Would Ectogenesis change the morality of abortion?

[cpwill]

Yes, patently ridiculous. Illogical and grossly unfair too.

Aw, you're only saying that because you hate women

 

[year2late]

Elective or for therapeutic reasons = convenience.

A decent person would make great strides and be extra vigilant to not get pregnant it were an inconvenience to have one. Tell me there's over a million women out there who just can't get that right?

Men and women who do not wish to have children should be using birth control.

The most reliable form of birth control is very expensive up front. Women who resort to abortion frequently are unable to afford the $800 - $1000 for insertion of the long term birth control. But for the record, even if she is using long term birth control - condoms should be used if the guy wants to make sure he will not be a father.

 

[prometeus]

That you read the post indicates you know precisely what it is - a response in kind to a hysterically paranoid strawman.

So its the later. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[AGENT J]

If you could grow a fetus in an artificial womb, it would no longer require the use of a mother's body. Given the state's interest in "potential life" that was recognized in Roe and Casey, it is hard to imagine fetal personhood may not be judicially reevaluated once this sort of technology extends the viability of fetal life. It is also hard to imagine that cultural attitudes regarding abortion would not change considerably towards recognition of a right to life for fetuses with the addition of the option of mothers to give an unwanted pregnancy to an ectogenesis program versus aborting it.

This has been discussed many times.
First there is no one morality of abortion
Second the technology as awesome as it is still hinders on one thing. Getting the baby out of the woman. Unless the baby can be teleport ed out the abortion debate doesn't change because you would still need to force a surgery on the woman to get the baby out.
Lastly viability still isn't affected, it would still be 21 weeks

So what would actually be needed is the invention and control of teleportation and for that process to have no impact on the health physically or mentally of the mother and the existence of an artificial womb. But viability would still remind the same because of lung development, the woman just wouldn't be needed.

 

[nota bene]

Men and women who do not wish to have children should use birth control.

Yes, they both should. That's the redundancy.

 

[OKgrannie]

:yawn: sure. And while a few Pro-Choicers may actually care about women, for most of them it's really just about killing children. :roll:




I know about it. 1. You are mischaracterizing it and 2. The idea that it or movements like it make a large majority of the Pro Life movement is patently ridiculous. I could just as easily use the violent side of the BLM movement to "show" that the vast majority of Hillary voters want to kill white people.


Creating hyperbolic strawman may be a good way to gin up flagging support, or keep ones self dedicated to a cause, bit that doesn't make it any less inaccurate.


Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

I disagree with you on the motivation of most pro-lifers. I would like to know why you are so certain of the purity of pro-life motives. A look at history, that is, the reason anti-abortion laws were passed in the first place reveals no such concern for saving the lives of fetuses. A discussion for pro-lifers nowadays nearly always comes down to "well, she had sex, so she caused it, it's her fault...so she ought to suffer for it."

 

[Cameron]

If you could grow a fetus in an artificial womb, it would no longer require the use of a mother's body. Given the state's interest in "potential life" that was recognized in Roe and Casey, it is hard to imagine fetal personhood may not be judicially reevaluated once this sort of technology extends the viability of fetal life. It is also hard to imagine that cultural attitudes regarding abortion would not change considerably towards recognition of a right to life for fetuses with the addition of the option of mothers to give an unwanted pregnancy to an ectogenesis program versus aborting it.

I think this is right. But I think there will still be a massive debate over who pays and/or becomes responsible for such children.

 

[WCH]

I didn't say that. But if you really don't want to become pregnant, this is actually pretty easy.

It was sarcasm but, you are correct.

 

[WCH]

Men and women who do not wish to have children should be using birth control.

The most reliable form of birth control is very expensive up front. Women who resort to abortion frequently are unable to afford the $800 - $1000 for insertion of the long term birth control. But for the record, even if she is using long term birth control - condoms should be used if the guy wants to make sure he will not be a father.

My youngest used multiple forms of BC to avoid getting pregnant. Like a vacation, if you can't afford it, you don't get in the car.

 

[year2late]

I think this is right. But I think there will still be a massive debate over who pays and/or becomes responsible for such children.

