…

Anti-baby killers: does a microscopic collection of cells have the same rights as I do?
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1720 hrs

Scott,
Your discussion of your magic button post reminded me of our little side conversation there. I think we left off with a few unanswered questions from me to you:

http://www.scottfeldstein.net/blog/?p=1747
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 18, 2008 at 1721 hrs

Scott, I figured you would be unable to look at this from another perspective…

I tried.

I have often asked pro-choice women if they change their view after having a child, of the ones that said no, all of them said, “well no, but I would never have an abortion.” To which I would reply, why not? At this point, they would be speechless.

I knew, and they knew what was about to come out of their mouth.

Enough said.
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1736 hrs

Stop trying to confuse the issue.

Please forgive me pjr, for I have done something that only Libs are allowed to do. What ever can I do to ever get back into your good graces? I will never be able to sleep at night knowing that pjr may be a little upset with me. :sarcasm off:

Ok anyway on to scotts magic button issue. (What the hell made scott so important that he gets a magic button anyway?)

I say no, because if you want to be consistent you also need to believe that you have the power to kill somebody on the other end of the life cycle. -as in when is it OK to take someone off life support-
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1746 hrs

Mike,
How about when they don’t have a brain? e.g. Terry Schaivo. But that’s not really relevant to the button thing. More to the abortion issue in general.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 18, 2008 at 1756 hrs

I say no, because if you want to be consistent you also need to believe that you have the power to kill somebody on the other end of the life cycle.

Someone on life support has more rights because they have achieved life. A fetus has not yet achieved life. (see comments above)
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1758 hrs

How about when they don’t have a brain? e.g. Terry Schaivo.

Somebody sucked out her brain? When did this happen?

Seriously though the answer is still no.

Would somebody also answer MY question? Why does scott get a magic button?
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1802 hrs

Would somebody also answer MY question? Why does scott get a magic button?

Don’t we all have magic buttons? I thought those were standard issue.
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 1806 hrs

Nobody sucked out her brain, but if you saw her CAT Scan, you’d know that her brain was basically mush.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 18, 2008 at 1812 hrs

And as Paul noted:

“I think not, therefore I am not.”
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 18, 2008 at 1813 hrs

“I think not, therefore I am not.”

So if we conclude that a lunatic has lost the ability to think, can we go ahead and kill him?

I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned DNA. Wouldn’t having unique human DNA classify as being a unique human?
Posted by Owen on January 18, 2008 at 1850 hrs

Someone on life support has more rights because they have achieved life. A fetus has not yet achieved life. (see comments above)

Define “achieved life.” That one sperm achieved at fertilizing the egg. Upon that achievement, that little cluster of cells achieved the ability to develop into an organism capable of thinking, pumping blood, hiccuping, etc. Hell, that’s about the extent of the achieving some lowly “people” do in their lives.

If we don’t technically know if the little cluster of cells is alive or not… then why shouldn’t he or she be given the benefit of the doubt instead of being executed first? We don’t execute people who have committed crimes against humanity without first knowing if they’re guilty or not - so how can you kill a little person based solely on what stage of development he or she is at? “I don’t know if it’s alive or not… let’s just kill it and find out.” No offense, but that’s kind of a redneck viewpoint, in my opinion. Honestly, it surprises me to hear the pro-choice argument out of people whose stances are normally so socially motivated. It’s almost the antithesis of their whole being. “Stop the war, stop the violence, don’t kill anybody… except for those harmless little pukes.”
Posted by Fuzz on January 18, 2008 at 1918 hrs

Wouldn’t having unique human DNA classify as being a unique human?

My fingernal clippings have my unique DNA in them. They are not human, are they? And it actually takes some time before the sperm-egg hybrid moves from two-DNA strands to one individual within the zygote. Hence putting a few more angels on the pin: If the fertilized egg to be “aborted” with, say, Plan B, still has its parent nuclei instead of its own, is it taking a life?

On another note: KT brought up the fact that most of you all discussing this are men (as am I). In that, it seems most of you have forgotten that, regardless of your view on when life begins, there is a real, live, walking, talking, autonomous person involved in an abortion. Should not her status and ability to live her life (and control her body) be a part of this conversation?

