Liberal, progressive, pro life... What is wrong with me!

[mdmc]

Hello DU and welcome to another post by DU’er MDMC!

Let me state for the record that I think that abortion should be legal, safe and rare (Gore 2008!). When I was a teenager, abortion rights and censorship were my political fights of choice. Now I am 34, and I really don’t support a women’s choice to abort a baby. I support a women’s right to abortion, but I would prefer that no baby is ever aborted.

I’m a Catholic, so basically the argument I make is as long as society cannot care for a fetus, society must rely on the mother to make decisions for the fetus. If the mom wants to abort the fetus, than so be it. God has given this gift (or curse) to the expected mother, and she can meet God’s challenge any way that she desires to do so.

The “culture of life” should work towards helping needy mothers to go through with their pregnancies. They should not be trying to make the choice illegal.

I tell “right to lifers” that they should focus on the sanctity of life, as opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade. Some abortions are preventable, such as when a woman feels that she could never give up a baby to adoption, but also cannot afford to keep the baby. The best right to lifers save lives by helping people that do not want to have abortions to work on life affirming solutions, such as assisting a needy mother with financial support for her new infant.

When I meet rabid right to lifers, I always ask how many babies they have personally saved. I ask them how many abortions did you personally stop from occurring by assisting the mother to decide (because it is the mother’s legal right to “decide”) to keep her baby. I ask them how many people in poverty are they currently assisting to further reduce future abortion scenarios.

People that actually foster a “culture of life” by assisting at risk mothers to keep their infants safe and successful have no need to overturn Roe v. Wade. They are actually already doing God’s work. Overturning Roe v. Wade is a poor use of time for someone trying to improve America’s “culture of life”. Reduction of ignorance, disease, and conflict (or the promotion of knowledge, health, and peace) of are the greatest paths to promote life. I get it, most fundies don’t.

So what does DU think of my “culture of life” position? I would love to discuss this with ya’ll.
Peace and low stress, DU.

[Dark]

1. That's pretty much my position.

I believe that women should be educated about ALL the options available to them. They should also be allowed to make a choice. I have no problem with talking a woman out of an abortion. I would try if I found out that a woman was planning to. And I would never advocate for a woman to actually get an abortion.

But I still think it is a right every woman should have.

Kind of like nuclear weapons: Having them and USING them are two very different things with very different effects.

[mdmc]

2. both wipe out life, I guess

thanks for posting!

[Dark]

5. True.

But are you familiar with MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)?

The US and USSR both had nuclear weapons, and simply having them created a distinct effect of fear. Both sides were afraid to use them. That effect is certainly different than actually using the weapons, no?

Abortion's the same way. Having the right to an abortion ensures that women have full control over their bodies and their lives. But having an abortion creates a different effect all together.

It's a right every woman should have, but no woman should exercise.

[mdmc]

8. I hadn't thought of that...

most lefties refuse to accept the negative effects of abortion. I accept the negative effects as true and real...

[CTyankee]

34. What do you mean by that?

If a woman has that right, then she has the right to exercise it.

Also, what is the "different effect" that you cite in having an abortion? Where does this thought bubble come from? Have you conducted a poll? Have you seen polls that actually collect the views of real women? Where is your data to support this allegation?

[mdmc]

36. explained (I'm not sure if I understand your post)

Sometimes, when a couple or a women decides to terminate a pregnancy, they / she may eventually feel remorse, guilt, or depression over this decision.

Also, what is the "different effect" that you cite in having an abortion? <-I'm not sure what this refers to. Sometimes there may be complications during a proceedure... not sure.

Where does this thought bubble come from? <- Do you mean, "why do I think abortions can be bad for a women?" If this is what you mean, I've had a couple of friends that have had abortions. Some have had some problems.

Have you conducted a poll? <- I have worked with a couple teens (three) that have had abortions (I have also worked with single teen moms) and I have had friends that have had abortions.

Where is your data to support this allegation? <- Is my allegation that abortion is traumatic? I feel that it is well understood that some women may find the experience traumatic, and regretful. Adoption, which I support, can also be traumatic and regretful.

Did I answer your questions?