It will not be an issue except in theory.

By the time there is enough technology to accomplish this there would have been even greater strides in birth - including how to make the more effective forms financially available to women that want it, In addition....by that time there will likely be also be longer term birth control for men as well .

But there will be no fight about who will pay....keeping embryos and fetuses in artificial wombs in order to make and end run around abortion? Seriously? Aren't their more pragmatic options....like preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place?

And hell, before we even think about having wards filled with untold amounts of artificial womb fetuses.....how about the 100,000 adoptable kids in need of a home.....or the almost 400,000 in foster care?

 

[year2late]

My youngest used multiple forms of BC to avoid getting pregnant. Like a vacation, if you can't afford it, you don't get in the car.

And you think that is a pragmatic approach?

 

[thinkagain]

It will not be an issue except in theory.

By the time there is enough technology to accomplish this there would have been even greater strides in birth - including how to make the more effective forms financially available to women that want it, In addition....by that time there will likely be also be longer term birth control for men as well .

But there will be no fight about who will pay....keeping embryos and fetuses in artificial wombs in order to make and end run around abortion? Seriously? Aren't their more pragmatic options....like preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place?

And hell, before we even think about having wards filled with untold amounts of artificial womb fetuses.....how about the 100,000 adoptable kids in need of a home.....or the almost 400,000 in foster care?

Agreed - the world has too many people already. We need to do a better job of dealing with the children that are already born prior to figuring out how to add to the problem.

We should be encouraging responsibility in relation to procreation and not be encouraging people to bring children into a dysfunctional or disadvantaged environment.

Current law promotes single women, (often living in the ghetto or of low means) and/or women in non committed relationships, having babies by giving a financial reward for doing so.

This is social engineering bass ackwards.

 

[cpwill]

I disagree with you on the motivation of most pro-lifers. I would like to know why you are so certain of the purity of pro-life motives.

Purity? I’m sure you could find some Eugenicist-based nutso’s somewhere. But broadly, the reason I am certain that you are incorrect is because you are describing my movement. I can dismiss the claim that pro-lifers are only interested in controlling women as casually as you can dismiss the claim that pro-choicers are really pro-aborters who only want to kill children: because I read, breathe, and move in among these people, and I know that is bunk. Women are, if anything, often more likely than men to take pro-life positions. That’s not because they want men to control them – it’s because they (like the men in the pro-life movement) honestly believe that we are harming babies, and are motivated to oppose it.

A discussion for pro-lifers nowadays nearly always comes down to "well, she had sex, so she caused it, it's her fault...so she ought to suffer for it."

No. The reason why it is a salient point that the parents created the child is that inevitably pro-choicers end up arguing that the child is imposing on the parent – but that is the opposite of reality. It was the Parents who made the choices who put the child in that position.

Sometimes we do and should suffer for the decisions we make – but a significant part of the Pro-Life argument is rejecting what we see as the false premise of the Pro-Choice movement that the baby and mothers’ interests are inherently at odds. It would make no sense for the woman to suffer in her pregnancy – and because the baby and mothers’ interests are intertwined, it would be self-contradictory for the movement to claim that.

It’s easy (and fun!) to impute evil intent to those who disagree with you. It’s also often wrong. If you are honestly open to self-reflection on this issue, I would point you to the research showing that liberals do not understand conservatives very well, especially in questions of providing care.

…we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right)’ Who was best able to pretend to be the other?

The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives.

Conservatives tend to be exposed to Liberal thought a bit more (and they share the same moral foundations that liberals have, though not in reverse), and so can understand Liberal intentions a bit better. Because liberals do not instinctively grasp the moral motivations of Conservatives, they are more likely (as you did here) to simply project opposition to their own.

I hope you consider this, and, at least, in the future, take those who disagree with you at their word when they tell you why.

