jeskill

Abortion has NEVER been a standalone issue. It's always been wrapped up in women's rights issues. Ask anyone you know who's pro-choice why they're pro-choice, I'll bet you any money they'll say that it's because they believe that women have a right to choose what to do with their bodies. It seems you're implying that because a proportion of the population doesn't see a link between the pro-life agenda and the anti-contraception agenda, then there must not be a link. I hope you understand how that thinking may be a tad unscientific. Why is the argument not good? Can you be more specific? What would make you more convinced of her thesis? And just to remind you so, her thesis is that the main actors and organizations in the pro-life agenda are also anti-contraception. She argues that these actors and organizations are more concerned about making sure that women feel the consequences of sex than they are of reducing the abortion rate. It's pretty much all about sex and kids. You can read a great discussion about the effects of contraception on female subjugation here. An excerpt:

This is perhaps a bit off topic, but there is plenty of research and development work that explicitly focuses on gender equality in lower income communities, and plenty of discussion on the intersection between class and abortion. All you have to do is google "gender inequality" and "socio-economics". Here's your start: Gender equality and socio-economic class: http://www.worldbank.org/mdgs/gender.html http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/topic/home/tags/gender Example of a study on the intersection between class and abortion:

It's fascinating how many different ways you try to make the same argument, Mr. Hoveland. When one line of reasoning is shown to be inaccurate, you just change the argument ever so slightly and keep going.

OK. randomc, I'm a bit confused by this statement: I think the original blog post does make a good case that the leaders of the pro-life movement do want to subjugate women. If you read it all, you would know that she makes this argument. Here is where she lays it down: It's worth noting that she does clarify in a following post: And yes, this is about American politics.

I guess you didn't read the article? Well, 80 % of people don't think of themselves as feminists according to these same surveys. If you can't see the patriarchy, how are you going to be able to see the relationship between the pro-life agenda and the anti-contraception agenda? This is the perfect time to throw this in. And I see you've resorted to an ad hominim fallacy in lieu of an actual rebuttal based on evidence.

Thank Libby Anne. That was one of the most well-thought out pieces on abortion I've read. Her discussions about the Quiverfull movement are also compelling.

In related news, a very interesting blog post has caught fire somewhat and been making the rounds: You can read the rest here. One more quote: The author's name is Libby Anne, FYI.

I don't mean to be rude, but these two paragraphs don't make sense.

I would also like to know what a "pop atheist" is. All's well that ends well.

They're relevant in the sense that they provide a secondary citation supporting my argument that "inconsistent use of pill" means women forgot to take a pill once or twice in a cycle. In some cases, yes. If a woman thinks she's a low risk for pregnancy (whether or not that's correct is another matter), then she is unaware that sex, at least in her case, could lead to pregnancy. Listen, it seems both of us agree on one thing. That is, these numbers strongly suggest that improvements in contraceptive use would decrease the number of abortions. I just don't agree that ignorance about contraceptives means "people are using abortion as their primary form of birth control". If that were the case, then individual women would be having multiple abortions in their lifetimes. Here is an article that discusses repeat abortions. There's also some discussion concerning the socio-economic demographics of women who have repeat abortions, if you're interested. Anyways, the numbers we've been discussing suggest to me that education about the proper use of contraceptives is lacking, and that people need to be educated about the efficacy of different methods. Hence, it means better sex education is key.

Wow. Did you look at the figures? I'm not sure how to link to them, but you can view the overview here. That's very interesting. The 3 year rotation was more profitable than the 2 year rotation, AND that the harvested crop biomass was higher in the 4 year rotation than 2 year rotation for all years except the last year. Which basically lends support that diversifying can improve overall crop yields and can be more economical.

Au contraire: It's pretty accurate: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17162311 It is my understanding that, besides a manufacturing defect, a condom can also break if it's past its expiry date or if the user accidentally tears the condom while opening the package without noticing. Those, IMO, constitute misuse of a condom. How does this statement further your argument that abortion is mostly used as a primary form of birth control?

This doesn't make sense. If, let's say, someone has an abortion afther they use the pill for a number of years, but forgets to take it one day and gets pregnant, then how are they using abortion as the primary form of birth control? Likewise, if a woman gets an abortion after a condom breaks, how are they using abortion as a primary form of birth control? I mean, I agree with the idea that contraceptive education is integral to making abortions rarer (something that, ironically, many anti-abortion advocates are against), but I don't see how not using contraceptives correctly suggests that people are using abortion as a primary form of birth control. I don't even think you could say that the 33% of women who consider themselves at low risk for pregnancy would consider themselves using abortion as a primary form of BC. I know of one such woman -- she was told that her medical condition would prohibit her from getting pregnant and was very surprised when it happened. Believe me, if she had thought she could have gotten pregnant, she would have used birth control. (She went on it afterwards.)