[CTyankee]

50. sorry, my typo "different" should have been "negative"

but thanks for your explanation. I have had one acquaintance who regretted her abortion. From my experience in the prochoice movement going way back to the 70s, the overwhelming response women have after an abortion is a sense of relief. But here's the conclusion I have come to about how one feels after having an abortion: women are moral agents. They should have the right to make this decision themselves, not as puppets of the state. And that means the woman fully accepts responsibility for her decision, whatever they may feel in the future. None of us can tell her what she will feel, or not feel, in the future. That is moral agency. Without it, women can't make moral choices.

[JuniperLea]

3. Agreed

I've always been pro-choice but anti-abortion. There should be a lot of education on the matter, there should be multiple alternatives available to young mothers. After all is said and done, if she chooses to end that life, she will. I would much rather see her do this in a hospital and not an alley.

I'm not Catholic, but I'm a mother of three who believes abortion is murder. I'd literally cut off my right arm before I would kill my own child or any child. Capital punishment is murder too, yet we have laws that provide for this heinous action. We need to keep abortion legal. We need to keep government out of our uteri.

[FreedomAngel82]

7. I agree

I personally am pro-life but I'm also pro-choice because I know it's not my life and I don't have a say in anything. Instead of overturning Roe v Wade look at what causes abortion and work on changing that. According to Planned Parenthood only three out of ten reason's why women have abortions can't be changed and that's rape, incest or a medical issue. Other reason's can easily be fixed with societies help because they deal with either the economy or an emotional issue. There's all sorts of ways to help lower abortion. Abortion has been risen since Bush stole the office in 2000. In his first term it rose 20%.

[mdmc]

10. thank you for the stats, I had no idea that abortion was that

preventable.

You don't have any links to info off the top of your head, do you?

peace!

[JuniperLea]

15. Very good points!

Abortions up since The Bush Regime coup, eh? That is a very hard world to bring a child into for sure.

I like your points about the reasons for abortions. This is something tangible that could easily be worked on!

[0rganism]

4. Nothing's wrong with you, your position is clearly pro-choice

More than that, you're confronting irresponsible knee-jerkers with an alternative that would reduce abortions far more effectively than overturning Roe v. Wade ever would. Bring about a society of unjudging social, medical, and economic support for motherhood -- indeed, for all people -- and abortions will drop to a tiny fraction of what they are today without doing a damn thing to the laws as they stand.

[FreedomAngel82]

11. From my experience

in talking with people who are against Roe v Wade there are two types of people who are against it. One group believes if they overturn Roe v Wade they will end abortion which doesn't make any sense. The next group doesn't believe that their money should pay for abortions. I remember reading that a long time ago Al Gore used to be in that position. I think he has changed and progressed over the years but I'm not sure. :shrug: But I am with the Clinton's on this issue: safe, legal and rare. Overturning Roe v Wade won't change the number of abortions but will cause more women to die who wouldn't have if they had Roe v Wade.

[mdmc]

19. Only evolution will end abortion

Imagine: In order to have a child, a male and a female would need to be 100% committed to raising a child in a loving environment. You would need to have sex AND want to have a child.

[ieoeja]

28. How is their money being used?

That is the excuse for voting "pro-life" that I most hear: "The next group doesn't believe that their (tax) money should pay for abortions."


I have taken to challenging them (usually my relatives). "Can you name one gov't program, existing or proposed, that spends your tax dollars on abortions within this country? If not, then what are you really voting for? For the guy who LIED to you?"

[mdmc]

38. Medicaid

If a poor pregnant women is dying due to her pregnancy, Medicaid would pay for her to have an abortion. Neo-con fundies would prefer she die than have their tax money go to end the infants life.

[mdmc]

14. thanks, I make neo-cons mad with my position

so I must be doing something right!

[ieoeja]

6. Depends on how far you go.

If someone approaches you to talk about their pregnancy, you can give whatever advice you want.

If you want to legislate forcing women to sit through lectures on alternatives to abortion, or to endure a waiting period, etc then I would say you were rudely interfering where you had no right.

[FreedomAngel82]

16. In 2004 on the second debate

John Kerry gave the perfect example to this question he was asked at the end. He was asked about abortion and paying for it with money and all that and he said that he was for keeping Roe v Wade. He could talk to someone about not having an abortion all he wanted but in the end it was that woman's choice.

[mdmc]

21. folks can do what they want

I oppose waiting periods, parental notifications, mandated counseling. I only offer help when asked...

[jackster]

9. Please use some term OTHER THAN PRO LIFE....

who ISN'T PRO LIFE? Maybe pro- or anti- choice is a better option.