That’s why it’s called pro-choice: KT is surprised that someone pro-choice would say “I would never have an abortion.” That’s not the point. The point is that it’s not my place to make that very persona decision for you.
Posted by folkbum on January 18, 2008 at 1937 hrs

Owen,
Lunatics still think, just not rationally. They still have feelings. Right Fred?
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 18, 2008 at 1957 hrs

Folkbum said, “there is a real, live, walking, talking, autonomous person involved in an abortion. Should not her status and ability to live her life (and control her body) be a part of this conversation? “

Lucky that her mother gave her that “status and ability to live her life” when she decided not end her life and abort her.

Also, I am not surprised that a pro-choice person would say, “I would never have an abortion” I am surprised at why they can’t give a reason of “why not” when asked.
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 2008 hrs

There seems to be a great deal of confusion about the magic button. The button has nothing to do with abortion or euthanasia. It is about contraception. I’ll say it again:

If there was a magic button that would make it so that no woman ever became pregnant unless she explicitly wished to, would you push it?

It’s basically asking if you had the means to provide 100% perfect contraception, to eliminate entirely the problem of unwanted pregnancy would you push it? The catch is, it would work no matter how much sex a woman had. She’d never become pregnant as a result of it unless she explicitly desired to have a child.

Would you push it?

You could pretty much eliminate the desire for abortion (leaving aside for the moment that some abortions are done for reasons other than that the pregnancy was unwanted). If you pushed it, abortions would drop to nearly zero.

But if you pushed it, the risk of unwanted pregnancy would disappear from sexual activity, leaving people to have sex without that worry over their heads.

My previous discussions about the magic button have found that pro-lifers say they would not push it. And this to me indicates that they are primarily concerned about preserving the risks of sexual activity, and not--as they would lead you to believe--concerned about preventing abortions.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 2038 hrs

It’s basically asking if you had the means to provide 100% perfect contraception, to eliminate entirely the problem of unwanted pregnancy would you push it? The catch is, it would work no matter how much sex a woman had. She’d never become pregnant as a result of it unless she explicitly desired to have a child.

OK I’ll play along again.

My answer is still No.

leaving people to have sex without that worry over their heads.

Not to sure about anyone else, but when I’m having sex, the last thing I’m thinking about is getting her pregnant. But thats just me.

if you had the means to provide 100% perfect contraception,

I sure wouldn’t be announcing it here...and I’d be stinking filthy rich!

Again on a serious note I still would not be pushing that button.
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 2054 hrs

After you answer Scott’s magic button question please answer the one I have not heard an answer to. Does a microscopic collection of cells (zygote) have the same rights as I do?
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 2103 hrs

Yes, please explain why you would not push the button. Don’t be shy or glib. Write like the wind. Consider me fascinated. I really would like to hear a lengthy exposition on why a pro-lifer would not push the magic button.
Posted by scott on January 18, 2008 at 2108 hrs

And this to me indicates that they are primarily concerned about preserving the risks of sexual activity, and not--as they would lead you to believe--concerned about preventing abortions.

The discussion you had on your blog had 1 out of 23 posts that support your conclusion. You have other people who have simply said no… and most of those felt that if there had been a magic button, they would not be alive today. Your entire “magic button” fantasy is a fallacy. You cannot draw the conclusion you have, but having people tell you “YES” or “NO”.

You’ve chosen the outcome, and have framed a question around getting the results you want. Talk about putting the cart in front of the horse!
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 2111 hrs

Yes, please explain why you would not push the button. Don’t be shy or glib. Write like the wind. Consider me fascinated. I really would like to hear a lengthy exposition on why a pro-lifer would not push the magic button.

There seems to be a little too much eagerness on scotts part here. Which tells me there will be a research paper done on this very topic, which leads me to this question,

Am I being compensated?
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 2119 hrs

I always get suspicious when scott goes from confrontational to “nice” on a topic like this!
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 2122 hrs

Does a microscopic collection of cells (zygote) have the same rights as I do?
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 2124 hrs

Does a microscopic collection of cells (zygote) have the same rights as I do?

Yes, including the right to drive. Want some case law citations to prove it? LOL
Posted by on January 18, 2008 at 2132 hrs

Owen, the mantally ill do think. I’m not even asking for the line I’m drawing to deal with the quality of thinking. I’m talking brain activity. If you do not know whether or not you are alive, you are not alive. Simple as that. How could you?
Posted by PaulNoonan on January 18, 2008 at 2344 hrs

What if I’m delusional and think I’m dead? Can you kill me?

