I always forget that it is popular to argue that such a thing doesn't really exist. In this particular case, it is very much a silent majority. If someone is pro-life, he/she isn't usually going to trumpet it about to other pro-life friends that he/she has his/her child on birth control, but the reality is that many parents realize the need (and at the heart of it, simply want their children to be smart about sex ). There are religious and political ideals and then there is real life.
What observation? The political fight you see isn't usually indicative of what is happening in people's homes.
They say that because that is typically the center-point of the argument. Imo, you have skewed this to fit what you want to say. Of course there are some who are still puritanical about sex, but mostly you're looking at people who are trying to make some simple decisions (with religion as a guide, not the ultimate goal): do I believe it's a life? At which stage? And if it is, are we killing it? Is that ok? No? Then I am not pro-choice. Obviously, your personal answers to those questions are different, but that does not invalidate all other positions.
If you think that's bunk, fine. Regardless, at some point, you're going to have to accept that just because you're capable of thinking of a zygote as somehow outside the development cycle of a human being, that doesn't mean that everyone will agree. Or just never bother to get in these discussions, because you're not even trying not to be offensive.
That isn't true at all. How do you even feel comfortable claiming that every person who is pro-life doesn't care or donate to any sort of -natal care or research? That is silly. Any "movement" is much more than you appear to have looked into this - for example, there are doctors who are pro-life. Actual doctors with degrees and licenses, who also happen to be active in the pro-life cause. Are you suggesting that none of them do any work affect anything from miscarriages to infant mortality?
There is a sound argument; you aren't accepting it. That's fine, but I think you need to open your eyes if you want to have a place in the conversation. With someone else... you've taken this thread exactly where I didn't want it to go.
Observation of the reality of sex ed and birth control advocacy in America simply do not support your claims about the majority of "pro-life" people.
What observation? The political fight you see isn't usually indicative of what is happening in people's homes.
Of course "pro-life" people say that women who conceive shouldn't be able to end a life. Pushing the idea that a zygote is a human life gives them a much more acceptable cover for their (backward, Puritanical) ideas about sexuality. The religious connections and convictions of the movement, and the actions they do and don't take, makes their real goals clear.
They say that because that is typically the center-point of the argument. Imo, you have skewed this to fit what you want to say. Of course there are some who are still puritanical about sex, but mostly you're looking at people who are trying to make some simple decisions (with religion as a guide, not the ultimate goal): do I believe it's a life? At which stage? And if it is, are we killing it? Is that ok? No? Then I am not pro-choice. Obviously, your personal answers to those questions are different, but that does not invalidate all other positions.
If you think that's bunk, fine. Regardless, at some point, you're going to have to accept that just because you're capable of thinking of a zygote as somehow outside the development cycle of a human being, that doesn't mean that everyone will agree. Or just never bother to get in these discussions, because you're not even trying not to be offensive.
Yes, miscarriages are natural. So are any number of diseases, disorders, injuries, etc., but we still try to cure those so that people don't die. If a zygote is a person, why does the "pro-life" movement give zero attention to medical research that might save more of them from miscarriages?
That isn't true at all. How do you even feel comfortable claiming that every person who is pro-life doesn't care or donate to any sort of -natal care or research? That is silly. Any "movement" is much more than you appear to have looked into this - for example, there are doctors who are pro-life. Actual doctors with degrees and licenses, who also happen to be active in the pro-life cause. Are you suggesting that none of them do any work affect anything from miscarriages to infant mortality?
The "pro-life" position of what constitutes a person is absurd on its face; I'm not interested in talking about that, because there is no sound argument for that position. However, if the movement isn't even going to act in basically coherent ways, they deserve no political respect along with deserving no epistemological respect.
There is a sound argument; you aren't accepting it. That's fine, but I think you need to open your eyes if you want to have a place in the conversation. With someone else... you've taken this thread exactly where I didn't want it to go.
Susan G. Komen cuts funds to Planned Parenthood. (with updated edit)
- 02/02/2012 04:32:27 PM
2406 Views
The most annoying part is in the sixth paragraph- abortions are only a small part of their thing
- 02/02/2012 05:08:07 PM
1286 Views
I agree.
- 02/02/2012 05:20:17 PM
1168 Views
Actually, there are longer-acting forms of birth control than the pill.
- 03/02/2012 12:37:42 AM
1168 Views
I do think that preventing abortions is their primary goal.
- 03/02/2012 01:08:05 AM
1126 Views
If they don't see that link, it's because they haven't looked.
- 03/02/2012 02:42:42 AM
1231 Views
That is a little unfair.
- 03/02/2012 12:48:46 PM
1463 Views
Won't someone please think of the children?!
- 04/02/2012 05:03:27 AM
1215 Views
I think you're leaving out some important points.
