Redstate

on the birth control debate, w/the whole Pharmacists for Life deal?

Like it or not, it's certainly linked to the abortion debate, in a lot of people's minds.

Having at least the first comment in a thread be on topic, as opposed to changing the subject?

In a way, this is on-topic--because this is exactly the sort of thing we can't do.  We can't extend the brand, or we will quickly get overextended.  The fight against surgical abortion (a term I should have used in the post) needs to be seperate from everything else.  The pharmacy debate needs to be positioned as a religious freedom debate for the moment.  

Excellent, excellent post.  Two minor additions/suggestions:

1.  The "six day rule."  If a proposal relates to a matter at or within the first six (or so) days of conception, run screaming away.  (This is a variation of your "focus on abortion" point and "abortion is terrible" point; in the same sense that "everyone" (80%+) agrees that abortion is terrible, "everyone" also agrees that the pill is not terrible and "most everyone" agrees that embryonic stem cell research is not terrible.  Don't link the either to abortion; indeed, I'd argue that one should  delink these two from abortion.)
   
2.  I have some trouble with your discussion of Roe, in that I think you're simplifying the decision (and its progeny) in a number of respects and, as a result, your discussion is a bit misleading.  Also, FWIW, there is no way that the U.S. Congress won't try to impose a national policy on abortion if Roe is removed.  Abortion won't be "thrown back to the states."

von

As I understand your six day rule is that you're gonna have a gaping hole in your brand if you argue that abortions after six days are terrible, but those on day five are more or less ok.

He's conflating Roe with Doe and Casey. I note that most of Roe's progeny has a red flag on it anyway. In the popular mind, we're still in Roe-land. (Which works to the pro-choice position well, because if they knew what Casey meant, we'd get five points in the polls overnight.)

As I understand your six day rule is that you're gonna have a gaping hole in your brand if you argue that abortions after six days are terrible, but those on day five are more or less ok.

My rule is more of a rule of thumb rather than a talking point.  A better way to phrase it is to say that surgical abortions are terrible.  

BTW, there's no "gaping hole" in the anti-abortion brand; all you need to say is the following:  

"The pill?  That's a different issue.  The rape victim who comes to the hospital the mornin after?  That's a different issue.  Stem cell research?  That's a different issue.  Fertility clinics?  That's a different issue.  This ain't a metaphysical debate about the beginning of life.  We aren't in a church; I'm not trying to convert you.  What we're talking about, here, is abortion.  I think we can all agree that abortion is terrible.  What I'd like to try to find is common, practical ground with you on this terrible, tragic issue."

More like a one day or one night rule, which is admittedly more easily saleable, if, to my mind, inherently contradictory and at best morally problematic.

Is RU-486 ok, then?

Because if a fetus is a person, it's murder. If it's not, it's a fairly routine surgical procedure. Most people don't think about this issue too much, but once they make a decision, everything else follows.

Because if a fetus is a person, it's murder. If it's not, it's a fairly routine surgical procedure. Most people don't think about this issue too much, but once they make a decision, everything else follows.

Are those the only two possibilities?  Human being or nothing?  

(I'm not asking whether you believe it to be an either/or issue; I'm asking whether the only reasonable position is to believe that it's an either/or issue.)

inherently contradictory and at best morally problematic.

For some, sure. But the goal is not to enact a particular theological framework; it's to enact a secular policy.

So I agree with you that abortion is terrible, and tragic.  What now?  If you think that's sufficient, you're wrong.

Moreover, I disagree with isolating abortion.  The poster is right, it probably will help you gain traction on the issue, but I think that's unfortunate.  You cannot address this issue in a vaccuum, not fairly.  We are talking about procreation, the beginning and ending of "life" in a womb, we're talking about a fetus, a pregnant woman, and all the issues incumbent to that situation.  Schiavo is out, as is euthenasia and other non-procreation issues.  But birth control is as germane to the abortion issue as stop smoking campaigns are to lung cancer.

I never said anything about theology. I'm entirely in favor of a completely non religious ban on the killing of humans at whatever stage of life. I don't think I mentioned God, unless you're asserting that morality is impossible without God. (Go for it.)

RU-486?

for "branding" because they so quickly get into belief.  Everyone has his or her own belief of when life begins, or to be more specific, when a life exists such that it deserves its own independent right to go on living (that is, independent of the rights of whomever might be incubating it).  Some think that point is birth; others, the point at which a fetus can live outside the womb; others think it's quickening; still others, somewhere nebulous between the "clump of cells" stage and the "fetus-that-looks-like-a-baby" stage; others think it's implantation; and finally some think it's conception itself.  If I missed your belief, feel free to add it to the list.  As far as science goes, most scientists will agree that they have no clue when life begins, but that they are skeptical a clump of cells constitute life.  Many doctors and scientists I know seem to ascribe to that nebulous category I alluded to above, as do many Americans I think (those that support embryonic stem cell research but oppose abortion of anything that looks like a tiny baby).