I’m just ribbing. Here’s my position on abortion, if you’re interested.

http://www.bootsandsabers.com/index.php/weblog/permalin k/right_to_life/
Posted by Owen on January 19, 2008 at 0004 hrs

I mean, can you really look a person in the eye and say that a microscopic single-celled entity is their moral and legal equal?

Not only that, Scott, but in your case, I can unhesitatingly deem that “microscopic single-celled entity the moral superior.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on January 19, 2008 at 0010 hrs

Unlike some people, I am certain when life begins and ends. It is when the master creator, God,decides to begin to create his work of art, his masterpiece of a human.Sex doesn’t do it alone, but God puts it all together and begins to form the shape, and at times he may change his mind, or alter the form, or prolong the life for whatever reason, but in the end it’s up to Him, and we don’t have much power to do anything once he makes up His mind. We can try to stop His plan, or try to work with His plan, but we can be pretty selfish, but He knows this already...remember He made us.
It’s a battle of wills, and control, and one that people will probably never be united in agreement.How about we agree to disagree and try to be civil with one another? This does not mean one has to give up his/her beliefs...just not be attacked for having them. We are unique, individual creations, masterminded by a creative genius, so we all have some good traits, mixed in with some bad, and none of us are a finished,perfect product but still in the process of coming into our total masterpiece.We are molded and shaped by how we choose to act and live each day.I choose to believe that life is in God’s hands, and He has our best interests at heart. We could die in a minute or in 40 years, but what we do with the time we have been given should be our focus.Peace out.
Posted by on January 19, 2008 at 0931 hrs

Wow Alicia, you’re really arrogant.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 19, 2008 at 1008 hrs

Calvin, I’m being serious. I notice a lot of responses that are high on snark and personal attacks, but very low on relevance. You hate me, okay I get that. But do you care to respond to my comments?

Alicia, if your understanding of the world leads you to believe that abortion is wrong and that a single-celled entity is the equal of you and me, fine. But what you must understand is this. Your belief is based purely on matters of faith, not fact. That being the case, you have no right to expect anyone else to adhere to it. That’s called religious freedom. You can live according to your articles of faith, but nobody else is compelled to. Not in America, anyway.

So far only Jason has tried to really answer the question of the magic button. Nobody else on the pro-life side wants to explain to everyone why they would not push it? As far as Jason’s comments go, I’m unsatisfied with them. He points out that in the discussion on my blog most respondents said no to the button. Well, so what? This isn’t a popularity contest. It’s not a vote. It’s why, and what it says about your motivations. As far as people saying they would not be here if contraception were 100% accurate, I dealt with that illogic on my own blog:

I think it’s silly to play that game with yourself. My own two children were surprises. I love them both dearly. But that wouldn’t stop me from pressing the button. Do I think that if someone had pressed it in 1989 that they “wouldn’t be here”? Might as well ask if they would be better off if their mother and I had had them later in life when we planned for it. Works both ways. Me, I think it’s best not to think about the past like this too hard. The question is about the future, after all. And romanticizing surprise children because you love your own does a grave disservice to the future and to rationality itself.

So my question remains: if you say no to the button, please explain why. It would virtually eliminate abortion, yet you would not push it. Why not?
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 1149 hrs

JIJARWM calling someone arrogant.

That’s rich.
Posted by on January 19, 2008 at 1246 hrs

And completely accurate.

But still, no answer on the button issue…

I’m about to declare victory and abandon the discussion. I’m about to declare it “proved” that you pro-life non-button-pushers are indeed more interested in controlling sexuality than you are in preventing abortion.

Anyone care to challenge that conclusion?
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 1250 hrs

Sure Scotty, I’ll be happy to.

You’ll declare victory anyway, you always do.

It is a matter of faith. We believe life begins at conception. You’’ll call that irrational, JIJARWM will call it supid (that is what he always says in matters of faith).

It is kind of like your faith in global warming even though global temperature has remained constant over the last 7 years.

Your side has built in a defense mechanism by refusing to believe that is life so you can rationalize killing innocents wrapped up in a nifty word, “choice”.