[JuniperLea]

18. Anti-Choice

is much better.

[mdmc]

23. Well, I'm not against choice... I'm a pro-choice and oppose abortion.

yup...

[LittleClarkie]

47. Pro-choice, and the choice you would personally make is pro-life

I'm pretty much in that boat, and finding out that Kerry also defined himself that way was one of the stepping stones during the campaign to me becoming a supporter of his.

Given the choice, you would choose life, but you're not going to tell another woman what to do with her body. That about it? Yeah, the terminology is sort of lagging behind a proper definition that includes both concepts. Pro-choice-pro-lifer?

[mdmc]

24. and any one that advocates war is not pro-choice

:kick:

[mdmc]

39. I mean pro life

duh

[ieoeja]

29. True. It is "anti-abortion", not "pro-life".

"Pro-life" is a rightwing slander used to imply those who favor the continued legality of abortion are anti-life.

Abortion: the only medical procedure approved by the American Medical Association that is being threatened by career politicians.

[mdmc]

40. I see what you mean

I am anti abortion, pro choice. I wish I could change the thread title...

[Lindacooks]

49. It's 'anti-privacy'. Or 'pro-nosy' Or

'pro-stick-your-schnozz-into-somebody-else's-business-so-you-don't-have-to-deal-with-your-own-life'

[catabryna]

12. Well, I couldn't have said that any better!

Your preaching to the so-called "choir" on this one. I totally agree with you on the need to reduce the need for abortions. At the same time, I'm completely opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade. I firmly believe you can be pro-choice and pro-life at the same time and I don't have to figure out how to line up my beliefs with my stance against the death penalty.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

13. Amen. You're not alone.

[texastoast]

17. Your are just pretty right on

And therein lies the trouble. "Right-to-lifers" have no integrity, so you will find few who have saved any babies personally. They would bring an unwanted child into a situation of "living murder" rather than allow a woman to abort.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

20. As an ex-catholic and man

It's really none of my business what a woman decides is best for her or her baby to be and I'm glad I'll never be faced with such a deeply moral choice. I do want to thank you for a post that in many ways appeals to me on a spiritual level, i'm only ex-Catholic, not ex-Christian and agree with the sanctity of life put forth by your post, which is vaguely reminiscent early Neo-Platonism. Sanctity of life is an odd position for anyone who supports war, no matter what excuse they hide behind as the endorse such wholesale slaughter. Judging others is never right in my view, especially if you're not the one that's pregnant. Walk a mile in her shoes first, i say to control freaks who feel the need to legislate how others will live or die.

In his Oration on the Dignity of Man, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola states that you have “free choice and dignity, so you may fashion yourself into whatever form you choose. To you is granted power of degrading yourself into lower forms of life, like the beasts, and to you is granted power, contained in your intellect and judgment, to be reborn into higher forms, like the Divine." Almost a manifesto for the Renaissance, his speech affirms the importance of a human quest for enlightenment in philosophical terms. I wish everyone could be touched by the words of Pico before deciding to take Divine choice away from others.

[mdmc]

25. awsome post!

:kick:

[Arkansas Granny]

22. I see nothing wrong with your position and think you have stated

it well. Being pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion, in my opinion. I can't think of the circumstances that would have persuaded me to choose abortion. That does not, however, give me the inherent right to make that choice for anyone else. A far better solution would be to make birth control information and methods readily available for any woman who wants them. If you can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, you will reduce the number of abortions.

[mdmc]

42. poverty reduction would help also to reduce abortions

[Czolgosz]

26. I'm a Pro-Choice Catholic who wants to see the abortion rate fall to zero.

First, more than any other group, Catholics should get on their knees and be thankful for the separation of church and state enshrined in the First Amendment. Unfortunately, many Anti-Choice Catholics have not learned their history in this regard.

Most early European settlement of America in New England (except in Rhode Island, as mentioned below) was predominantly Puritan. These Puritans were notoriously intolerant of other religious views, and they had expelled Catholics and Quakers. Rhode Island was founded as a refuge for those who could not endure the religious intolerance of Massachusetts.

Virginia (and, to a lesser degree, Maryland and Georgia) had laws establishing the Church of England as the state religion, and it had banned Puritans, Catholics, Quakers, Baptists, and Presbyterians from preaching their faiths. While Georgia had laws establishing the Church of England as the state religion, it was more tolerant and there was even a sizable Jewish community in Savannah, but even Georgia expelled Catholics. Maryland was founded as an early haven for Catholics until the Church of England was established as the state religion, and Catholics were not even welcome in Maryland.