In any case, the whole discussion about when life begins is noble and should be at the heart of the abortion debate.  Instead we get branding, which I believe serves to antagonize people rather than explain to them how things should be.  If you believe life begins at conception, and so you oppose birth control, embryonic stem cell research and the morning-after pill, you may see no room for compromise.  You might think that it's an us-versus-them fight for the lives of these embryos.  I ascribe to the above poster's view that there is room for gray area, but you may not.  You might also pray daily for all the fertilized eggs that do may get implanted as a course of a woman's natural cycle, and advocate that we freeze or perhaps re-implant them, since you believe they are lives, and their destruction would be murder -- I don't mean to be blunt about it, just trying to imply that not leaving room for doubt about where life begins leads to some strange conclusions...

never said anything about theology. I'm entirely in favor of a completely non religious ban on the killing of humans at whatever stage of life. I don't think I mentioned God, unless you're asserting that morality is impossible without God. (Go for it.)

The statement that a human being -- whose interests are co-equal with the interests of other human beings -- exists at conception is a theological* statement.  (It certainly is not a scientific statement.)  Accordingly, when you state that there is a "contradiction" in treating a fertilized, implanted egg differently from an eight-month old fetus, you may not expressly mention God -- but he's nonetheless right there in your argument.

*I'll accept another, more generic descriptor, if you have one to offer.

The point is not to create a position on abortion that meets the standards of each person's morality; as you rightly note, that's an impossible task.  Rather, the point is to state a position that encaptures a majority of the country's views of beginning of life/personhood/etc.  Viewed from certain perspectives, the position will contain inconsistencies and errors -- as all compromise positions do.

Besides taking the discussion away from the topic at hand, sunshine is doing the same thing that Slate's Will Saletan details here:

National pro-choice groups are clearly peddling this story, and journalists are buying it. They take at face value partisan assertions of a groundswell... You need a magnifying glass to see that the Times' data on the explosion of pharmacist-rights battles come from Guttmacher. And the Los Angeles Times, having relied in an April 2 article on a Planned Parenthood quote that "we're hearing about it happening more and more frequently," admits three days later that the California Board of Pharmacy has received no such complaints.

I don't think it's wise to focus on methods of abortion, unless to establish some useful point (as was done with partial birth abortion).  

Because you insisted on "surgical" abortions.

The qualifiers you add may be reasonable to debate; the fact that it's a human organism is not. That's like asserting that it's arguable that Jimmy Carville really is a serpent. Reasonable people might say so, unreasonably.

Great post.  

Definitely the next step is to discuss just how and where to take the next step, but then take it.

Also, I think though, some might be neglecting the most important product of the Pro-Life Movement.  Abortion is a terrible thing, but let us not forget why.

So I recommend the one of the following faces for the pro-life movement.

Why not let the product sell his or herself?  After all, if we are building a culture of life shouldn't we focus on that life whenever possible.  Why not think of ways we can do a better job at that?

You wrote "I'm entirely in favor of a completely non religious ban on the killing of humans at whatever stage of life"; I took "humans" be mean "human beings" given the use of the phase "stage of life."  But it appears as if we generally agree (or at least now understand each other).

I'm not sure, especially with the amount of abortion threads so far this week, that coming to a compromise that will encapture a majority opinion will ever happen.  It's gotten to attacking each other because one thinks birth control is abortion, and one doesn't, or whatever, if we can't even get along on this issue in our own small community, do you really think a position a majority of the pro-life community in the country can accept will ever happen?

Not trying to be negative here, but it's a large task to take on.

Re:  *I'll accept another, more generic descriptor, if you have one to offer.

I would propose "metaphysical". There is nothing whatsoever religious (let alone "theological", theology being the study of God) about the statement.

there seems to be some agreement among those who do not think a "clump of cells" constitute a life (as can be inferred from support for embryonic stem cell research and IVF) but don't want abortions performed on fetuses which at all resemble a baby, with exceptions for rape, incest and the health (meaning higher-than-normal chance of death or permanent serious injury) of the mother.  So why can't there be a compromise?