 

[Removable Mind]

Purity? I’m sure you could find some Eugenicist-based nutso’s somewhere. But broadly, the reason I am certain that you are incorrect is because you are describing my movement. I can dismiss the claim that pro-lifers are only interested in controlling women as casually as you can dismiss the claim that pro-choicers are really pro-aborters who only want to kill children: because I read, breathe, and move in among these people, and I know that is bunk. Women are, if anything, often more likely than men to take pro-life positions. That’s not because they want men to control them – it’s because they (like the men in the pro-life movement) honestly believe that we are harming babies, and are motivated to oppose it.




No. The reason why it is a salient point that the parents created the child is that inevitably pro-choicers end up arguing that the child is imposing on the parent – but that is the opposite of reality. It was the Parents who made the choices who put the child in that position.

Sometimes we do and should suffer for the decisions we make – but a significant part of the Pro-Life argument is rejecting what we see as the false premise of the Pro-Choice movement that the baby and mothers’ interests are inherently at odds. It would make no sense for the woman to suffer in her pregnancy – and because the baby and mothers’ interests are intertwined, it would be self-contradictory for the movement to claim that.

It’s easy (and fun!) to impute evil intent to those who disagree with you. It’s also often wrong. If you are honestly open to self-reflection on this issue, I would point you to the research showing that liberals do not understand conservatives very well, especially in questions of providing care.



Conservatives tend to be exposed to Liberal thought a bit more (and they share the same moral foundations that liberals have, though not in reverse), and so can understand Liberal intentions a bit better. Because liberals do not instinctively grasp the moral motivations of Conservatives, they are more likely (as you did here) to simply project opposition to their own.

I hope you consider this, and, at least, in the future, take those who disagree with you at their word when they tell you why.

CP, your source wouldn't be a little philosophically biased, would it? That's a great site when the choir that you love so much is singing to the choir that you love so much. And especially a site that makes claims about another political philosophy group, which is just another partisan perspective evaluating one outside of its own beliefs...and condemning it for not finally seeing their light.

The world is in a world of **** because of the insistence by one political faction that it's the right/sane one and all others are the opposite.

This type of ongoing divisive battles between people who identify with a philosophical label that most people can't even agree on what it means when independently surveyed...well, when it hurts hard enough and long enough, it'll stop. There might not be anybody left, but it'll stop.

 

[cpwill]

CP, your source wouldn't be a little philosophically biased, would it?

Jonathan Haidt? Yes. He is a left-leaner, who first started studying the moral psychological underpinnings of political movements because he wanted to help John Kerry win in 2004. Mind you, 12 years later now he claims to be a centrist who see's a lot of truth in both sides :shrug:

That's a great site when the choir that you love so much is singing to the choir that you love so much

The New York Times? I agree, but the rest of us read it on occasion, if only to tease

And especially a site that makes claims about another political philosophy group

It's not a site, it's a site (in both cases above) discussing the studies being performed by Jonathan Haidt, who is one of the nations' foremost moral psychologists.

Recommend watching his Ted Talk, if you want to spend an interesting 15 minutes.

which is just another partisan perspective evaluating one outside of its own beliefs...and condemning it for not finally seeing their light.

You didn't read the sources provided at all, did you?

 

[OKgrannie]

Purity? I’m sure you could find some Eugenicist-based nutso’s somewhere. But broadly, the reason I am certain that you are incorrect is because you are describing my movement. I can dismiss the claim that pro-lifers are only interested in controlling women as casually as you can dismiss the claim that pro-choicers are really pro-aborters who only want to kill children: because I read, breathe, and move in among these people, and I know that is bunk. Women are, if anything, often more likely than men to take pro-life positions. That’s not because they want men to control them – it’s because they (like the men in the pro-life movement) honestly believe that we are harming babies, and are motivated to oppose it.




No. The reason why it is a salient point that the parents created the child is that inevitably pro-choicers end up arguing that the child is imposing on the parent – but that is the opposite of reality. It was the Parents who made the choices who put the child in that position.

Sometimes we do and should suffer for the decisions we make – but a significant part of the Pro-Life argument is rejecting what we see as the false premise of the Pro-Choice movement that the baby and mothers’ interests are inherently at odds. It would make no sense for the woman to suffer in her pregnancy – and because the baby and mothers’ interests are intertwined, it would be self-contradictory for the movement to claim that.

