I think repeatedly referring to it as "emergency" birth control says it all. You know what's actually bigoted? Refusing to meet a woman's medical needs because you made a moral judgement on her sexuality.

I found myself almost laughing at this absurdity. They really like to paint themselves as the victims don't they? Just because they don't get to control women's lives. I'm trying to decide which I love more;

(Topinka is pro-abortion but not pro-abortion enough for Planned Parenthood. She favors parental consent and spousal notification. She opposes partial birth abortion. Birkett is pro-life.)

Not 'pro-abortion' enough?" Gee, I guess they didn't get the memo that some girls CAN'T tell their parents about their pregnancies, and neither can some wives. As a matter of fact, TELLING these people might actually RESULT in a parent/spouse forcing a woman into an abortion they don't want. But as long as it's the male deciding it's okay isn't it? I've actually known a woman in this situation; one of my literature teachers got pregnant and she and her husband had already had a child and he refused to have another one so he "made" her have an abortion. I put "made" in quotes because I don't think he dragged her there but I think it was a lot of brow beating.

And this:

"The use of such tactics is commonplace for Planned Parenthood and its legions. They seek to paint pro-life activists as uncaring woman-haters, even though pro-life people care about all human beings."

Um, no you don't care about "all human beings". If you honsetly did we wouldn't be having this converstaion. As a matter of fact you only seem to care about men's rights over women and these things:

"They seek to depict Governor Blagojevich as a hero, even though he is hostile to preborn human beings."

Yes, yes. Those precious preborns. NOT actual living women or children. But "preborns".

I'm just wondering, at what age post born is a child no longer essential to them? When they start walking?

Such asshats.

I thought this group didn't believe in Neanderthals?

This game is an example of the kind of bigoted stereotyping (often almost demonizing) that both sides of the abortion debate so often participate in.

I am Pro Life.

I do not miss the 50's (I wasn't even born until the 80's praise my mother that I survived)

I do not want to keep women "barefoot and pregnant". Women are very capable of fulfilling all the same roles that men fulfill, although I don't believe this should pigeonhole them into having to fulfill the same roles.

I do believe that people who practice premarital sex are robbing themselves of something beautiful for the sake of self indulgence. Many are slaves to their sexual urges. Do I think we should outlaw contraception? No. I consider such activity to be sinful and abstain in my own life, but the only parties injured in these premarital exchanges are the individuals that are willingly involved. I do believe that children that are a result of these exchanges are no less precious than those born to married couples whether it was the couples intent to get pregnant or not. The use of sexuality should be a choice but I believe that the children who are byproducts of these unions have rights that should not be infringed upon because their life is considered to be a mistake. Garrison Keeler, "If you don't want to go to Boston, don't get on the train."

"Birth control is for loose women" is buried in mixed messages. Birth control is for those engaged in sexuality who are trying not to get pregnant. Birth control is also for married couples who are choosing to avoid children. Birth control is an attempt to divorce sexuality from procreation. Birth control is a major cause of the idea of an "unwanted pregnancy". Whether any of these truths are positive or negative is entirely subjective. Words are often the seeds of division and in this case the statement is pure cultural spin.

No. I consider such activity to be sinful and abstain in my own life

"Birth control is for loose women" is buried in mixed messages.

So you make the judgement but denounce the statement that affirms your judgement as "mixed messages"?

Do I think we should outlaw contraception? No.

"Birth control is for those engaged in sexuality who are trying not to get pregnant."

"Engaged in sexuality"? What, in your mind, does that mean? People who masturbate and fantasize are engaged in sexuality. Same-sex couples are engaged in sexuality. Do you mean that birth control is for different-sex couples who don't want children?

"Birth control is also for married couples who are choosing to avoid children."

Well, avoid having children, sure--I don't avoid children in general. I like them. But why do married people get their own sentence? Aren't they covered by "people who engage in sexuality"? The artificial distinction forced-birthers make between sex in marriage and sex outside of marriage is deeply disturbing.

