your expression of simpleminded support... the disgusting right wing tools who wrote it..Sad little right wing tools...we call you folks the American Taliban.

Still missing the point- stereotyping and insulting just makes you look like you can't keep it together.

There are things that my side calls you.

I'm trying to be polite.

THAT is the point.

PS: Whoever gets the nom's to the court can decide whether the 'constitutional' right even exists. If that's us, then the constitution will read accordingly.

Okay, "left wing tool"...
-
Why is India becoming such a problem? Because they are becoming a more industrialized nation. China and India are both increasing the amount of global damage because they are emerging economies. I already said that. If you're talking about local pollution which isn't dependent on the use of technology- that's been the case with any major population center for the last 2 millenia. Look at the cloaca in ancient Rome or the Thames in Victorian London. Suggesting that abortion is the solution to that perennial problem is beyond absurd.
-
I'm not a proponent of the 'right wing' idea of charity rather than state action as a means of solving social ills- although I think the charities certainly help far more than they hurt.

The POV shared by pro-choicers is that it is absurd and disingenuous to call a not-yet-developed fetus "human life" in the same sense that a pregnant, grown woman is "human life," thus conferring an equivalency between them where the two have rights that have to be "balanced" and thus the woman exercising control over her own body constitutes an "injustice." When this equivalency is made to a fertilized egg, the ridiculousness becomes so self-evident that our biggest frustration is that such an argument often isn't laughed straight out of the building.

You've packed a bunch of assumptions in there. First of all, calling a fetus 'human life' is non-controversial. People on my side of the fence feel that those who deny that are making an argument whose "ridiculousness becomes so self-evident that our biggest frustration is that such an argument often isn't laughed straight out of the building."
-

You seem a little more thoughtful than most trolls on this site

-
Ha! What a dubious distinction. I was pointed to an RHRC story yesterday by someone who's sympathetic to FFL. I'm just messing around while my computer is busy with annoying maintenance stuff, but I'll be done with that before long, and I don't expect to 'troll' here in the future as nothing constructive has come of it. I will return the favor you extended to me and assume you are more thoughtful than many of the insult and mantra spouting commenters on this site. I'm hoping, therefore, that you'll at least grant me that (without adding your qualifiers) 'a fetuses is a human life' is ipso facto true.
-
On the other hand, I'll acknowledge that you have a perfectly good point in objecting to calling a "fetus 'human life' in the same sense that a pregnant, grown woman is 'human life,' thus conferring an equivalency between them." The statement with qualifiers included is definitely problematic. The problem is that those are your qualifiers. It isn't our intent to 'confer an equivalency' between them with regard to their eligibility for rights. Mature humans (ie, adults) who are in good mental health are eligible for the full compliment of rights. Rights can be taken away from those with less reasoning capacity due to infirmity, and rights are (temporarily) withheld from those who are still yet to develop their capacity. We are seeking to draw either equivalency or at least comparability to infants. Infants have no autonomy whatsoever. That's why we find it so laughable for a pro-choicer to say that we want to give fetuses 'more rights than women'.
-
Almost everyone agrees that infanticide is wrong because even if we deny them autonomy, we still give them the right not to be killed (or injured). Why is that? Is it because a newborn infant mind is capable of such complex reasoning? Of course not- they can't even focus their eyes on an object enough to pick it out from the incoherent blur in their visual field. At birth, their cognitive ability is LESS than that of a NON-PRIMATE. Therefore, if your standard for 'personhood' is cognitive ability, then a raccoon has more status than an infant. There may be a few animal rights extremists more concerned with raccoons than human infants, but there aren't many- and it isn't standard for proponents of legal abortion.
-
Infants have an unassailable right to life because of the immanent (not merely potential) ability that any infant has merely by being healthy and human. (There are some people who worry about anencephalic fetuses and whatnot- but I find that to be merely sad.) A few people say that infants are 'potential persons', but most acknowledge that insofar as 'person' is used in a right conferring sense, they are people. If the immanent cognitive ability of an infant gives it that status when it's actual ability is below that of animals, then how is it that the actual cognitive ability of the unborn (which at some stages is admittedly nil) is the measure rather than the immanent cognitive ability up until natural birth?
-
The pro-choice 'personhood' criterion is arbitrary and inconsistent. It is actually (despite all of the "anti-intellectual" slander thrown at my side) a remnant of bad science. It is an outgrowth of the old common law 'quickening' standard (which is practically prehistoric) and still bears influence from recapitulation theory. In fact, the only reason that the American law is based on trimesters (as opposed to the British law which is still derived from quickening) is because it was mathematically convenient. A consistent cognitive 'actuality' standard cannot account for the difference in treatment of "immature" humans and complex animals. A consistent cognitive 'immanence' standard is pro-life. The pro-choice ethic is a marriage of convenience between two inconsistent standards.

