This week i received a comment on a post from a year ago about Protest the Pill Day, which is meant to protest the morning after pill, which pro-lifers seem to see as nothing less than infanticide. Usually, I would let it slide, but being that a hero of women's reproductive rights was savagely murdered by a so-called "pro-lifer", I thought I would use it as an example of the kind illogical thinking we're up against.
The comment:
"In response to May 07, 2008 entry, The Pill Kills.
The consensus is that the 5 requirements for life are:
The ability to reproduce.
The ability to respond to stimuli.
To be composed of at least 1 cell.
The ability to adapt.
And the ability to grow.
From the moment of conception, the embryo is genetically capable of all of this, and more.
Furthermore, birth control and abortion combined create a sense that children are unnecessary side effects of sex. This could not be more false. Biologically, the only purpose of sex is to create life, much in the same biological sense that digestion is the only purpose of eating. In both cases the feeling of resulting pleasure are simply stimuli to encourage us to do it more often.
This sense of children being a "side effect" promotes anger towards children in the forms of child abuse, since they are not seen as something precious, but instead as something similar to an ingrown toenail, something unpleasant to get rid of.
Long story short, what is being said in the above article is both irrational and morally perverted.
Get the facts straight next time."
I'm getting called morally perverted again. It must be Wednesday.
Wow. Your definition of what constitutes a life is super simplistic and literal, but does nothing to separate what is "life" and what is a "human baby". I mean, yeast is alive by these standards too. Anyway, I would argue that it doesn't really matter. Late term abortions are one thing. I still support them, but to argue that a group of cells during the first 48 hours after conception is a baby? I don't buy it.
Like I said in an earlier post, I get why people are pro-life. Sincerely, I do. What disturbs me more is the author's view of sexuality. I'll address the first paragraph first. I mean, I suppose she's right, biologically speaking. But being human is more than biology. To ignore the "pleasure" aspect of sex is to relegate humanity to baser animal status. Should couples who are infertile cease humping? I won't bother to ask about gay sex, since I can make a pretty safe bet where the author's opinion lies. We are not just biology and, even if we are, our biology has evolved to be much more complicated than that.
More disturbing is the author's next paragraph about children being a "side effect". I don't have a kind way of saying this: children are an unnecessary side effect of sex. Again, we have evolved into a species that has control over its own reproduction. Your view that this is always a negative side effect is cynical. It is a side effect, plain and simple: sometimes wanted, sometimes not.
Promotes anger toward children? Say WHAT? I guess I kind of agree with you. I mean, I'd be sort of pissed off if I was forced to have a child I couldn't provide for (because of archaic religious dogma, natch)and then forced to live in systemic poverty I could never escape from too. All the more reason to support birth control and reproductive options for women.
But whatevs.
You say po-Tay-to, I say po-TAH-to.
