You've got 72 hours to stop this!
This is interesting: Apparently, South Dakota ballot includes an extremely restrictive abortion law to challenge Roe v. Wade. This law does not even allow abortions in the cases of rape or incest.
The one extremely interesting feature of the law is that it allows emergency contraception (the morning after pill).
This blog has a long diatribe about the efforts of “progressive scientists” to redefine the term “abortion” to exclude the morning after pill. The morning after pill stops a pregnancy before the egg implants in the uterine wall.
My contention is that the process of redefining of terms to achieve political objectives undermines the debate on abortion. In the South Dakota debate, it is possible that the efforts to achieve widespread availability of “Emergency Contraception” might actually end up tipping the scales on this ballot initiative in favor of the pro-lifers.
The progressive scientists who’ve burned their political clout in efforts to redefine “conception” have effectively undermined efforts to keep abortion legal. Even worse, since Christian doctors and hospitals who have not been swayed by the redefinition of terms to keep EC available, we could see a world where women no longer have access to safe legal abortions, or the EC pill.
Doesn’t anyone else see this???? The efforts to win support for the Morning After Pill by redefining terms effectively undermines support for fetal abortions.
I did historical research on the abortion issues. The articles justifying abortion in the days prior to Roe V. Wade were premised on the idea that humans go through stages of development and that there is a large number of natural abortions in the earliest stages of development (specifically the embryotic stage). Assisted abortions are just an extension of this natural process.
Progressive scientists who drew a line in the sand and said that "abortion" only refers to actions taken after implantation destroyed their original justification for fetal abortions.
If I were a South Dakota pro-lifer, I would be harping up and down about how the Morning After Pill is still available and sufficient to handle the needs of women. Since the Morning After Pill has to be taken within 72 hours of intercourse, I would be on a podium claiming that the new law will encourage women to report rapes sooner (when it is easy to get DNA evidence) .... yada, yada.
The efforts to redefine the term abortion plays into the hands of the pro-lifers. If the pro-lifers understand this, they will be able to use the redefine terms win their cause of making fetal abortions illegal throughout the US..
The “progressive scientists” who think that they can manipulate debates by redefining terms simply destroy our ability to discuss issues, and ultimately end up undermining both their cause and end up harming they people that they were pretending to help.
The one extremely interesting feature of the law is that it allows emergency contraception (the morning after pill).
This blog has a long diatribe about the efforts of “progressive scientists” to redefine the term “abortion” to exclude the morning after pill. The morning after pill stops a pregnancy before the egg implants in the uterine wall.
My contention is that the process of redefining of terms to achieve political objectives undermines the debate on abortion. In the South Dakota debate, it is possible that the efforts to achieve widespread availability of “Emergency Contraception” might actually end up tipping the scales on this ballot initiative in favor of the pro-lifers.
The progressive scientists who’ve burned their political clout in efforts to redefine “conception” have effectively undermined efforts to keep abortion legal. Even worse, since Christian doctors and hospitals who have not been swayed by the redefinition of terms to keep EC available, we could see a world where women no longer have access to safe legal abortions, or the EC pill.
Doesn’t anyone else see this???? The efforts to win support for the Morning After Pill by redefining terms effectively undermines support for fetal abortions.
I did historical research on the abortion issues. The articles justifying abortion in the days prior to Roe V. Wade were premised on the idea that humans go through stages of development and that there is a large number of natural abortions in the earliest stages of development (specifically the embryotic stage). Assisted abortions are just an extension of this natural process.
Progressive scientists who drew a line in the sand and said that "abortion" only refers to actions taken after implantation destroyed their original justification for fetal abortions.
If I were a South Dakota pro-lifer, I would be harping up and down about how the Morning After Pill is still available and sufficient to handle the needs of women. Since the Morning After Pill has to be taken within 72 hours of intercourse, I would be on a podium claiming that the new law will encourage women to report rapes sooner (when it is easy to get DNA evidence) .... yada, yada.
The efforts to redefine the term abortion plays into the hands of the pro-lifers. If the pro-lifers understand this, they will be able to use the redefine terms win their cause of making fetal abortions illegal throughout the US..
The “progressive scientists” who think that they can manipulate debates by redefining terms simply destroy our ability to discuss issues, and ultimately end up undermining both their cause and end up harming they people that they were pretending to help.
posted by y-intercept at 10:13 AM
0 comments
