As a member of the boomer generation, I’d like to observe that we really bought into an assertion of self through sexuality. Look at the combination of pride and availability of women in popular culture at the time.

Sandy’s points are great – it is just that we saw that way of looking at things as, well, crass and confining. Why would we care how people got into the middle class we, at the time, wanted nothing to do with? And disease – well, that was designed to “scare” us since it confined our freedom. Besides, that, too, was kind of crass. Not something to be talked about.

Our only worry about psychological states was being free “to be who we were.” Yeah, we were idiots–we threw out a hell of a lot that was good about the fifties with the bit that was bad. (Segregation, of course, was one of the big bads – but I’m not sure if the sixties self-righteousness was the most effective way to deal with that, either.) And now we see how comforting (and good for children) those middle class homes that value health and psychological stability are.

One of the worst things we did (though it was a temptation given the freedom we had with the pill, etc.) was to make choice so clearly a woman’s responsibility and so little a man’s. I think this did great damage to the relationship between parents and children as well as between parents themselves.

If women spent as much time analyzing the member and what it’s attached to as they analyze shoe, hair, nail, eyeshadow and lipstick colors, this country might be able to move on.

If women were a little more choosy?

How about if the pro-lifers were smarter and took a page out of the lung cancer PR and stressed how much STDs are costing us, psychological state, how to get out of poverty, instead of morality, people just might listen.

Thanks, Michael, a view on feminism I never thought of, we want to be as irresponsible as the boys.

Which defines the 60s boomer protest class to a T.

Dumbing down the women.

What will they think of next?

I wish. Remember the FDA? They don’t want you to have any medical devices – you’ll hurt yourself with them.

If we can ever get the votes to shut down the FDA, we’ll get all sorts of nifty devices that we can take home and use to check ourselves over, and only have to deal with the Medical System after we can see for ourselves that something is wrong. Plus, you’ll be able to stay on life support for years at a fraction of the cost, and probably enjoy the experience a hell of a lot better too.

If this bill becomes law, I see a new market for private ultrasound viewing devices. Entrepreneurs with the gumption can capitalize on this state intervention in the economy.

BTW, I’ll take the word of University of Chicago Obstets pages over the politicking of a state representative and her planned parenthood backers any ol’ day.
-Steve

Also, while the wish for the fetus to be redefined as a human would be great, it would just lead to a redefinition of licit and illicit homicide, a la: Of course it’s a human, so what? It’s all about when and where we can kill, and abortion is one of those acceptable instances because of etc. etc.
I don’t know which debate is the better one to take on.

While in these rare cases this might be (understandably) true, I doubt many believe such reasoning leads to many abortions. A large percentage of abortions of certain kinds, yes: Downs syndrome births have gone down dramatically. Such reasons are, however, a very small percentage of births (and abortions).

I think we can safely say that Mulligan’s argument (that Ken cites) indicates someone more in touch with reality than Belleini.

My second question is, “Should the Illinois legislature be focused on more obvious dangers to the fetus, like some of the labor inducing drugs? This article from Mothering Magazine says “Perhaps.” Here is a case study where “…[the mother's and fetus'] brush with death had been caused by the [drug] Cytotec, that the drug lacked FDA approval, and that such “off-label use” is completely legal.”

Fact is the angst from both abortion rights activists and anti-abortion lobbyists alike suffer from incoherence when backlit by established science and the opinions of clerical obgyn practitioners.

In his post, Ken suggests that abortion opponents want to increase access to ultrasound (US) because the picture of the life within the womb would forestall abortions. But my research quickly found that clerics actually want to de-emphasize all prenatal diagnoses in the absence of promising intrauterine cures, because the only available post-diagnostic treatment is, you guessed it, abortion. This interview with Catholic neonatologist, Dr. Carlo Bellieni of the Santa Maria alle Scotte Polyclinic, cautions against the “selective” pressures that prenatal diagnosis leads to. He bemoans prenatal diagnostic tools, both invasive, like amniocentesis, and noninvasive, like US. The money quote:

“That prenatal diagnosis is too often carried out in the ambit of already widespread anxiety over pregnancy, which stems for the concept of the “search for the perfect child,” since the idea that the pregnancy might end in a way other than perfection is “simply not granted to women.”

And, following this, abortion advocates who seek to use anxiety over the use of US to reduce this window on the fetus on the grounds it will eliminate one more obstacle to a grisly practice, appear to be misled. If Dr. Bellieni is to be believed, they should champion the use of all prenatal diagnostic tools.
-Steve
Thanks to my friend “Bellwether” for helping me draft my comment. She is a practicing RN in Northern Arizona.

What might that do to abortion “rights?” ”

I would bet that it would solidify public support for abortion rights before the embryo develops fingers, toes, a beating heart, and a brain while eroding public support for abortion rights afterwards.

That seems like exactly the right amount of reproductive freedom to me, so maybe I’m just engaging in wishful thinking. But that’s obviously not enough for some. And it’s interesting that some people think that a political tactic of passing laws interfering with people showing you pictures is perfectly kosher in a republic, but it’s the right that’s a den of fascists.

What if it really became widely accepted that a fetus was not just a clump of cells, but a living human being with fingers, toes, and a beating heart?

What might that do to abortion “rights?”