- 04/02/2012 03:40:48 PM
1140 Views
Ah, the good ol' silent majority.
- 04/02/2012 07:32:29 PM
1131 Views
So which moron is feeding you this crap?
- 04/02/2012 10:27:15 PM
1185 Views
It worries me when we think alike....
- 05/02/2012 01:22:35 PM
1226 Views
- 05/02/2012 01:22:35 PM
1226 Views
Brain waves at 8 weeks are a myth.
- 05/02/2012 08:46:06 PM
1305 Views
"brain function... appears to be reliably present in the fetus at about eight weeks' gestation."
- 05/02/2012 10:42:35 PM
1220 Views
Oh please.
- 05/02/2012 11:13:50 PM
1169 Views
Re: Oh please yourself.
- 06/02/2012 09:15:26 PM
1043 Views
Quite a telling reply.
- 07/02/2012 04:38:20 AM
1141 Views
Re: I quite agree.
- 08/02/2012 06:03:23 PM
1339 Views
You're taking an issue of objective facts and treating it like a day of playground gossip.
- 09/02/2012 03:47:06 AM
1149 Views
No, your source, in which there is very little that is objective, did that for me.
- 11/02/2012 02:59:45 AM
1218 Views
I see you have continued to provide no factual arguments.
- 14/02/2012 04:53:28 AM
1476 Views
I presented factual rebuttals.
- 19/02/2012 01:56:45 AM
1238 Views
You continue to miss the point.
- 23/02/2012 10:22:24 PM
1330 Views
No, I got the point: You expect me to accept a heavily biased, partisan and combative "source."
- 07/03/2012 01:47:37 AM
1251 Views
The claim of brain waves at 8 weeks is still unsupported by evidence, i.e. a myth.
- 15/03/2012 09:16:14 PM
1314 Views
Well, yes.
- 04/02/2012 11:14:47 PM
1237 Views
A silent majority may as well not exist, if it has no tangible effects.
- 05/02/2012 12:54:34 AM
1157 Views
You ignoring it is not the same thing as it having no tangible effect.
- 05/02/2012 02:11:36 AM
1259 Views
Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case.
- 04/02/2012 08:25:49 PM
1311 Views
Re: Since few people oppose ADULT contraception access, that might be wise in this case.
- 05/02/2012 02:11:28 AM
1158 Views
If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
- 05/02/2012 08:42:17 AM
1004 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
- 05/02/2012 10:04:59 PM
1184 Views
Re: If you are arguing most sex ed opponents are naïve/ignorant, I agree.
- 06/02/2012 08:57:38 PM
1127 Views
I'm done discussing my use of the term "oppression." The Tim Ryan stuff is interesting, though.
- 07/02/2012 05:37:05 AM
1259 Views
Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 08/02/2012 06:01:32 PM
1357 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 09/02/2012 05:30:58 AM
1210 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 11/02/2012 02:58:00 AM
1227 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 14/02/2012 04:29:08 AM
1323 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 19/02/2012 01:54:30 AM
1207 Views
Re: Yet, regrettably, not done misusing it.
- 23/02/2012 10:59:32 PM
1528 Views
There are problems with the implants
- 03/02/2012 01:42:55 AM
1196 Views
Any form of birth control doesn't work for everyone, though.
- 03/02/2012 02:37:00 AM
1212 Views
Oh yes, I totally agree! My point is just that there are some barriers to handing out implants
*NM*
- 03/02/2012 03:38:05 AM
559 Views
*NM*
- 03/02/2012 03:38:05 AM
559 Views
What on earth does that have to do with anything?
- 03/02/2012 01:47:42 AM
1121 Views
I was actually kinda with you until you closed with that anathema I condemned in my response to rt.
- 03/02/2012 01:39:06 PM
1160 Views
I agree that they have made Beast Cancer a cult but splitting with PP is just smart
- 02/02/2012 05:39:49 PM
1338 Views
I agree.
- 02/02/2012 06:00:17 PM
1124 Views
yes she is going to have to piss off one group or the other
- 02/02/2012 06:12:31 PM
1170 Views
Right
- 02/02/2012 06:24:14 PM
1228 Views
it is a judgment call and I hope her decision is based on more than my guesses
- 02/02/2012 06:53:50 PM
1094 Views
Do you see a way Komen could have avoided pissing off one side?
- 02/02/2012 06:55:36 PM
1162 Views
No, I don't. I don't believe I said that?
- 02/02/2012 07:53:50 PM
1075 Views
You didn't; I inferred it from the way you phrased that ("if she HAS to..."). Sorry.
- 02/02/2012 08:06:11 PM
1178 Views
I know I'm not always clear.
- 02/02/2012 08:32:47 PM
1158 Views
- 02/02/2012 08:32:47 PM
1158 Views
Just curious...