"Birth control is an attempt to divorce sexuality from procreation."

Not exactly. Human beings have divorced sexuality from procreation for centuries. Oral sex, anal sex, sex between people of the same sex, post-menopausal sex--these are all expressions of human sexuality that have nothing to do with procreation. Birth control makes it possible for heterosexual couples to engage in the full realm of sexual experience, including penile-vaginal intercourse, without procreating against their will.

"Birth control is a major cause of the idea of an "unwanted pregnancy"."

Where on earth did you get this idea from? Do you honestly believe that prior to the availability of wide-spread birth control, women didn't have any preferences about when and whether they got pregnant? Wrong. Human history as far back as ancient Egypt contains records of ways women tried to have sex without getting pregnant. Birth control isn't a new idea. The profusion of historical methods, even when inaccurate, points to the conclusion that women have always understood the concept of not wanting to be pregnant, even while wanting to have sex.

These aren't "truths." These are poorly phrased pieces of propaganda.

"I consider such activity to be sinful and abstain in my own life, but the only parties injured in these premarital exchanges are the individuals that are willingly involved." And what are they injured exactly? The only thing I get from sex is pleasure and satisfaction.

"Birth control is a major cause of the idea of an "unwanted pregnancy"." Um, no. Before birth control there were many more unwanted pregnanicies and they ruined more people's lives.

I do believe that people who practice premarital sex are robbing themselves of something beautiful for the sake of self indulgence.

If you think submission and prudishness are beautiful, all the power to you. I don't. Neither do the people I have sex with, so it can't really be immoral any more than a personal act like nose-picking or back-scratching.

praise my mother that I survived

Yeah, praise my mother too that I survived. Praise my father that the one sperm cell out of 300,000,000 that got released with my genes made it. And praise my parents for meeting.

stocad, I used to be a staunchly pro-life conservative. Although I tend to think that abortion is among the least desirable of bad options once a woman discovers she is pregnant (and does not want to maintain the pregnancy), I don't think it's our place, as persons *outside* of that situation, to tell her what to do.

I understand that fetuses are alive, and that they feel pain. I understand that many of them have heartbeats and look like tiny, almost-formed human babies. But *even if* fetuses are human, there's still a problem with forcing someone to carry a child to term. A good friend of mine once put it thusly, and ever since I've been unable to come up with an argument I'm satisfied with to counter her point:

The first thing you need to understand is that a fetus, strictly speaking, is a parasite. It exists in total dependence on the woman. It causes harm to the woman for its own benefit. Though the same could jokingly be said of children and spouses, this parasite is physically *attached* to the woman. In order to prevent harm to herself, she must detach herself from the parasite, and the parasite cannot survive without her.

Imagine if you were out late with your friends one night and had a few too many, and the next morning you found yourself attached to a clunky machine. You look up and you notice this machine is siphoning blood and nutrients from your body. You being to feel tired and physically ill. Someone explains to you that, during the night, doctors attached these machines to you to sustain the life of another person, who will die if you remove the machine. They explain that for the next nine months, your body will be used to sustain this other person's life. It will be painful and uncomfortable, and there is a chance that you could die from it. But you have no choice, because now that this other human being has become physically dependent on you, if you do not support him or her, he or she will die. A particularly snarky colleague of the doctor's smirks and says "guess that'll teach you to go out drinking."

This story was kind of the "click" moment for me. I had spent years of my life hung up on the notion that the fetus was human. But this helped me to realize that *regardless of whether a fetus is a person*, no one has the obligation to physically harm herself to save another's life. This is not a condemnation of motherhood -- in fact, I think it speaks to its laudability; any woman who would willingly allow the comatose person on the bed next to her to feed off of her internal organs for nine months, is one hell of a person. But no one has the obligation to do this. Even if the person undertook risky behavior. Even if the person undertook immoral behavior. I can guarantee you, for instance, that punishing criminals by attaching human parasites to them, would not pass muster under the Eighth Amendment.