It is my choice to abort (kill) that innocent (unfeeling) zygote (baby).

It is all a matter of faith.

Not sex.

Faith.

Right and wrong.

You can declare your victory all you want but nothing will change other than you will feel all justified and superior over the silly Christians.

And we’ll still be praying for you to somehow develop a conscience and find the saving grace of Christ in your life.
Posted by on January 19, 2008 at 1257 hrs

I appreciate Alicia’s sentiment that we should agree to disagree and try to be civil with one another

Things will not remain civil if people refer to others as “baby killers” that need to “develop a conscience”
Posted by on January 19, 2008 at 1354 hrs

The easy button is not always the right button.Tell that to our future generation. Besides, we have several easy buttons in the form of birth control methods---been around for years.
Posted by on January 19, 2008 at 1408 hrs

Grow up 3rd way.

I’m trying to give you insight, yes pro life people look at abortion as baby killing.

You may not like it, but that is the thought process.

If you would like to pick a fight that’s up to you.
Posted by on January 19, 2008 at 1413 hrs

Faith is lazy, especially if there is evidence available.

At conception, there is no brain. That is a fact. It’s implications are that human life does not begin at conception, because living humans have brains, and without brains, not only do you not know what is going on, but there is no way that you can know what is going on.

Your faith should not dictate policy, because there is nothing aside from the volume of your voice that adds any weight to your faith over mine.

I won’t call you stupid for it, but I do think you can do better. Why do you think that life begins at conception? Do you agree with Owen’s reasoning? If so, my assertion is a challenge to that theory. Why should a brainless, non-aware bit of organic material have as much right as a fully functioning human being?

Because you think so? That’s not much of an argument, especially if there are lives in the balance.

To put it succinctly, if I am right, you are doing a disservice by not agreeing with me, but if you are right, you are doing a disservice to your own position by throwing up your hands and declaring it to be unknowable.
Posted by PaulNoonan on January 19, 2008 at 1422 hrs

Can that life self sustain at that level of development, no.

Faith provides that it is our charge to protect and nurture that life until such a time that it can self-sustain. (To many that would be into their 30’s)

That truly is the larger question at hand Paul.
Posted by on January 19, 2008 at 1428 hrs

Is Dubya a baby killer?
Posted by on January 19, 2008 at 1430 hrs

Fred, if I often declare victory when you’re around it’s probably because you so often lose to me in contests of ideas. Sorry if that’s blunt, but you do seem to be challenging me on it.

Now, trying to parse some snippets of meaning from your simplistic tirade…

1. It’s a matter of faith. So what if it is? We have freedom of conscience here in the USA, and I’m not compelled to act in accordance to the dictates of your beliefs. Where there are laws circumscribing our behavior, those laws have secular purposes, are based on facts, and are certainly not pure matters of faith.

2. Right and wrong. Yeah, I like that argument. But it works both ways. I’ll now assert that I, too, am challenging you with an issue of right versus wrong: I’m right, and you’re wrong! So there!

3. Scott thinks Christians are silly. Actually, I do. But that really has nothing to do with this argument, Fred. You do realize that most people who are pro-choice are in fact Christians? Tell me you understand that fact.

If Christ has grace to offer me, Fred, you’re a poor example of what he has in store. I can’t for the life of me fathom why I should have to work so hard to extract answerable items from your comments. Can’t you just make yourself plainer? And while you’re at it, why will you not address my freaking question!

WHY WILL YOU NOT PUSH THE BUTTON?? IT’S NOT AN ABORTION BUTTON, IT’S A CONTRACEPTION BUTTON! WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU NOT PUSH IT?

Not a damned one of you--certainly not you, Fred--has given a logical answer to the question of why, if you’re all about stopping abortion, you would not be in favor of 100% effective contraception.
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 1430 hrs

Nice talking to you Scott, I can see you have not changed a bit.
Posted by on January 19, 2008 at 1433 hrs

Fred (And Alicia)

It’s arrogant to say that you know things that you don’t know.

