f I were to say something like, "if you don't want to get run over by a car, don't play in the street", would you also consider me a fascist?
Of course not, but how many people die in car accidents every year . . . 40,000. So if you don't want to die in a car accident don't ride in a car?! Sex is necessary but not sufficient for procreation. And sex certainly does not equate to procreation. For better (but likely worse) we are approaching an era where sex may even become unnecessary for procreation.
Mother Nature made sex fun (telological) so we would do a lot of it. She also made babies expensive to make (for women) but easy to love (made most of them cute). The magic of procreation belies it's dark side. In particular, many women who carry to term will die, the majority of "bad conceptions" will be spontaneously aborted, and the majority of "good conceptions" will be spontaneously aborted.
Arguments that inextricably link sex and procreation to justify pro-life positions are inconsistent with biological facts (low relative fertility and infertility) and philosophical equality (women become sperm receptacles and baby incubators).
When did the concepts of personal responsibility and common sense become associated with totalitarianism?
If anything totalitarian states often berated the populace with the notion that progress of the collective depended on personal responsibility, common sense, hard work, and strict adherence to state edicts that "were in the peoples best interest".
I respect pro-life advocates (of which I kinda count myself); that say the miracle of life deserves opportunity. I cannot support the position that women owe the world the product of every conception. Women are not means to an end although they are the only current means to an end.
Common sense would imply control of female sexuality is necessary to control procreation. Unfortunately, the natural extension is that women become ojects not people with the same inalienable rights as men.
Regardless, the pro-life call to action is for states if not the Court to make all fertile women adhere to their standard of what is right and just. IMHO it is not a decision for the states or the Court to make but women, their mates, friends, clergy, and whoever else they trust. You can argue that it is THEIR responsibility to carry and nurture children as their god-given gift of procreation. I'm not sure I disagree; since clearly women are the only ones that can do it. The flip-side is that if women have this ability is their a responsibility to exercise it. Furthermore, if you decline to procreate does that mean you can never have sex? If you give a BJ when you KNOW you're ovulating have you abdicated your responsibility to procreate to your potential?
If we are going to do it right, women should only have children between age 18-32 b/c they are the most likely to produce healthy term babies. Fertile women should be required to get appropriate PRE-conception healthcare like folate supplements, exercise, and avoiding nicotine; prenatal care such as abstaining from alcohol, tobacco, processed foods, chemical exposures, pollution, get regular check-ups. I mean I could go on for days about the RIGHT way to maximize the likelihood of producing healthy babies but how much of this would you require . . . given that most are issues of personal and interpersonal responsibility.
Perhaps I could understand if someone didn't know they were pregnant prior to
the third trimester, but even then, why not just induce labor or remove by c-section and see if the baby survives. I won't pretend to be a medical doctor, but
aside from a non-functioning baby, what is the justification for partial-birth abortions?
I don't want to dispel any sacred myths but plenty of modern medicine is straight-up voodoo . . . and arguably that's defaming voodoo. C-sections can be more dangerous than vaginal deliveries for some conditions and vice versa. In theory it's risk - benefit, in practice the science often does not back up the protocols. Regardless of what we do, the truth is that most babies come or don't come when they damn well please . . . and we really don't know why.
Some one already addressed the issue of "ignorance of pregnancy". As a sick aside . . . stop reading if you can't handle borderline sex issues . .
an overweight woman was asked what form of birth control she planned to use after her baby's birth . .
woman . . . nothing
doc . . . do you want to get pregnant again?
woman . . . no, but this one was an accident
doc . . . well, it's often an accident and accidents are more likely if you don't use something
woman . . . I'm sure it won't happen again
doc . . . how?
woman . . . well when my husband is having sex he just thinks he's inside but really he's not
doc . . . (no response)
woman . . . (realizing doc has nothing to say) so he does his thing I fake and that's it
As for partial birth abortion (intact dilatation and extraction), I am not an obstetrician or gynecologist but there exists a professional difference of opinion on this issue. Some will tell you there is NO indication for intact D&E based in part on the notion that delivery of legs and torso implies delivery of the head could be achieved. Others contend that if you want to maximally preserve a woman's health that avoiding delivery of the head is best. The incontrovertable facts:
1) that intact D&E is extremely rare, 2) regular D&E is performed by removing the fetus from the womb after dismemberment, 3) those opposed to intact D&E typically do not support regular D&E except for already terminated pregnancies, 4) coming through that canal is a violent act that permanently alters a woman's body.