Pennsylvania and Delaware were founded as sanctuaries for Quakers.

New York and New Jersey were religiously tolerant and diverse, and laws nominally establishing the Anglican Church as the state religion (a vestigial artifact from their colonial origins) were not generally enforced. Among the Anglicans, Protestants, Quakers, and Jews lived in relative harmony.

Carolina was founded on the principles of religious toleration, but even North and South Carolina abandoned these principles and established the Church of England as the state religion.

The anti-Catholicism was flagrant in pre-Revolutionary America.

How, you may ask, could these various states join into a union as one nation? All you have to do is read the very first words of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

To the extent that the desire to outlaw some women's sovereignty over their own wombs is based on religion, it is a desire we must oppose under the First Amendment. Catholics, above all, must understand this.

To the extent that the desire to outlaw some women's sovereignty over their own wombs is based on public health policy, we must understand that outlawing abortion is an ineffective means of lowering the abortion rate. In countries with liberal abortions laws (say most European countries, for example), the abortion rates is generally very low and countries where abortion is completely illegal (say most South American countries, for example), the abortion rate is very high. In America, Pro-Choice Clinton presided over a falling abortion rate while anti-Choice Bush presides over a plateauing or slightly rising rate.

In short, the means to effectively reduce the abortion rate is by reducing the economic pressure on pregnant women and not by outlawing abortion. Anyone like me who wants to lower the number of abortions in America should also stand with me in the fight to eliminate the root causes of poverty for pregnant women.

[mdmc]

33. excellent post

I usually hit the Noe con pro lifers with poverty reduction next when debating. If 70% of all abortions are socio / economic driven, then society can truly promote a culture of life through the reduction of poverty.

[Arugula Latte]

53. People abort for many reasons, and poverty is just one.

I personally know several people who have had abortions, and money was not a factor (youth was, though). None that I've talked to regrets the decision.

[SteppingRazor]

27. I'm pretty much just solidly pro-choice...

I think abortion should be legal, and I think attempts to steer people away from abortion, as you've outlined above, are similar to potheads who advocate medical marijuana even though it wouldn't directly benefit them -- it's one small step toward the final goal of legalization. So, too, is this one small step in the road toward criminalization of abortion.

At the same time, I appreciate that you come to your conclusions from a righteous, ethical place, and I think your opinion is perfectly valid. I just don't agree -- obviously, we must be Democrats. :hi:

[mdmc]

35. and I use this same lame logic to support medical marijuana!

mercy! Right, honorable disagreement. Anything less would be uncivilized.

I, for the record, oppose any legal obstructions (mandated counseling, parent / spouse notification, waiting periods) to abortions. I use my argument to deter these obstructions as ineffective and offer concerned parties other, more effective alternatives to promote a culture of life.

[SteppingRazor]

52. I can certainly get behind your position then...

It's legally mandated obstructions, such as you've mentioned in the previous post, that I have a problem with. Voluntary outreach to women with unwanted pregnancies can be done well, certainly. So, actually, we're not as far apart as I originally suggested.

As for pot legalization, I only used that as the first example I could think of. But you get the idea -- I was just pointing out that incremental steps in one direction can be a slippery slope. For the record, as for as legalization, I'm actually all for it. :smoke:

[BamaLefty]

30. Terrific

Wonderful post! I agree 100%

[Warren DeMontague]

31. You don't have to like, or agree with, abortion to be pro-choice.

All you have to do is recognize that it's not your place to make that call over another woman's body and uterus.

There are plenty of ways to reduce surgical abortions in this country, IMHO. Support better birth control choices with universal access (certainly don't encourage pharmacists to dispense lectures instead of pills) Support a SPHC system so no poor woman has to worry about health coverage for her family. Ditto for a liveable minimum wage. Most of these ideas are noxious to the so-called "pro-life" community, which really has banning abortion, throwing doctors and sexually active women in jail, and criminalizing all forms of birth control as the true agenda... in essence, it's about control, not "Life".

I think you've got a good grasp on all that. You are pro-choice like many other people are pro-choice. Personally opposed to abortion, but not seeking to criminalize it.

[mdmc]

37. and I take that message to the neo-cons

fight poverty to promote a "culture of life". I even use their "clean skies" language!