Also, faith is stupid. This is just a matter of looking up words in the dictionary. “Faith” is believing in something without evidence. “Reason” is forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises. So “faith” is the opposite of “reason.” Or put another way, “faith” is “unreasonable.” “Unreasonable” is defined as “senseless, foolish, silly, preposterous, absurd, STUPID, nonsensical. So in reality, I don’t claim that faith is stupid. The dictionary does. I just connected the dots for you. So you don’t really think that faith isn’t stupid, you just think it’s okay to be stupid.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 19, 2008 at 1433 hrs

Scott: I said I would explain the my answer if the following question was answered: Please refer to post #71
Posted by on January 19, 2008 at 1434 hrs

I don’t care about whether or not life can sustain at that level, that has nothing to do with my argument.

The argument that you just stated could be made about sperm. It is no argument at all. There is a line somewhere between human and non-human. As I stated before, I don’t know where it is, but I know where it is not, and it is not and can not be at conception.

You merely dodged the question.
Posted by PaulNoonan on January 19, 2008 at 1438 hrs

Did I ever say I was not in favor of contraception?

I’m all for it.

All I have tried to do is offer honest representations of how my side views this and how my side views the other side.

I also said I decided not to cover this topic for reasons that have proven to be correct.

People have a deep belief and faith on this issue and those that do not come after that faith with claws out.

And right on cue here comes Mr JIJARWM calling faith stupid.

Some things never change.
Posted by on January 19, 2008 at 1439 hrs

For Christ’s sake, Michael, no. I’m not doing a research paper. I’m asking people a question on a blog.

Fred, you’re the same blind, anti-intellectual brick wall that you always were.

Fact is, I have you pro-lifers absolutely nailed on this one. The only reasonable explanation as to why you won’t push the button is, as I’ve said, you’re more concerned with promoting your view of appropriate human sexuality than you are about preventing abortion. Period.

You’re a bunch of puritanical busybodies who are more concerned with your neighbor’s sin (and its punishment) than you are about those poor “babies.” Yet you say the exact opposite about yourselves. Making you not only a bunch of finger-wagging moralists, but also hypocrites.

If I have it wrong, please do correct me. Go ahead and give us an alternate explanation.
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 1440 hrs

Picking up on a different thread…

I think it’s helpful to get away from the use of the term “human life.” I don’t contest that a one-second old zygote is “human”: if it has human DNA, it’s human. I don’t contest that it’s “alive”: I’m sure biologists have criteria to determine quite easily that it is. Therefore, it is of course “human life.”

I think it’s more helpful to ask whether it’s a person deserving full moral consideration and full legal protection--what I have been referring to as “personhood.”
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 1444 hrs

Did I ever say I was not in favor of contraception?

I’m all for it.

So you’d push the button? The one that makes it impossible for a woman to become pregnant unless she explicitly wished to, no matter how much sexual intercourse she had? The button that guarantees automatic, 100% effective contraception? You’d push it, Fred?
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 1446 hrs

I will take a shot at Scott’s question with my “pretend I’m a righty” hat.

Typically, opposition to contraception is based on two things. One is an archaic passage in the old testament involving god smiting a poor fellow for, uhm, wasting his seed. The other is the belief that the pill and other pill-like methods can sometimes result in what can be considered an abortion. This is based on the belief that life begins at conception, let’s not deal with that for the sake of this hypothetical.

From this frame of reference, with those assumptions taken as a given, taking a stand against contraception is a logical position.

Scott’s hypothetical removes some of the moral problems with contraception, but it’s hard to shake the belief that something will always be wrong with contraception, even if you stipulate that it is not so in your hypothetical. It is actually a bit of skepticism that is keeping them from answering you, Scott.

There are some busy-bodies, no doubt, but most of the people opposed to you (Scott) are opposed to you out of concern, not out of some malice towards you (with a few obvious exceptions). Trying to get them to answer some “gotcha” question, or to not answer in this case, doesn’t tell you much about their motivations. It’s designed to be a hard question, but the qualities that make it a hard question are the same qualities that limit the inofmration that you will get from an answer.

Incidentally, I’d push the button.
Posted by PaulNoonan on January 19, 2008 at 1455 hrs

I’d answer your question Scott, but apparently I am a blind anti-intellectual brick wall, so I can’t.
Posted by on January 19, 2008 at 1500 hrs

It is actually a bit of skepticism that is keeping them from answering you, Scott. </ii>

I’m not buying it. What’s preventing them from simply saying “sure, I would push it in principle, but in actual practice I’m concerned that no contraception is safe/effective, etc.”? Nothing is preventing them from agreeing to push it in principle. Yet they aren’t saying that.