The morality of sex has absolutely nothing to do with the abortion debate. The personhood of fetuses has nothing to do with it. These things are political red herrings that do exactly what all politics is designed to do: they take the focus off the actual issues so that the politicians can make money off of our confusion and arguing.

The bottom line is this: no person has an obligation to give up his or her body for the life of another person. Just as I don't have an obligation to pull someone from a burning car where I can see from where I'm standing that the risk to me is minimal, even if the only reason I see it is because I was passing through a bad part of town on the day I skipped work. To tell me I have *no choice* but to allow another person to *USE* my body is to deny *my* personhood.

Word, TLF. A fully grown man who wants my kidney doesn't have the right to force me to donate it, no matter how much he needs it. Because the kidney is my body. He doesn't have rights to my body.

And, Alon, heh. I'd like to praise my mother for teaching me about feminism and our right to security of person at a young age.

Kebernet: there was a logical fallacy in your reasoning regarding contraception.

The initial statement was "If I'm not mistaken, these are all things the anti-choice crowd believes."

Inherently, Stocad indicated that s/he is a member of the "anti-choice crowd" and that s/he does not believe that contraception is verboten.

Redefining the "anti-choice crowd" to exclude stocad is an example of strawman reasoning, and is mistaken on principle.

None of the above should be taken to be agreement with anything anyone has said, just nitpicking on logic and reasoning. :)

“no person has an obligation to give up his or her body for the life of another person.� Exactly.
Susan Bordo, in The Unbearable Weight, mentions the case of a man who was the only one who could donate bone marrow to his own son and he refused to. The son died (he was a born child unlike those unborn children that some folksare so very fond of). I don’t remember the details but the court ruling was that this man’s right to his own body overrides his responsibility towards his child.

Yes, yes. Those precious preborns. NOT actual living women or children. But "preborns".

I'm just wondering, at what age post born is a child no longer essential to them? When they start walking?

I couldn't agree more and this is something I would have loved to take anti chociers to task when I volunteered as a Planned Parenthood escort. I studied social work concentrating on children's mental health and I've worked with many traumatized and emotionally disturbed children, and it often kept me up at night. I've read some heart wrenching cases studies that only highlight the horrible things that many children go through every day in this country. And then I wonder about all the "pro life" and "pro family"forces have to say about this. If they care soooo much about kids then why aren't they pouring some of their resources into programs that help these kids. They throw out adopion as an easy answer to an unplanned pregnancy, but there are multitudes of kids in foster care that have been freed up for adoption when their parent's rights to them are terminated. Many of these kids are african american and hispanic with not enough families willing to adopt a child of that race and transracial adoptions are such a hot topic. Just dealing with those protesters outside the Boaton clinic really infuriated me when all these other issues are going on and there are many good organizations that could use support and resources. These people were horrible to women coming into the clinic....videocameras, shouting, graphic signs, throwing literature into people's car windows, you name it.

Sorry for the long and probably incoherent tangent.

It is true that not all anti-choices want to see women barefoot and pregnant. But the movement sure has a lot who do! Remember this "Kitchen NOW" protest sign?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sashax/89517504/

"No. I consider such activity to be sinful and abstain in my own life, but the only parties injured in these premarital exchanges are the individuals that are willingly involved."

So, what about the female parties that ARE NOT willingly involved? Rape? Incest?

That is just a side note, women ALWAYS have the right to decide what is best for their own bodies.

TLF, I noticed the link for parasitism and checked it out myself. The first sentence: "Parasitism is one version of symbiosis ("living together"), a phenomenon in which two organisms which are phylogenetically unrelated co-exist over a prolonged period of time, usually their entire life." key words: phylogenetically (i.e. evolutionarily) unrelated. A fetus however IS evolutionarily related to the mother (same species). I'm not an expert, but I think the difference between the scientifically accurate term (with respect to phylogeny) and the descriptive term (emphasis on the exhaustion of energy resources) should be noted, because it is very misleading in an argument.

mistskies, thanks for the clarification. I didn't mean it as a precise link up, but I probably could have made that clearer. But, you're right, it could be taken the wrong way.

