Resources on Abortion.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Anyone got the facts on how modern abortions are carried out, common anti-choice arguments and good responses to them?

I'm about to go up against a religious fundie, and I know that this won't change her perspective, but it's more the crowd that matters. Was wondering if anyone could help me out here.

P.s. I'm not going to argue religious semantics and want to repudiate it immediately so that we don't get bogged down in biblical crap, so anything about what 'god actually says about abortion' wouldn't be as preferred as realities in practice and the ethical implications of them.

[Sasha]

http://www.womenonwaves.org/nl/page/1013/resources

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think there's a fun philosophical argument to be made that extends as far as infanticide. It might not be much use to you, but I'm procrastinating, so here goes.

What differentiates humans, and where should that line be drawn? If you want to talk about "the soul" or some other characteristic that is not only beyond measure, but is beyond lived experience, there's basically no discussion to be had. Without resorting to cheap science-ism, which, in any case, would almost inevitably deteriorate into singing "Every Sperm is Sacred" or dismissing faith as a sad cover for willful ignorance (a mistake, in my opinion), we can still talk about faith as it is experienced.
Anyway, bear with me for a moment. I'm going to go out on a limb and say most anti-choice types aren't vegans. They're running around murdering doctors, not butchers, and this though butchers are undeniably more prolific in their killing. Clearly, they differentiate between consciousness and a specifically human consciousness. What differentiates the two? Now, I could be wrong - possibly our Christian friend here has a concept of humanity that is totally divorced from faith, and divorced from a relationship with God. If that's the case, I think probably they don't haven't probably got an idea of humanity at all, and they're just repeating what their youth pastor told them. If that's their tack, they don't have faith themselves, and we can dismiss them, because, hell, they're not even Christian, they're just an arsehole. So, let's proceed assuming our Christian friend understands humanity as defined by a particular relationship to god, and that it's a relationship that can only be understood by faith (or lack thereof as the case may be). So, how are we to gauge this capacity? I don't think it's that complicated - any Christian will tell you what defines their faith. and it's faith in everlasting life in the Lord Jesus Christ. Ah, but what's everlasting life? This faith can only be understood counter-posed, necessarily, with death.
In short, killing people is different from killing animals because people can have faith, and people can have faith because they can grasp death. They can "work out [their] salvation with fear and trembling" to borrow from Paul. Now, here's the kicker - find me a baby who's working out their salvation. Sure, you can find me a baby with an instinct to live. You can also find me a goat, or a petunia, or an amoeba with an instinct to live. What you can't find me is a baby, or a goat, or a petunia, or an amoeba that experiences its life in relation to death. None of these living organisms "cares" if you kill them because they don't experience it as any different than going to sleep - they weren't, they were, they are not again. Without a capacity to conceptualize themselves in-relation-to, without the ability to grasp themselves as a subject, they couldn't care less if they live or die because, frankly, without the ability to subjectively experience faith, it's biological process.
Now, to be fair, I'm intentionally being a bit absurd. I'd say that a goat likely has an understanding of death. But a baby? There's a reason infanticide has been an acceptable practice across the world for most of human history, and it's not exclusively practical (if we wanted to be cold-hearted and practical, there are people we'd kill off before babies). Because a baby does not grapple with death, there's nothing wrong with killing a baby. The baby doesn't give a fuck, and it's actually the worst of science - not religion! - that posits a baby as "human" in the full sense. It's biologists who say, "This milk-sucking machine is man!" No, if we want to talk about faith, we need to talk about the experience of faith, and to experience faith, we need to know death. Babies don't know death, and therefore, there's no reason why we shouldn't send them on their merry way.

[redredred]

Most are carried out in the first trimester.

Also, to have complete repeal, like Canada, means that the state has no say on it, they do not support or oppose, they just stay out of it.

IMO, we are better off talking to people on the fence, they are a much larger majority.

[Sasha]

If its a religious fundie you only need to ask what defines "life" in the bible...
(the answer is "breath"/"breathing", ergo a fetus, even late term is not alive according to scripture)

[Flying Purple People Eater]

If its a religious fundie you only need to ask what defines "life" in the bible...
(the answer is "breath"/"breathing", ergo a fetus, even late term is not alive according to scripture)

Would you be able to cite the chapter in which this is said?