I've never studied feminism- but I've been exposed to a good deal second hand. I don't call myself a 'feminist man', as most of my male friends do because I think that they're just glossing over issues they won't raise in mixed company. There is an implication (amongst my peer group) that not being a feminist is the same as being a sexist. I think that that is bunk. Over time, modern feminism amassed more and more ideology until it is now more or less it's own hybrid of philosophy and social theory- and objecting to it is possible without being sexist (IMO).
-
I find that because it began as a social movement (as opposed to philosophy and social theory which begin in the academy) it is a bit nebulous. There's no authority or authorship or way to establish the orthodoxy of competing claims. A good example is the UC presentation on youtube about whether FFL is truly feminist or not. I wonder if this is a fundamental problem with the nature of modern feminism- that it tried to cross over from a legitimate social movement into some sort of interdisciplinary intellectual 'paradigm shift' that would fundamentally redefine how we see the world.
-
I'm kind of philosophically conservative. Whitehead famously said that all of philosophy is merely "footnotes to Plato". I don't go that far, but I do feel that after the age of enlightenment, most advances in philosophy have been more technical than ground-breaking. I don't really believe that the thinking of liberal theoreticians circa 1950-1965 was wrong. I think that the problem was that it was only applied selectively. Freedom, equality, fairness and justice weren't in need of being redefined (IMO), they just needed to be applied to people other than just white males- not that anyone here will give a rat's hind end what I think about feminism, but that's my two cents.
-

one of the constant threads in the treatment of women throughout history is an often heavy-handed social regulation of their sexuality and ability to bear children.It's why women who have lots of sex are called "sluts," but men who do the same are called "studs."

-
I agree with all of that, but unlike some I don't think that it is merely the product of adopting 'patriarchical' cultural norms. I think that those norms themselves were merely the (probably inevitable) evolution of biologically determined behavior. I think it was an unavoidable step in our social evolution. Do you agree?
-

It's why the Catholic Church opposes contraception.

I think that was one component- certainly. After all, women still can't become priests, and catholic men are still seem more susceptible to the 'Madonna whore' complex than average.
-
The religious half of my family is Catholic. To be honest, I'm not sure that anyone is all the decisions resulting in Vitae. There's a group that still believes that Paul VI might have allowed contraception if he hadn't died when he did. It never made a much sense to me UNLESS you accepted that god didn't like anyone to interfere IN ANY WAY with reproduction because EVERYTHING about creating life (including semen- ergo no male masturbation) was his to control just as ending life is his to control (which is why capital punishment, euthanasia, and wars of aggression aren't allowed either).
-
I began to think of myself as an agnostic around 9, so a lot of it seemed kooky to me anyway. Over time I came to suspect (and still do) that it was partly motivated by a desire to be sure that the Catholic church would always be the dominant form of Christianity. It was a kind of biological recruitment policy to deal with the spread of protestantism :)
-

when Gardasil first came out, everyone was talking about how it would make young girls into sexually aggressive libertines,

-
LOL. To be honest, I never thought that that was the real motivation for the conservatives. I thought that it just disturbed them to think about the POSSIBILITY of their daughters being sexually active. Wasn't there a scene in 'Rebel Without a Cause' where Natalie Wood's dad slaps her for wearing lipstick? The way I read that was that the dad got angry because he suddenly realized that his daughter wasn't a little girl anymore- and took it out on her.

It's why abortion is a litmus-test issue for many voters, and not the innocents killed as "collateral damage" by fighter jets in Afghanistan or Predator drones in Pakistan.

I'm going to have to disagree on this. Many American's do accept collateral damage as an unfortunate reality of war (although the 'consistent ethic of life' people in large part were more concerned about the war than abortion during the last election), BUT there is a very important difference: collateral damage is (by definition) death which was unintentional. Abortion isn't. When our soldiers were accused of intentionally killing civilians in Iraq, there was a much different reaction. I don't know how old you are, but my dad's told me that outside of the anti-war movement, the reactions were similar during Viet Nam.

It's because the notion of a woman who controls her own sexuality, and any consequences of that sexuality---without being punished for it in some way---upends some of the most fundamental cultural assumptions held by a wide segment of society, going as far back to the story of Adam and Eve. It's the kind of thing that makes them think civilization will fall apart if it is not nipped in the bud.

Do you really think that? That seems awfully depressing. I can't see into other people's hearts or anything, but unless I'm a really bad judge of character I honestly don't think that people think that way anymore.
-

the conservative position on gay marriage.

-
I don't think that that is about sex. I think that it is about religious faith. I don't really understand religious faith very well. It might help me get along better with some of my family if I did, but it seems too much like willing yourself to overcome your rationality.
-
Anyway, I found something that represents my view on that issue...
Marriage and the State
...this way polygamists can get in on the act too if they like :)

This is why the abortion controversy will eventually settle down in favor of pro-choicers, as it has already in a number of European nations---it comes down to equality between the sexes. While there's still a long way to go on that front, nothing's going to turn that clock back in the developed nations.

-
I worry that that may be true. A friend of mine who's more pro-life than I am (and who's 24) told me at the end of last year that she didn't think that she'd live to see the day when the laws got changed back. That's a big part of why I decided to 'start doing something about it'.
-
Whether it is biological or cultural, evolution doesn't favor what is better- only what offers a material advantage. I think that the pro-choice position is arbitrary and unjust, but that may not keep it from winning the day.