Still, I think the comparison is pretty apt nonetheless.

just want to point, re: The Law Fairy's use of the word parasite... outside of a strictly scientific definition, this word has a social and linguistic meaning. It is a noun, meaning "A person who lives at the expense of another, or of society in general," and it is a verb, meaning "to live on or off a person or group, giving little or nothing in return."

So, I wouldn't really consider that a fallacy in the argument. And it is a good one -- I always am relieved to see people's anti-abortion views taken seriously and rebutted seriously, which so seldom happens in blog-world. It makes so much more sense, and actually furthers everyone's communication with one another... perhaps making change possible?

Word, TLF.

Amen.

I do not miss the 50's (I wasn't even born until the 80's praise my mother that I survived)

Praise my mother for being born. Praise my dad for being born too! Praise they got together JUST FOR MEEEEEEEEE! Praise my dad's superespecialsperm of 300 million that swam so mightily just for me!

Clearly that was a biblically grounded spermatozoan, to have struggled all the way to the egg. I feel lyrics to a new praise music song coming on... Yes... Yes...

Cheers,

TH

For those who come back to see if I've responded. I have come back through to read the comments.

I don't feel it necessary to go through and nitpick points with people. I do appreciate all the well reasoned responses.

I think we've all proven that we are thoroughly indoctrinated.

Thanks for picking my post apart word for word. I needed that, and should probably have spent a bit more time refining it.

My intent was not to sway anyone's opinion but more to say that I exist and there are many more like me. We are not simply an aging population of old church ladies.

"Some anti-choice Christians are calling it bigoted, saying the game portrays them as Neanderthals."

How can those xians be so bigoted as to insult neanderthals that way?

A neanderthal was light years more intelligent than an anti-choice xian bigot.

“I think we've all proven that we are thoroughly indoctrinated.�

Oh, no no! I am not indoctrinated at all. This is very real for me. Anti-choicers represent a very real threat for me. The threat that should contraception fail me, or if I am raped and I get pregnant I should be forced to carry that pregnancy to term. That is a very real fear. It hasn’t got anything to do with indoctrination.

BTW, you haven’t responded to any of the points that people have made.

sojourner, I agree. I don't think "indoctrination" applies here. Certainly, stocad, you're not arguing I'm indoctrinated? As I alluded to in my response to you, in fact, I was indoctrinated the *other* way. I was pro-life until, really, within the past few years. I'm in my twenties. In other words, I lived around twenty or so years being pro-life. The pro-choice movement *changed my mind* through reason and compassion. I developed my views as an *adult*. It's really not accurate at all to call this "indoctrination."

I'm just absorbing the irony of anti-choicers complaining that they're being portrayed in an unflattering way because of their views on abortion--because you know they'd never do anything of the kind--we prochoicers really are a bunch of selfish, baby-killing sluts. Honest!

*switching on sarcasm filter*

I respect that people have religious beliefs they want to live by. I think religion can be a good thing, as it gives one hope, provides support during times of difficulty, motivates one to perform charitable acts, etc. As such, I make a conscious effort to avoid generalizing about Christians (or Muslims, or Jews, or whomever) whenever possible.
What I think is not a good thing about religion is people's tendency to use it as justification for being generally crappy to other people who don't share their particular beliefs. I personally think that attempting to impose your beliefs on someone else, based on the assumption that either a) yours are the right ones or b) they worked/were good for you, thus they should work/be good for everyone is just incredibly, offensively arrogant. If you're inclined to think that way, I have this to say to you:
Just who do you think you are, that your beliefs trump everyone else's? You say you believe everyone has a "right to life," but presumably that's only as long as they’re willing live it by your dictates.

I call bullshit.