It’s easy (and fun!) to impute evil intent to those who disagree with you. It’s also often wrong. If you are honestly open to self-reflection on this issue, I would point you to the research showing that liberals do not understand conservatives very well, especially in questions of providing care.



Conservatives tend to be exposed to Liberal thought a bit more (and they share the same moral foundations that liberals have, though not in reverse), and so can understand Liberal intentions a bit better. Because liberals do not instinctively grasp the moral motivations of Conservatives, they are more likely (as you did here) to simply project opposition to their own.

I hope you consider this, and, at least, in the future, take those who disagree with you at their word when they tell you why.

I never claimed 100% of pro-lifers are motivated by the same reasons. I'm sure they differ. I'm also sure that many do not know the deep-down reasons they object to abortion. It is an intensely emotional subject and complex, meaning there is not just one reason. When you discuss the subject at length with someone, some of the deeper reasons begin to surface. The political pro-lifers like having the issue as a political ploy, and want to see abortion rights preserved so they can pander to those who do not. There were three main reasons for passing anti-abortion laws in the 1800s and none of them are concerned with saving fetal life.

 

[cpwill]

I never claimed 100% of pro-lifers are motivated by the same reasons. I'm sure they differ. I'm also sure that many do not know the deep-down reasons they object to abortion. It is an intensely emotional subject and complex, meaning there is not just one reason. When you discuss the subject at length with someone, some of the deeper reasons begin to surface. The political pro-lifers like having the issue as a political ploy, and want to see abortion rights preserved so they can pander to those who do not.

:roll: okay, so you've gone from "most pro lifers don't really want to save babies" to "well maybe most pro lifers really just want to control women but they don't know it" (which is impressive - you can read their minds much deeper than simple deception, you can read unconscious thought), to "Well, maybe most pro lifers could actually believe what they say they believe, but really they are just dupes led by evil people who secretly want to control women".

And, given that you asked, how much time and thought did you honestly spend reflecting on the evidence presented that liberals are just really, really bad at actually understanding Conservative motivations, especially when it comes to questions of taking care of others and treating people fairly?

Cause I'm betting - none. This reads like you just looked for a way to respond that would continue to allow you to continue to insult those with whom you disagree.

There were three main reasons for passing anti-abortion laws in the 1800s and none of them are concerned with saving fetal life.

:lol: yeah. I'm sure that Susan B Anthony was totally in it because she secretly wanted men to control women

Or, for example:

Storer is even better known for the “physicians’ crusade against abortion” which he started and carried out with the assistance of the American Medical Associa*tion. Most people today are surprised to learn that induced abortion was common among married Protestant women in the United States in the 1850s. The “physici*ans’ crusade” led to the passage of laws in almost every state that protected the fetus from conception. These physicians, and the new abortion laws they worked to create, taught people that the fetus was alive prior to “quickening,” the point in the preg*nancy when move*ments of the fetus were first felt by the woman. The “physicians’ crusade” led to a drop in in*duced abor*tion, according to Dr. James Mohr who wrote a histo*ry of abor*tion in America.[3] Even a small increase in the num*ber of children surviv*ing to birth has dramatic effects on the makeup of succeeding genera*tions and many people today can thank Horatio Storer for one or more of their ances*tors.[4]
​

I think you are thinking of the Comstock Acts, which were indeed intended to limit what was seen as immoral sexual activity, but which were intended equally to halt men and women from engaging in it, and thus also doesn't fit the bill of "it's really all about controlling women" (and, again, no, it isn't - you are projecting opposition to your motives on those who oppose your means).


But, considering the pro-abortion movement's origin in the Eugenicist movement and desire to save America from the "Race Suicide" of allowing darker ethnicities to outbreed whites, are you really sure you want to make the argument that the motivations of folks who lived in previous centuries is the motivation of folks now?

 

[Removable Mind]

Jonathan Haidt? Yes. He is a left-leaner, who first started studying the moral psychological underpinnings of political movements because he wanted to help John Kerry win in 2004. Mind you, 12 years later now he claims to be a centrist who see's a lot of truth in both sides :shrug:

The New York Times? I agree, but the rest of us read it on occasion, if only to tease



It's not a site, it's a site (in both cases above) discussing the studies being performed by Jonathan Haidt, who is one of the nations' foremost moral psychologists.

