I'm more offended by "pro-abortion" than the air quotes.

That's because you're a man. :p

I do wonder how many pro-life men would feel if their daughter was raped, ended up pregnant and forced to sustain the pregnancy because abortion was illegal. Or if their daughters health was at risk if the pregnancy was maintained. I also wonder how they propose to remedy the situation of dead-beat dads and dads that neglect to pay child support, leaving the woman struggling. If it takes two to tango, the government to say you have to have this child, or put it in an already messed up foster care system then how come the man is the one who is able to walk away with little to no consequences?

There are statistics that show child abuse and neglect rates dropping in the 60s after R v. W was implemented. There are also statistics that show the number of new gang members dropping to about 15 years later. This was attributed to abortion becoming legal and women who didn't want [would resent, abuse, neglect] their kids ultimately not having them. I'll see if I can find them later. We discussed this in one of my psych classes and also a womens study class.

Are you suggesting Obama and McCain are having an affair?

Well, it would obviously be because the right is homophobic.

I said "boy"

OH OH... I get it, you were making a funny. I skipped right over the dead and white part. Duh!

Good one! :snap:

But sadly no. I have no time to think of others' affairs. Just my own relationship with Rachel Maddow. The thought consumes me.

Yes, you can. It just means that acknowledging that something called "life" begins at conception does not end the debate. If it did, then you could not have capital punishment. You might then say, well, in the abortion context, we're talking about innocent life. However, at that point, you're in the territory of moral judgments and have moved beyond the "when does life begin" argument as the determining factor of whether there is or should be the right to terminate a pregnancy.

pwned.

I don't think I was pwned at all. If it's life, which I understand you aren't conceding, wouldn't it then follow that it's human life?

Human life, or humanish as Stephen Colbert might say. I still don't know that that gets you to personhood for due process protections under Roe. But even if it does, so what. As I've said before, Roe is an impediment to the discussion. The fact that an activity may enjoy constitutional protection does not make it a moral one. The fact that it does not enjoy constitutional protection does not make its prohibition moral or rational. Being pro-choice, I see nothing wrong with saying that life--or lifeishness--begins at conception and still adopting a pragmatic Roe-like framework on the issue.