I agree with you, TheMentor, and would like to add that those who say there can't be compromise on this issue (from both sides) are pushing an "all-or-nothing" mentality that only serves to get people angry at one another and does not help women or babies one bit.  Restricting abortion and preventing abortion is popular, and there is nobody on earth who I'd call a decent human being who thinks abortion is a fine-dandy thing that should be encouraged.  But blanket prohibitions against abortion or even the morning-after pill stem from an "all-or-nothing" mentality that will never be part of a consensus among Americans.  Hence the "branding" aspect, which I find seedy.

There is nothing whatsoever religious (let alone "theological", theology being the study of God) about the statement.

Well, that's plainly incorrect.  Theology is a branch of metaphysics, and theology determines personhood for virtually all (strident) pro-lifers.

But metaphysics is nonetheless the better term.

Everyone's made great points and hinted at where I'm going, but I think the marketing of a modern pro-life movement is simple:

Couch it in Republican terms instead of conservative or religious terms.

For example, I am opposed to abortion not for religious reasons, because I am not religious, but rather for bioethical reasons.  Abortion is the destruction of a life, and as a future doctor and scientist, how can I reasonably say anything positive about it?  I can draw the line at making it illegal or dangerous, but that leads me to the "Republican" part of the deal....

Emphasizing PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY.  How to physically implement this, I'm not sure?  But gearing a message (in terms of ads, organizations, etc.) in this direction instead of a religious direction might turn a few more heads toward common sense.

How is this view different from "safe, legal, and rare"?  This is the rhetoric Bill Clinton used to put a majority with him on the issue.  George W. Bush uses the "culture of life" line, but it is (deliberately) much more vague about what it actually means.

Re: Theology is a branch of metaphysics, and theology determines personhood for virtually all (strident) pro-lifers.

"Theology" (I repeat) is the Study of God, just like Geology is the Study of the Earth.

Good grief, please look the word up!

There is absolutely nothing "theological" about the question of when human personhood begins. The proper term for such questions would be (metaphysical) anthropology.

You are trying to create a strawman for purposes of bashing Christians.

That's not von's practice. I think he's got some mistakes going, but attacking Christians is not one of them.

Vladimir Lenin. The King (or Commissair) of Revolutions. This was his philosophy of reform, and I believe it should be adopted by the entire pro-life movement.

The pro-life movement is gaining strength everyday, and the addition of such groups as Feminists for Life and the I Regret My Abortion t-shirt wearers are great publicity and frontline infantry. The large pro-life churches and fundraising organizations provide the heavy artillary, the grassroots movements the support personnel, and the politicians serve as the generals. Except right now with Bush and the major Republican leadership, we have McClellen, not Patton.

As a die-hard pro-lifer and an avowed extremeist on this issue, I would be perfectly willing to tone down the debate and use some more euphamistic language, and ally myself with some groups I have differences with if it meant that real, albeit incomplete progress would be made.

The understanding must be, of course, that as soon as our opponents have been overcome, change will be immediate, complete, and lasting. For those who subscribe to my point of view, allowing abortion to continue a day longer than necessary is equivalent to the Allies refusing to bomb Auschwitz. The American Holocaust has gone on for too long as it is. We will not back down at the moment of victory for the sake of congeniality and "being nice" or "moderate". Whether you believe that abortion is a religious or an ethical problem, it is the religious crowd which provides the ammunition and the votes. Just so all you moderates are aware, you'll have to pay the piper someday, and that will most likely mean a total ban on all abortion, and human life being defined as being at conception, with all that that implies. Otherwise, I foresee a split in the movement, and quite possibly defeat for the cause.

As a mother, I've had ultrasounds showing me tiny little babies very early in a pregnancy and I think the book "A Child is Born" even with all it's hippie craziness could do a lot for the pro-life camp from a "marketing perspective" because it shows the early development of babies in color photos.  However, when I hear someone from the pro-life camp basically saying that they think The Pill should be outlawed and that is their ultimate goal - it's hard for me to be an enthusiastic supporter of the movement.  

That coupled with the fact that so many of the most visible pro-life spokespeople are also against any prevention of pregnancy (i.e. birth control-I'm including morning after pills, but not RU-486, education about birth control other than abstinence) makes it even harder.

This is also why I don't label myself as a Republican, although I tend to vote Republican (I'm certainly not a Democrat) and agree with many things I read on this and other conservative sites.  I know a lot of women like me who aren't pro-abortion, but aren't anti-birth control.   The fear of these women is that it won't stop when surgical abortions (as they were described earlier) are made illegal.

That's the implicit assumption behind the thought that Roe will be overruled.

It is a bit goulish, is it not?