Off topic from neutrinos, but on the subject of consciousness.... Behavioural scientists spent a lot of time trying to figure out how we perceive our surroundings, and how our perception differs from other animals. This is related to consciousness in the sense that perception is the ability to take in information from our surroundings (e.g. light), recognition is the ability to relate the information we perceive to a mental map of that information in the brain (e.g. we have a mental map of what a "pen" looks like) and cognition ... "consciousness", is the ability to perceive, recognize, and also conceive a new idea by relating previously unrelated mental maps to each other, or reason, or judge, or imagine. Our ability to do all these things is entirely affected by how the brain is wired. At least, that's how I remember it from my behaviour class.

Just a suggestion, but you might want to consider doing a bit of research into what's already been learned about the brain before creating your own theories. Neuroscience is a fascinating and ever-changing field, and the experiments/results show that our brain is not just "mush". Check this video out" about what we know about how the brain learns, or this article about how memories are stored and retrieved. You may also want to consider looking up how scientists define consciousness.

I'm so sorry! I meant to click "like" and accidentally clicked "unlike". Can a moderator please fix that? When I was a young firebrand in my first year of university, I remember asking a classmate what her religion was (I was somewhat of a proselytizing atheist), and her response was, "I believe religion is private, so I'm not going to answer that question." I was incredibly embarrassed and even bit angry that she had been so short with me, but it worked. I've never asked a stranger/acquaintance questions of that nature since. ... at least IRL.

Ah ok. Where are the theists on this board? I know there are some, and I'd love to hear their thoughts on this matter.

Question for you zapatos (and please feel free to tell me to bug off if you don't want to answer): Would you consider yourself a secularist Christian? Why or why not? I'm not looking to attack you, I'm just truly interested.

True. True, however the link in the OP is basically written from the perspective of secular religious Jews. In this case, it's the religious Jews who feel that the permeation of Christianity into public schools is causing problems. Secularism was not created so that atheists don't have to hear about religion (although that is an added benefit for atheists). It was created so that people with different beliefs can co-exist in the public sphere without feeling like their beliefs are constantly being attacked. Kind of sort of on topic but with a bit of a non-sequitor: I was talking about this with my aunt (a Canadian who lived in the Texas and Washington for a while). She told me that when she moved to Texas, the second question people asked when they met her (after what's your name) was "What church do you go to?". She found this incredibly rude. It's the implication that your worth is based on what you are, as opposed to who you are. Incidentally, I realized that I don't actually know who my aunts and uncles vote for, or if they go to church, or what church they would go to if they did go to church. I've never asked. I mean, we've discussed politics, so I vaguely know their values, but that doesn't mean I know who they vote for. In the states, who you are is so wrapped up in who you vote for and what religion you are. It's incredibly divisive.

Again, a Christian can be a secularist. You are confusing the concepts of "agnosticism" and "atheism" with "secularism".

But, a secularist isn't necessarily agnostic or atheist, they're just someone who believes that religious and governmental institutions should be separated. I know a number of people who are both secular and religious, which would suggest they would not be dismissive of the mysteries of religion. I feel that sentiment in the US sometimes. Oddly enough, Canada is not technically a secular state, but seems to me to be more secular than the US. I think it's because multiculturalism as an ideology is drilled into Canadian schoolkids from an early age.

Yeah, this is probably a biggie.

The Friendly Atheist linked recently linked to this article by Jan Jaben-Eilon about jews being harassed by their Christian friends. The first paragraph: This was timely to me because there I have a few family members on facebook who are convinced they, as Christians, are persecuted by secularism. I have a hard time understanding why. It seems to me that secularism is something that allows us the freedom to have our own beliefs. So, my question: why do some (not all) Christians believe that secularism persecutes Christians?

Here here! I agree with ypaos, CharonY, and Moontanman on this one. It is biologically inaccurate to say "life begins at conception", for the reasons CharonY laid out. In my mind, "life" is a biological concept, not an ethical one. Personhood, on the other hand, is an ethical and legal concept. Ergo, I think we should really be discussing when we think personhood begins, not when we think life begins.

Great site john! I'm bookmarking that. The pie chart is also informative: it states that only 1.5 % have an abortion after 21 weeks. I bookmarked this article by Joyce Arthur some time ago, but I also found it informative. An excerpt: The take-home message is, of course, you don't really know if you're personally pro-life until you have to personally make the choice.