<i>I’d answer your question Scott, but apparently I am a blind anti-intellectual brick wall, so I can’t.

Probably the most accurate and insightful thing you’ve said so far, Fred.
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 1503 hrs

Scott,
I’d add to what Paul said, that the reason your not getting answers may be similar to the reason you didn’t answer my questions in your magic button threat. And I don’t believe it’s because your more concerned with a talking point ("choice") then actually preventing unwanted pregnancies, even though that would be one logical way to construe the limited response you did give.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 19, 2008 at 1504 hrs

Yes Fred. You are right for once.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on January 19, 2008 at 1506 hrs

Not a damned one of you--certainly not you, Fred--has given a logical answer to the question of why, if you’re all about stopping abortion, you would not be in favor of 100% effective contraception.

It could be that they are pushing your buttons to get you worked up.

Dude. Relax.
Posted by Brian on January 19, 2008 at 1525 hrs

I still maintain that the majority of pro-lifers aren’t really about abortion or babies--they’re about sex, and controlling who can have it, and making darned sure that there are dire consequences for those who do it outside of their rules. This is the only motivation that actually fits their behavior.

100% agree.

If it were about the sanctity of “life”, they’d be pacifists and anti-death penalty. They’re only for the sanctity of life when that life comes as a consequence of behavior they cannot tolerate.
Posted by on January 19, 2008 at 1549 hrs

That’s the dumbest thing so far.

Comparing abortion (innocent life) to the death penalty (the dregs of society) is just ridiculous.

You libs are beyond reasoning with.
Posted by on January 19, 2008 at 1606 hrs

Scoot wrote: Not a damned one of you--certainly not you, Fred--has given a logical answer to the question of why, if you’re all about stopping abortion, you would not be in favor of 100% effective contraception. [emphasis mine]

You’re asking for a “logical answer” to a question based in fantasy and “magic”. How about we turn your dumb-fuck loaded question back on you this way:

If you could press a “magic button” and go back to the day before you knocked up your ex-wife, and then press the magic non-pregnancy button you’re talking about now, would you press it?

C’mon Scott. If you’re going to be so consistent and “logical” with your fantasy absolute “no unwanted pregnancies” Utopian wish for human life, you’d have to say yes. If you say no, then you’re just a stodgy old prude who can’t bear the thought of people getting it on solely for pleasure (and a stark raving hypocrite).

I was pro-life even back when I was an atheist. But my arguments on the issue now are the same as they were back then, and they have nothing - zip, zero, zilch - to do with sex.

It’s a personal moral choice that has to do with moral consistency and not being wishy-washy and stuck in this world of relativism about gestation periods and viability.

Yeah, I know my view is in the minority, but I’m not out sending plastic fetuses to people’s mailboxes. Nor do I vote for politicians based on their view of abortion. I’m comfortable with my position and don’t feel the need to make any excuses for it.

People can screw each other all they want. If that leads to more abortions, I think that’s sad. But, unlike you, I still wouldn’t go pressing a button (magic or otherwise) that would level such control over people’s lives. I guess your left-wing views really do extend into the bedroom after all if you’re so willing to do something like that if given the chance.
Posted by David Svendsen on January 19, 2008 at 1642 hrs

Q...why, if you’re all about stopping abortion, you would not be in favor of 100% effective contraception…
A...I see this as a separate issue. a persons view on whether or not to prevent pregnancy (if that is what the “easy button” is) is not necessarily the same as their view on abortion. To not get pregnant is not the same as ending a pregnancy. I would much rather see a women push the “easy button” (PREVENT, not CANCEL a pregnancy), than see her end a pregnancy...(which is what abortion does) Again, I would rather see one use the “easy button” if this “easy button” is a way of preventing, and not ending a pregnancy…
Posted by Sancho on January 19, 2008 at 1658 hrs

You’re asking for a “logical answer” to a question based in fantasy and “magic”.

David, don’t bullshit me. I asked a hypothetical, but entirely fair, question. They answered it. The answer seems to be completely at odds with their stated beliefs and priorities. I asked for an explanation. They cannot provide one. The fact that it concerns a hypothetical question is irrelevant, and you know it.