[Warren DeMontague]

45. Their "Culture of life" is really a Culture of LIES.

They don't give a shit about "life", otherwise they would care a little more about this thing:

[flpoljunkie]

32. Some "Pro-lifers" support making birth control unavailable, along with sex

education, which endeavors to teach young people responsibility for engaging in unprotected sex, if they choose to be sexually active.

These are things that we as a society must do if we are to decrease unwanted pregnancies.

[mdmc]

41. Once the neo cons go after sex

the progressive liberals will sweep the county. The neo-cons are actually afraid of overturning Roe due to the backlash and potential to turn off horny young voters to the prude GOP.

[gordontron]

43. indeed abortion as a last resort nt

[meow2u3]

44. Nothing wrong with you.

Contrary to popular DU belief, you can be progressive and pro-life at the same time.

It all depends on your motives. It's because, in the heat of the abortion debate, nobody bothered to ask why people favor or oppose the choice of abortion.

Cons oppose abortion choice for the wrong reasons. i.e., for the sake of controlling and dominating women; pro-life progressives, or as I prefer, neoprogressives, oppose almost all abortions for the right reasons: 1)to protect the sanctity of life, born and unborn; and 2)because a liberal should protect the weakest and most vulnerable from the whims of the strong and powerful, and AFAIC, this particular choice is out of step with traditional liberalism.

But that doesn't necessarily mean we should jail, stigmatize, or otherwise punish women for having sex, at least without punishing men equally. On the contrary: we should do our utmost to ensure the child is born and raised by a competent parent. If the mother is poor and/or young, we should educate her as to how to raise a kid and give her at least the resources to be able to do so.

[Demi_Babe]

46. I am with you 100%

[Dr Fate]

48. I have never promoted abortion and dont plan to start now.

I agree with your Clinton quote- "Safe, legal & rare."

[DemExpat]

51. Me too - pro-choice in the early months and anti-abortion generally.

"Safe, legal and rare" pretty much covers my position as well.

DemEx

[mgr]

54. Rhetoric 101

Babies and infants are not equal to a fetus, and let's keep the superstition about the soul out of this. You cannot abort a baby/infant since it is a fetus brought to term. How does your basic philosophy address late term abortions--my wife was in the eight month when we determined the fetus was alive tissue but not viable? If you have never brought a baby to term, you have no right to dictate that others should--my personal observation is pregnancy appears to be nine months of hell for the woman, and I am the one that just supplied the sperm. You privilege one part of the equation without consideration of the other--its a culture of life if you do not consider the quality of life during those nine months. Consider the POV of the woman with the pregnancy, which is omitted in this discussion.

Mike

[Lexingtonian]

55. Hey-

Stop being so sane and reasonable and humane about things. And here where I am, that's the consensus of what responsible personal behavior and the mature adult outlook on life is.

Which is, of course, why the wackos are upset by it. This dispute isn't about any 'culture of life' in any serious manner, it's that a large sector of the population fears too much well-handled personal autonomy and collective sanity (aka 'liberalism'). When a critical mass of these things is reached in society, they lose their role of being martyrs and bullies for a silly God cast in their own ignorant image.

[Vinca]

56. I'm always mystified by the "pro life" description. Is there anyone

who isn't "pro life?" You'd have to look long and hard to find a woman who wanted to get pregnant just so she could have an abortion. I agree with you - it should be legal, safe and rare.

[hyphenate]

57. My personal stance

is a bit complicated.

I am thankfully past those days now myself, but while I would likely never have had an abortion for myself, I could never take that choice away from someone else. Many years ago, probably in the mid 70s, I wrote to NOW on the subject and my stance then was pretty identical--the problem is not necessarily with having an abortion, but to make the major decision as to when a baby is viable, and to make any decisions based on that criteria. To some Christians, a fetus is a living creature at conception. Many of us disagree on that, however, and believe that it is only when a fetus can live outside of the womb that it becomes a "human being." This is one of the areas in which rampant disagreement will always be high, partly based on a person's personal beliefs.

My second element of the whole pro-choice issue is that this is, IMHO, a WOMAN'S issue. Women have been commanded around by men for most of history, and it's damned time for us to start acting on our own behalf. And making choices about our bodies and our lives is the start. If men would stay the fuck out of the issue completely, I would be happy. I recall the picture of all the asses signing the partial birth bill into effect:



It is eerie (this is the photoshopped version) to see MEN deciding on a woman's issue, as another element of keeping us as second hand citizens.