Recommend watching his Ted Talk, if you want to spend an interesting 15 minutes.




You didn't read the sources provided at all, did you?

Guess I didn't, I'll go back over it....

 

[OKgrannie]

:roll: okay, so you've gone from "most pro lifers don't really want to save babies" to "well maybe most pro lifers really just want to control women but they don't know it" (which is impressive - you can read their minds much deeper than simple deception, you can read unconscious thought), to "Well, maybe most pro lifers could actually believe what they say they believe, but really they are just dupes led by evil people who secretly want to control women".

And, given that you asked, how much time and thought did you honestly spend reflecting on the evidence presented that liberals are just really, really bad at actually understanding Conservative motivations, especially when it comes to questions of taking care of others and treating people fairly?

Cause I'm betting - none. This reads like you just looked for a way to respond that would continue to allow you to continue to insult those with whom you disagree.

Many pro-lifers ARE just dupes led by evil people, those who follow evangelicals who previously supported abortion rights, but chose anti-abortion positions for political campaigning reasons. And that's a lot of pro-lifers. I really don't think "liberals" are bad at understand "conservative" motivations. Most people are not "either/or" about liberal and conservative, nearly all are conservative on some issues and liberal on others. The pro-life position, however, has been misnamed. Conservatives are traditionally about smaller government and individual initiative for solving problems, but that definition goes by the wayside when describing abortion.

:lol: yeah. I'm sure that Susan B Anthony was totally in it because she secretly wanted men to control women

I'm guessing she opposed abortion because it was dangerous for women, and at that time, it was believed that ready access to birth control and giving women the right to say no to their husbands would solve the problem.

Or, for example:

Storer is even better known for the “physicians’ crusade against abortion” which he started and carried out with the assistance of the American Medical Associa*tion. Most people today are surprised to learn that induced abortion was common among married Protestant women in the United States in the 1850s. The “physici*ans’ crusade” led to the passage of laws in almost every state that protected the fetus from conception. These physicians, and the new abortion laws they worked to create, taught people that the fetus was alive prior to “quickening,” the point in the preg*nancy when move*ments of the fetus were first felt by the woman. The “physicians’ crusade” led to a drop in in*duced abor*tion, according to Dr. James Mohr who wrote a histo*ry of abor*tion in America.[3] Even a small increase in the num*ber of children surviv*ing to birth has dramatic effects on the makeup of succeeding genera*tions and many people today can thank Horatio Storer for one or more of their ances*tors.[4]
​

I think you are thinking of the Comstock Acts, which were indeed intended to limit what was seen as immoral sexual activity, but which were intended equally to halt men and women from engaging in it, and thus also doesn't fit the bill of "it's really all about controlling women" (and, again, no, it isn't - you are projecting opposition to your motives on those who oppose your means).

OK, the first reason to oppose abortion in the 1800s was the danger to women I mentioned above. Many of those laws were actually "anti-poison" laws. The second reason....physicians wanted the financial benefits of being the only source for abortions. Mid-wives were cutting into their incomes by performing abortions as they had for years, and physicians lobbied for an exclusive on the procedure. Their main concern had nothing to do with the innocent fetus.

But, considering the pro-abortion movement's origin in the Eugenicist movement and desire to save America from the "Race Suicide" of allowing darker ethnicities to outbreed whites, are you really sure you want to make the argument that the motivations of folks who lived in previous centuries is the motivation of folks now?

The third main reason for anti-abortion rights was racial, it was thought that recent immigrants would out-breed less recent immigrants and the balance of power would be disturbed. Of course many more recent immigrants were also white, but that didn't matter. So the anti-abortion rights folks had racial motivations, but the pro-choice advocates did not. If you are referencing Margaret Sanger, she was neither pro-choice nor racist.