I happen to view abortion as a last resort, a lesser evil, sometimes the best option when their are no good options to choose from. I have a number of adopted friends and relatives who I'm very glad are around today because their mothers chose that route over abortion (assuming they had the option at all). However, I also believe that every situation has its own unique set of circumstances, and for some, abortion may be the best option. In order for it to remain an option for those people, it has to remain legal for everyone. My beliefs are irrelevant, because wrong for me ≠ wrong for thee.

*end rant*

Topinka is pro-abortion but not pro-abortion enough for Planned Parenthood. She favors parental consent and spousal notification. She opposes partial birth abortion.

I.e. Topinka is pro-abortion except for in cases where abortion is extra "icky" or may interfere with the "property rights" of parents/spouses.

Speaking as someone who follows a religious tradition that does not consider abortion to be morally acceptable in all situations (albeit accetable in many situations and required in some), I find that the consideration of Topinka's positions as "a reasonable compromise in the abortion debate" or as "moderate mainstream viewpoint" indicates the abortion debate is not about morality but about ickiness and control.

If the debate truly were about morality and weighing the life of a pregnant women against the potential humanity of the fetus, then spouses/parents would have little or no standing in the abortion decision -- even in the case where the pregnant women is actually still a child. Moreover, so-called partial birth abortions, which are almost always done due to concerns regarding the life or health of the pregnant women, would be of less concern morally than many other abortions. Thus, a compromise position would be one which might restrict certain abortions, but would certainly not restrict partial birth abortions or require notification of parents and/or spouses.

OTOH, that people really do think "I don't want to outlaw abortion, but they really should outlaw 'partial birth abortion' and require kids to tell their parents and wives to tell their husbands", indicates that most people are not really serious moral thinkers when it comes to the abortion debate but rather are opposing abortion rights 'cause they find abortion to be icky or they have a primative view of women as property: i.e. where people who are not 100% pro-choice tend to be willing to compromise indicates that their issues with abortion are not based on morality (and certainly not based on a view of the fetus as already being a signatory to the social contract) but rather indicates that they simply want to ban a practice they find icky or that they are sexist.

Look -- I find eating of shrimp (which are arthropods like insects!) to be icky (the Bible tells me it is, too!): does that mean I should be agitating that shrimp eating should be banned? Legislating morality is problematic enough, but legislating aesthetic sensabilities? Isn't that Stalinist?

Of course, the Kass' of the world would say that if something is icky, it should be banned ... so I say -- let's ban shrimping!

BTW ... in case it wasn't clear in my last post, just because I subscribe to a belief system that says under some circumstances abortion is a sin, doesn't mean I would have it outlawed! My religion, e.g., says gleaning of crops is a sin -- I'm not agitating to have that outlawed. I'm with Vervain here: "I also believe that every situation has its own unique set of circumstances, and for some, abortion may be the best option. In order for it to remain an option for those people, it has to remain legal for everyone. My beliefs are irrelevant, because wrong for me ≠ wrong for thee."

I just wanted to point out that even if you do accept that it's ok to legislate morality (which I don't: I make a standard issue distinction between ethics, which are ok to legislate, and morality, toward which legislation should remain somewhat neutral), the debate about restricting abortion rights, as indicated by what people tend to think is "reasonable" to restrict, is not even about the morality of abortion, but rather, as I'm sure y'all already know, about controlling women and about something people find "icky".

And unless you're Leon Kass (who, given his love of Leo Strauss, might not actually believe the bile he spews out but rather might view his proposed legislative/executive program as one of keeping up a bullwork of easy to understand "morality" -- i.e. don't do icky things -- as a matter of social control) or someone like that, "ickiness" does not necessarily translate to immorality nor does the need for social control indicate that moral legislation (i.e. anti-ickiness legislation) is necessary.

Or maybe it is: I'd love to see low quality tobacco, McMansions and other things that offend my delicate sensibilities outlawed. Perhaps all those concern troll types who say Dems. should moderate our pro-choice views would also say Dems. should support legislation forcing developers of exurban sub-divisions to design houses that are not ugly?