For me, this issue is a very personal one, and it's kind of a challenge to be satisfied with any of the court's involvment in it in the first place. It's so much like the gay marriage situation, or any other law/situation/circumstance where the government is prying into our personal lives. We should be free to be whatever we are, to be able to marry, have sex, make choices on our own set of morals, and to live in whatever fashion makes us happy, as long as it doesn't affect anyone else adversely. If we can't command that kind of respect, we should just hang it all up and die, since that's essentially how much our lives are worth at that point.

[welshTerrier2]

58. "rare" is a dangerous slippery slope

overall, i support the position in the OP ... but i think when the word "rare" is added to "safe and legal", we risk a slippery slope argument ...

what is meant by "rare" is that this is NOT a desirable alternative ... it is a value judgment that abortion, which is a "medical choice", is NOT the choice proponents of "rare" hope will be made ... it intends to attach a stigma to this choice ...

now some in this camp insist on combining "rare" with "safe and legal" and I respect that ... but advocates of "rare" need to understand that such campaigns indoctrinate the public with a prejudice against the abortion choice ...

what can "rare" lead to? it can lead to such things as "waiting periods", parental notification laws, mandatory viewing of extracted fetus videos, mandatory pre-abortion training classes and so on ... while it is in no way condoned in the OP, "rare" incurs the risk that "more preferred options" must be dangled in front of patients seeking abortions before they can "qualify" for one ...

i support the ideas about helping those who choose abortions solely because they cannot afford to have or raise a child ... i support voluntary education that helps prevent unwanted pregnancies ... i have no problem empowering women with more options ... but "rare" runs the risk of pressuring women based on someone else's values ...

politically, "rare" might be a way for pro-choice Democrats to attract those in the center on this issue ... but the bottom line is, that "rare" is a slippery slope that might lead to greater restrictions on the freedom to choose ... it's fine for any person to believe in "safe, legal and rare" as a personal philosophy ... but "rare" as a Party platform or a political position is a dangerous slippery slope ...

[melissinha]

59. I'm a Pro LIfe - Pro choicer too

I believe others can make that choice, I'd prefer that the choice not be made and would never make that choice for myself....

What floors me is the Pro-Choicers that can't understand my position regarding my own choice, teh choice isn't necessarily pro abortion, but either.

[guidod]

60. I think it should be left up

to the person that is pregnant, it's her body. Personally I feel that when it's an embryo, first 3 months, abortion is fine. Once it becomes a fetus though is another story. Abortion should ALWAYS be the choice of the mother.

[dhstraayer]

61. Are all anti-choice arguments at root religious, anti-sexual, or both?

At first, I thought that all anti-choice sentiment had its roots in anti-sexuality. The biggest source of anti-sexuality in western thought, is, of course, from Christian religion.

Let's face it, many view unintended pregnancy to be god's punishment for illicit sex, and view abortion as an attempt to circumvent god's will.

But how did this view evolve into opposition to stem-cell research? That does seem to have happened.

Let's try this: "We oppose abortion because it is a clear attempt to circumvent divine punishment for illicit sex. But to justify our opposition in a secular society, we'll not dwell on that, but rather assert that is a matter of protecting human life."

Of course, we have to agree exactly what we mean by human life. The qualification 'human' is important, because there are lots of living things we deprive of life without moral qualm. (A stalk of celery doesn't "crunch" unless it is alive, after all).

Liberals are susceptible to the argument that we can't say that some life isn't really human life, because that argument was so terribly abused to protect slavery, promote the Holocaust, justify genocide.

So what makes a fetus, an embryo, or a blastocyst "human life". Is it because it possesses that differentia that makes humans different from all other creatures: a vastly greater ability to think and communicate? Clearly not. Potential? Potentiality is not reality, and acorn is not an oak. If cloning is really possible (just ask Dolly), then every cell in our bodies has this potential. It's got to be more than than.

So, I conclude that the ultimate argument must come from religion: a fetus, or a zygote, has a 'soul', whatever that is.

In a secular society, I don't buy that argument.

If you want to convince me that "abortion takes a human life", you'd better give me a definition of human life that you can defend in secular terms. None of this "Beating heart" B.S., either. An earthworm has five hearts. None of this "humanness is defined by our DNA" stuff either - a malignant tumor shares our DNA.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.