 

[D_NATURED]

If you could grow a fetus in an artificial womb, it would no longer require the use of a mother's body. Given the state's interest in "potential life" that was recognized in Roe and Casey, it is hard to imagine fetal personhood may not be judicially reevaluated once this sort of technology extends the viability of fetal life. It is also hard to imagine that cultural attitudes regarding abortion would not change considerably towards recognition of a right to life for fetuses with the addition of the option of mothers to give an unwanted pregnancy to an ectogenesis program versus aborting it.

If it were possible, the ecto-chamber would replace the womb as the source of god's fruitfulness and, no doubt, basements of churches would be fetus factories, competing against the other theist sects to win the numbers game. They would be just one more piece of technology co opted in god's name and used with little regard for rational secular population controls.

 

[cpwill]

Many pro-lifers ARE just dupes led by evil people

No, make up your mind, OKgrannie. Either most pro-lifers are just in it because they want to control women, most pro lifers think they want to protect children but deep down inside (exposed by your telepathic sleuthing) they really want to control women and just don't know it, or most pro-lifers actually want to protect babies, and are merely led by an evil conspiracy of fake evangelicals.

You appear to be adopting mutually contradicting positions over time, here, the only commonality being that you want to look down on people with whom you disagree.

, those who follow evangelicals who previously supported abortion rights, but chose anti-abortion positions for political campaigning reasons.

Congratulations. Previously the only person spouting that conspiracy theory was Mike Huckabee after Iowa Evangelicals didn't turn out for him in the 2016 Primary. You're in awesome company.

I really don't think "liberals" are bad at understand "conservative" motivations.

:shrug: well, the data is against it, and you are confirming that claim here in this thread with your continued inability to accurately describe the motivations of your opponents.

The pro-life position, however, has been misnamed.

That is incorrect - just as it would be incorrect that the "Pro-Choice" movement was really "Pro-Infanticide". Movements are built around the actual beliefs that the people in them find unifying and compelling, not what their opposition wishes them to be, the better to justify thinking evil of them.

Conservatives are traditionally about smaller government and individual initiative for solving problems, but that definition goes by the wayside when describing abortion.

This is also a failure to understand based on a projection of your presuppositions. Conservative argue that government should be limited to carefully defined arenas. Smaller Government For It's Own Sake is not a principle. The central Conservative (at least, in this country) argument about the proper scope of government in this country is that it should be focused on protecting our individual rights - that among these are our rights to Life, Liberty, and Property.

For a Pro-Lifer, it's no more expanding the role of Government to say that it should protect our lives from the violence of others in the womb than it is to say that it should protect them outside the womb. Because you do not agree with the core presupposition of the Pro-Life movement (that unborn children are still human children), you missed that, which is why you attempted to lay this charge. It's about as effective as saying that, in order to be logically consistent, the Pro-Choice movement should also be Pro-Choice in the matter of the murder of 5 year olds, or adults.

I'm guessing she opposed abortion because it was dangerous for women, and at that time, it was believed that ready access to birth control and giving women the right to say no to their husbands would solve the problem.

That's an interesting claim. Can you support it? Because she referred to abortion as "infanticide" and "the horrible crime of child-murder" whose "suppression" she "earnestly desired", not "dangerous medication that can do you some harm if you aren't careful".

And since - according to you - opposing abortion inherently means a desire to have men control women, how do you justify Susan B Anthony's obvious disproving of your assumption? Or, for that matter, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Victoria Woodhull, Sarah F Norton etc. so on and so forth - all early leaders in the Women's Suffrage movement who considered abortion to be infanticide.

The second reason....physicians wanted the financial benefits of being the only source for abortions.

:lamo So they launched a national campaign and successfully made it illegal for them to perform the procedure. Okedoke.


No. They argued that the child was alive - as cited (and ignored by you) above.

Their main concern had nothing to do with the innocent fetus.

Abortion has been considered child-murder since the beginning of Christendom, and continued to be so up until recently. Respectfully, your telepathy works no better going back in time than it does seeking out unconscious beliefs in those currently alive.

 

[cpwill]

The third main reason for anti-abortion rights was racial, it was thought that recent immigrants would out-breed less recent immigrants and the balance of power would be disturbed. Of course many more recent immigrants were also white, but that didn't matter. So the anti-abortion rights folks had racial motivations, but the pro-choice advocates did not.