And the question is only hypothetical in degree, not in kind. After all, we do have contraception, even if it’s not perfect and people don’t always use it. And it’s a fact that abortion opponents are usually no friend to the cause of contraception. Being against contraception contradicts opposition to abortion. My question merely puts an artificially fine point on it.

If you could press a “magic button” and go back to the day before you knocked up your ex-wife, and then press the magic non-pregnancy button you’re talking about now, would you press it?

No, David. I wouldn’t. Because I’d lose my children. Therefore, it’s not at all the same thing. No one is concerned with “losing” future people. One cannot lose something that one never had. You’re too smart to be seriously thinking that this is a logical response to my question.

Anyone who says unexpected pregnancy is a good thing and that we should fight to preserve it has some rethinking to do. And anyone who points at people alive today and says “they wouldn’t be here if we lost unexpected pregnancies!” is not thinking very clearly.

unlike you, I still wouldn’t go pressing a button (magic or otherwise) that would level such control over people’s lives.

Uh, the magic button gives people the ultimate amount of control over their own lives, at least so far as reproduction is concerned. Again, you’re way to smart for this kind of bullshit argument.
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 1835 hrs

Scott said, “No one is concerned with “losing” future people.”

So it is a person.
Posted by on January 19, 2008 at 1911 hrs

Sweet Jesus, is anyone prepared to actually discuss this?
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 1941 hrs

The one that makes it impossible for a woman to become pregnant unless she explicitly wished to, no matter how much sexual intercourse she had? The button that guarantees automatic, 100% effective contraception? You’d push it, Fred?

I wouldn’t push the button. Why? Because I like to live “dangerously”. Actually, that’s not true any more. My wife had her tubes tied after our 4th child was born. Personally, prior to our decision to have her tubes tied, we never used contraceptives. We let the chips fall where they may, and decided that if something happened, it happened, and if it didn’t it didn’t. Nothing about god, or anyone forcing their morals on us. We don’t go to church, we’re both athiests.

So Scott, from your morally superior position of “You didn’t answer my staged question the way I think you should, therefore you’re a bible thumper trying to force your morals on the rest of the world”, now what? Are you going to change your mind?

I still maintain that the majority of pro-lifers aren’t really about abortion or babies--they’re about sex, and controlling who can have it, and making darned sure that there are dire consequences for those who do it outside of their rules. This is the only motivation that actually fits their behavior.

I totally disagree with your conclusion, and based on my answer to your silly question, your conclusion is now disproved.
Posted by on January 19, 2008 at 2104 hrs

Aha, whereas I say that my button would give people ultimate control over their reproduction, but you say it would paradoxically take away their ability to be surprised by it if they wish to!

There’s no way that kind of dubious and silly sounding “benefit” can’t possibly be weighed against all the potential good that would result: incomes would rise among the poorest Americans. Educational achievement would rise. All the social ills that are in some way tied to the fact that too many young people become parents before they are emotionally or financially able to care for it? All would improve. And there would be virtually no abortion.

Oh, but we can’t have all those benefits because someone thinks the ability to be surprised about their own reproduction! Yeah, right.

You didn’t answer my staged question the way I think you should

I don’t care which way you answer it. Yes or no. And you said no. Fine. Whatever your particular reason for saying it, it doesn’t “disprove” my accusation that the pro-life movenent generally has the forwarding of their particular sexual mores as a higher priority than actually preventing abortions.
Posted by scott on January 19, 2008 at 2147 hrs

Aha, whereas I say that my button would give people ultimate control over their reproduction, but you say it would paradoxically take away their ability to be surprised by it if they wish to!

I didn’t say that. I said that’s why I wouldn’t have pushed the button until my family was done.

There’s no way that kind of dubious and silly sounding “benefit” can’t possibly be weighed against all the potential good that would result: incomes would rise among the poorest Americans.

Why do you say that? Scott, are you that bigoted?

Educational achievement would rise. All the social ills that are in some way tied to the fact that too many young people become parents before they are emotionally or financially able to care for it? All would improve. And there would be virtually no abortion.

In your fantasy world perhaps, but I don’t think so. Personally, I think that if there were a magic button, then we would need another magic button for the people that became to lazy to push the button before they had sex. Yeah, that’s what I see with people today. You give them a benefit, they