- 02/02/2012 10:07:49 PM
1143 Views
Not at all.
- 02/02/2012 10:24:19 PM
1207 Views
Not at all?
- 02/02/2012 10:32:31 PM
1109 Views
No.
- 02/02/2012 10:47:04 PM
1045 Views
My argument is based on my belief that the pro-choice women are more dedicated to women's causes
- 02/02/2012 11:17:24 PM
1143 Views
Re: My argument is based on my belief that the pro-choice women are more dedicated to women's causes
- 03/02/2012 12:08:01 AM
1139 Views
wow that may be the worst advice I had in weeks
- 03/02/2012 12:13:18 AM
1119 Views
- 03/02/2012 12:13:18 AM
1119 Views
Ooor, the best.
- 03/02/2012 12:25:56 AM
1105 Views
ok now you are just being mean *NM*
- 03/02/2012 12:46:12 AM
671 Views
The thread was going too well - I thought we needed the meanness. *NM*
- 03/02/2012 11:30:39 AM
625 Views
Never having heard of any of those except PP, my opinion may not be the most relevant...
- 02/02/2012 08:32:48 PM
1212 Views
You don't know stuff.
- 02/02/2012 08:43:38 PM
1198 Views
I know the stuff that matters.
- 02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM
1083 Views
- 02/02/2012 09:55:08 PM
1083 Views
they may also be a afraid that PP will go the way of ACORN
- 02/02/2012 11:04:16 PM
1233 Views
"Accused" of = unfounded slander.
- 03/02/2012 12:13:30 AM
1278 Views
did you notice I called tactic disgusting? That doesn't mean it isn't effective
- 03/02/2012 12:45:10 AM
1189 Views
The investigation by Congress is well-known to be specious. It's the House GOP abusing their power. *NM*
- 03/02/2012 12:41:58 AM
717 Views
This is so foreign a debate for me
- 02/02/2012 10:16:15 PM
1217 Views
Re: stuff
- 03/02/2012 09:18:53 AM
1084 Views
I'm sorry, but what're we talking about when we're talking about "cancer"
- 03/02/2012 12:49:34 PM
1145 Views
Obviously not adenocarcinoma, no.
- 04/02/2012 07:36:06 AM
1226 Views
I"m not that fussed. I'm just generally leary of research that has results like that
- 04/02/2012 08:35:04 PM
1084 Views
Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
- 02/02/2012 10:54:34 PM
1192 Views
Re: Once I looked up Nancy Brinker at Wikipedia it all made sense.
- 02/02/2012 11:03:32 PM
1091 Views
After a little more digging I have to say you are probably right.
- 03/02/2012 02:23:14 AM
1031 Views
They restored funding incidentally
- 03/02/2012 05:43:47 PM
1099 Views
Unless I've missed it
- 03/02/2012 05:56:15 PM
1164 Views
You must have missed it then
- 03/02/2012 07:07:13 PM
1102 Views
If you're referring to Cannoli
- 03/02/2012 07:19:25 PM
1262 Views
Multiple was not an accidental choice of words
- 03/02/2012 11:46:30 PM
1144 Views
Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you.
- 04/02/2012 12:41:42 AM
1176 Views
Re: Then I agree that maybe this is not the thread for you.
- 04/02/2012 01:53:25 AM
1357 Views
well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision
- 03/02/2012 06:24:14 PM
1280 Views
Re: well at least there will not be any doubt about this being a political decision
- 03/02/2012 06:29:34 PM
1056 Views
I do wonder a bit which lawmakers Fox thinks "pressured" Komen.
- 03/02/2012 08:29:50 PM
1093 Views
Beyond the 26 senators, I'd imagine rumor of the more reliable sort
- 03/02/2012 08:46:31 PM
1164 Views
Well, if they wrote AS senators rather than friends of Nancy Brinker, that probably qualifies.
- 03/02/2012 10:24:11 PM
1208 Views
Judge for yourself
- 04/02/2012 12:01:06 AM
1224 Views
Well, a public letter makes whether they signed it "Sen. so-and-so" irrelevant: It is political.
- 04/02/2012 04:07:20 PM
1133 Views
are you trying to disprove the study you posted?
- 03/02/2012 09:20:12 PM
1244 Views
To me, it depends on the nature of the contact, which I have not dug enough to discover.
- 03/02/2012 10:43:45 PM
1104 Views
you admit you have no incite into what happened
- 04/02/2012 04:27:17 AM
1175 Views
Actually, it looks like Komens new VP (and former GOP GA gubernatorial candidate) had the incite.
- 04/02/2012 04:24:14 PM
1188 Views
- 04/02/2012 04:24:14 PM
1188 Views
educated guess don't work when you are tinfoil hat wearing kool-aid drinker
- 04/02/2012 09:33:49 PM
1116 Views


*NM*