Now this is a fascinating argument because it is A) a-historical and B) would require that those advocates travel backwards in time from the 1890s to the 1860s.

Everyday Feminism: The Pro Choice Movement Has a White Supremacy Problem - And Anti-Choice Advocates Are Using It To Their Advantage. Article by a woman who, while she appears to have taken a full swan dive off the left side of the cliff of rationality, at least points out that the Pro-Choice movement needs to deal with this.

Here's one of the Founders of NARAL P 23:

Above all, society must grasp the grim relationship between unwanted children and the violent rebellion of minority groups.​

So on and so forth. The Eugenics movement absolutely saw darker races as inherently more unfit, and encourage abortion (along with sterilization and birth control) as a means of reducing their birthrates.


Even the people who try as you do to argue that the pro-life movement had racist origins (and, at least, in this case, utterly fail - apparently wanting black children to be born means that you don't want black children to be born), admit that the pro-choice movement had racist origins.


Because, sadly, it is true. That doesn't mean that the modern pro-choice movement is built on racism (though I think there are definitely still strains of eugenics, not a little implicit racism, and certainly disproportionately destructive effects). It just means that Eugenics was part and parcel of the movement.

If you are referencing Margaret Sanger, she was neither pro-choice nor racist.

Fascinating. I had no idea that Margaret Sanger was secretly a double-agent, and only in it because she wanted to help men control women.

 

[OKgrannie]

No, make up your mind, OKgrannie. Either most pro-lifers are just in it because they want to control women, most pro lifers think they want to protect children but deep down inside (exposed by your telepathic sleuthing) they really want to control women and just don't know it, or most pro-lifers actually want to protect babies, and are merely led by an evil conspiracy of fake evangelicals.

You appear to be adopting mutually contradicting positions over time, here, the only commonality being that you want to look down on people with whom you disagree.

MOST pro-lifers want to control women and that includes the women who support anti-choice laws. The intent of the laws, after all, IS to control. Seems you are projecting a pro-life characteristic on me, i.e. wanting to look down on people.

Congratulations. Previously the only person spouting that conspiracy theory was Mike Huckabee after Iowa Evangelicals didn't turn out for him in the 2016 Primary. You're in awesome company.

I think you misunderstood me. The fact is that evangelicals as a group actually supported abortion rights, but changed that support when they chose to use it as a political campaign issue.
When Southern Baptists Were Pro-Choice | BillMoyers.com

This is also a failure to understand based on a projection of your presuppositions. Conservative argue that government should be limited to carefully defined arenas. Smaller Government For It's Own Sake is not a principle. The central Conservative (at least, in this country) argument about the proper scope of government in this country is that it should be focused on protecting our individual rights - that among these are our rights to Life, Liberty, and Property.

.......

Small government advocates believe in leaving individuals alone to solve their problems until the individual is a pregnant woman.

That's an interesting claim. Can you support it? Because she referred to abortion as "infanticide" and "the horrible crime of child-murder" whose "suppression" she "earnestly desired", not "dangerous medication that can do you some harm if you aren't careful".

And since - according to you - opposing abortion inherently means a desire to have men control women, how do you justify Susan B Anthony's obvious disproving of your assumption? Or, for that matter, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Victoria Woodhull, Sarah F Norton etc. so on and so forth - all early leaders in the Women's Suffrage movement who considered abortion to be infanticide.

Early advocates of anti-abortion laws weren't concerned about controlling women or protecting fetuses, they wanted to control the financial rewards of abortion (physicians never claimed abortions shouldn't be done, their claim was that when they were necessary, physicians should do them, that's why the law had an exception for saving life), they wanted to protect women from the dangers of abortion, they wanted to protect the status quo from immigration (oooh, where have I heard that before), and they wanted a larger number of people for populating the western lands. Of course, any individual could have wanted to control women when advocating those other "reasons."

:lamo So they launched a national campaign and successfully made it illegal for them to perform the procedure. Okedoke.

