Now Available: Middle Ground on Abortion

Newsweek ^ | 7/11/05 | Anna Quindlen

[freedomfiter2]

"Marriage, a History," social scientist Stephanie Coontz quantifies what most of us know: "The relations between men and women have changed more in the past thirty years than they did in the previous three thousand."

For the better?

[exDemMom]

My big objection to selling Plan B, at least over-the-counter, has nothing to do with pro-life issues. Plan B works by massively unbalancing natural hormone activity. It might be safe for sporadic emergency use--e.g. for a rape victim, or that occasion when the condom breaks--but that does not mean it is safe for frequent, routine use. Selling it OTC would guarantee that some women would start to depend on it for primary birth control, taking it several times a month, and that is asking for trouble.

As toxicologists say, the dose makes the poison.

[exDemMom]

This author is shamelessly merging the issues of birth control with abortion.

That is actually a common tactic of those who are pro-abortion. In Maryland, a few years ago, there was a ballot initiative to guarantee the continued legality of abortion "rights" should Roe v. Wade be overturned. The campaign on the pro-abortion side did not focus on abortion, but instead ran a fear campaign, trying to convince people that if abortion is made illegal, contraceptives will also be made illegal. They did this not because it is true (it isn't), but because they wanted to plant enough doubt in people's minds that even pro-lifers would vote to keep abortion legal, since that would guarantee keeping contraceptives legal.

Many politicians use the same tactic to get themselves elected. In one campaign, a conservative businessman was running against a liberal feminist. The pro-life businessman had all kinds of ideas for improving schools, encouraging economic growth, keeping tax rates under control, etc. The liberal feminist went around saying that if abortion is made illegal, contraceptives will also be made illegal. Logically, her argument made no sense, and her campaign was based on no other issue--but she won the election.

[B Knotts]

"Emergency contraception" is neither strictly contraception, nor is it an emergency.

[Ichneumon]

They are messing with nature and natural law.

So are vaccinations and antibiotics.

[TChad]

For a better overview of this subject, with a lot less attitude, try:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0506200177jun20,1,81588.story?page=1&coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

You have to get past the headline and the first few paragraphs.

[goldstategop]

ROFL! Anna Quindlen is kidding, right? To say you can find a middle ground on the question of prematurely extinguishing human life is like saying you can be a little too pregnant. Sorry but that's not the way I look at it. For me, human life has an absolute value and there can be no compromise on the sancity of human life itself. 'Nuff said.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[jennyp]

The fact of the matter is that conception starts a biochemical reaction that continues for the next approximately twenty years, until the specific individual reaches full physical maturity. That is a continuum that has ONE specific starting point---conception. Thus--human life starts at conception.

"Having a brain" or "brainwaves" is simply abortionistic "weasel-wording" to get around the above inconvenient facts.

But if you apply that reasoning to the other side of life and the question "when does a life end", you discover that you must end up in an absurd position: The person should be considered to be alive until all the cells of the body have died. (Because those cells are still continuing the continuum that started at conception.)

[eccl1212]

indeed they are.
and it is feasable, if not likely that some of the cells in that dead cadaver, COULD have their nuclei injected into stem cells growing a new body entirely, with no person at all in them!

and if we are NOT doing this to preserve the body life of our dearly departed, semi departed that is, then we are not doing all we can to keep that person alive.

in fact, we are actually killing the dead person!!!

< /sarcasm >
I agree with you by the way.

[Wonder Warthog]

"But if you apply that reasoning to the other side of life and the question "when does a life end", you discover that you must end up in an absurd position: The person should be considered to be alive until all the cells of the body have died. (Because those cells are still continuing the continuum that started at conception.)"

No, actually not. Note that I did NOT say that the biochemical reaction proceeded until all cells were dead, but until physical maturity was reached. The process of bodily growth induced by conception ceases at that point, but a different biochemistry continues. Like it or not, human life begins at conception.

[TChad]

I expect that the double liberal whammy of "Anna Quindlen" and "Newsweek" led FReepers, including some who posted here, to correctly assume that the piece was just another liberal liefest not worth reading.

Quindlen says:
“Plan B is an emergency contraceptive that works by inhibiting ovulation, fertilization or implantation. It won't work if you're already pregnant, but it will stop you from becoming pregnant if your everyday contraceptive failed or you've had unprotected sex.”

If the drug prevents implantation of a fertilized egg, then it works “if you’re already pregnant” and it is therefore an abortifacient. If the drug only acted to prevent ovulation, it would be unreliable as a "morning after" pill. Quindlen/Newsweek chose to ignore the scientific controversies about the mode of action of these drugs, so she could bash conservatives. Too typical.

[BlessedBeGod]

There is no middle ground on abortion. The baby is either dead or it isn't.