No, they made performing them exclusive to physicians.

Abortion has been considered child-murder since the beginning of Christendom, and continued to be so up until recently. Respectfully, your telepathy works no better going back in time than it does seeking out unconscious beliefs in those currently alive.

That was not in the past the reason given for criminalizing abortion. Early abortion was not believed to be child murder by most. When Abortion Was a Crime

 

[OKgrannie]

Fascinating. I had no idea that Margaret Sanger was secretly a double-agent, and only in it because she wanted to help men control women.

Margaret Sanger opposed abortion (probably because it was dangerous), she believed giving women the right to say NO to their husbands (Please note, that's giving women control they previously did not have) and providing them with affordable birth control would solve the problem.

 

[cpwill]

MOST pro-lifers want to control women and that includes the women who support anti-choice laws. The intent of the laws, after all, IS to control.

No. Pro-Lifers want to save children, including the women who support life. You could argue, I suppose, that they wish to restrain the choices of those who would kill children, but this does not add any more control than is already in place - it is already illegal to kill some children. We simply wish to apply this restriction to all. At most it's no more controlling women than it was controlling men to make spousal rape illegal.

Seems you are projecting a pro-life characteristic on me, i.e. wanting to look down on people.

YOU are the one claiming that those who disagree with you are either evil or stupid. I'm the one pointing out that people who disagree with me generally are doing so from sincerely held motives (desire to maintain liberty for women).

That may be because you live in a bubble. It may be because you wish to think ill of those who disagree with you. It may be because you are unable to accept that people of good intent can come to differing conclusions even on incredibly important matters. But a simple look back through this thread will see you clearly arguing that pro-lifers are dupes, liars, or evil, and you continue to be able to accurately describe the motivations of those who take the opposite side of you on this debate.

As much time as you spend here, I am a bit surprised - I honestly would have figured you would understand the people you talk to better than this.

I think you misunderstood me. The fact is that evangelicals as a group actually supported abortion rights, but changed that support when they chose to use it as a political campaign issue.
When Southern Baptists Were Pro-Choice | BillMoyers.com

The SBC was pro-choice at the beginning sure. But you are mistaken that it was somehow the result of electoral politics. Firstly "Evangelicals" =/= "SBC", particularly back when SBC was more liberal. For example, leading Evangelical periodical, Christianity Today on 16 Feb 1973:

In a sweeping decision January 22, the United States Supreme Court overthrew the abortion statutes of Texas, indeed, of all the states that protect the right of an unborn infant to life before, at the earliest, the seventh month of pregnancy. The Court explicitly allows states to create some safeguards for unborn infants regarded as "viable," but in view of the present decision, it appears doubtful that unborn infants now enjoy any protection prior to the instant of birth anywhere in the United States. Until new state laws acceptable to .the Court are passed—at best a long-drawn-out process—it would appear impossible to punish abortions performed at any stage. This decision runs counter not merely to the moral teachings of Christianity through the ages but also to the moral sense of the American people...​

And secondly - the electoral politics followed the conviction, not the other way around. One way not to get elected is to go around making arguments that deeply conflict with your constituents. It was as the horror of the modern mass-death-mills became increasingly obvious that opposing them could become much of a political platform.

Christianity Today again:

t should not surprise anyone with a real acquaintance with history, especially religious history, that people of faith often come to firm and unshakable convictions only after a period of reflection and debate. It took the church some three centuries to firmly settle in on the doctrine of the Trinity, and another 15 to fully recognize the evils of slavery. In this light, American evangelicals were on the fast track: Assuming they first became a recognizable movement within Christianity during the Great Awakening, they only took 250 years to recognize the evil of abortion.... these initiatives grew out of our increasingly wide spread and deeply held moral convictions and deepening awareness of the number of lives being cast away (over a million a year since 1976). To be sure, once the evangelical anti-abortion movement got started, politics reinforced ethics, and vice versa. But as one embedded in the movement for nearly half a century--and one who has been often troubled by the ham-fisted anti-abortion politics of the Religious Right—there is no doubt that the ground of anti-abortion politics is moral conviction and a bloody historical reality.​