My apologies to one and all for being a bit testy. One pro-Choice claim that I find outrageous is the notion that pro-Life people are just a bunch of religious fanatics who are trying to impose their faith on others. When social conservatives complain about evolution, try to get state-sponsored prayer in schools or push for anti-gay laws, the basis in those cases is indeed their religion (not necessarily their theology itself, but some aspect of religious ethics that cannot be supported outside a certain theological framework.) The pro-Life cause however can be supported on wholly secular grounds. It does require some metaphysical axioms about personhood but these need not be theologically based.

It is true that the Roman Catholic Church is against contraception but I'm not aware of any other organization that has a blanket ban on birth control of all sorts as part of its pro-Life stance.

Why the dichotomy between women and men exist here. Plenty of men would be irritated by the absence of the pill, as it ruins their source of fun almost as much, if not as much, as it does women's.

My Church, so far as I know, is the only one that has it out for the pill, and the reason (for the most part) springs from the same source as, but not the same ultimate reasoning as, the opposition to abortion. (The one catch is when the pill prevents implantation of a child/embryo/mass of tissue/take your pick. That's not the key issue, though.)

In other words, it's not like the pro-life crowd is marching lockstep in an attempt to ban the pill, Gengis's fears notwithstanding.

belief that conctraception is when life begins (or rather, that it's the point at which a life exists whose rights aren't automatically superseded by the rights of another) is what fuels the vehement pro-life movement.  Without it, RU-486 is not a problem, nor is stem cell research.  Acceptance of non-surgical abortion for those pregnant for a month or so is not a big leap from there.  In any case, with that belief, the Pill and IVF are tantamount to murder.

So, while the pro-life crowd may not be marching lockstep to ban the pill, it is a natural outgrowth of their core beliefs.  Pretending it's not feeds into this "branding" concept of selling your policy while trying to de-emphasize or hide the underlying philosophy.

The stem cell and RU-486 issues are of course linked to a fundamental truth -- you're killing someone.

Opposition to the pill on the narrow grounds that it will prevent (or truly, might prevent) implantation is something for only the hardest of the diehards in the movement.

The idea that most pro-lifers actually give a dang about legal birth control is a stupid left-wing canard.

And we're rather hoping they retire.

Thanks for trolling.

is a person as a fundamental truth, isn't the pill identical in effect to taking RU-486?

My point was that for many, the two seem to be connected and that is a marketing issue that must be addressed if you want these people to really sign on but you would have to strongly reject the life at fertilization concept which I think will anger the base.  

I just think there is a substantial "audience" for your "product" that would definitely support efforts that are focused on post-implantation (or really post heart beat) because of their experiences in their own pregnancies or fertility treatments.  I've supported so many friends through fertility treatments and can tell you just because you get a fertilized egg, doesn't mean you will get a baby.  And not only does it have to implant but it has to develop to the point of a heart beat for you to have reason to hope that you are going to have a baby.  I know several people who've had eggs implant but stop development before the heart beat point and miscarry.  And because of technology they know this has happened, even though outwardly their body still acts as if it has a healthy pregnancy.  Or course you could lose a baby later but my point is almost every woman I know would regard a miscarriage after heart beat as the loss of a baby even if they still aren't visibly pregant, haven't felt the baby move, it still doesn't look exactly like the Gerber baby and certainly isn't viable outside the womb.

I just think this use of technology has shaped a lot of views that could be used positively for the pro-life movement because the baby is recognized as a baby so much earlier in the process - you can see the little heart beating in the fuzzy blob that is your baby, on the other hand it works against the "life at fertilization" argument.

Of course marketing has two purposes:  brand loyalty amongst the current customers (self described die-hard pro-lifers) and gaining new customers (which I thought was more the purpose of the original post) and I was agreeing with some earlier commenters that those things that appeal to the existing die-hard customer base tend to turn off your potential new customers and prevent them from labeling themselves pro-life instead of pro-choice.  

Which I tried very hard to make clear time and again. And no, only insofar as it prevents implantation.

We're talking the pro-life movement in general. Not me. Not Catholics. There is some overlap in the Venn diagram, but not as much as you suppose.

I'm familiar with human development from the word go. And I assure you, I'm quite familiar with every instant from fertilization to birth or miscarriage from a personal level. At least one woman I know would view miscarriage before a perceptible heartbeat as losing a kid.

And like I keep saying, it's not even a majority of the pro-life movement that ascribes to Catholic theology. I know the Left gets a kick out of ascribing what it perceives as the worst of Catholicism to its opponents, but there's no reason for you and I to buy into that. Obviously, the larger movement needs better brand control on the internet, but I suspect most not-web-denizens couldn't even imagine that there's some tie between the two in the pro-life movement.

I still can't get past the thought that Catholicism is still more left than right.  Maybe that's what happens when you're surrounded by an army of Baptists, I don't know.  The archdiocese of Kentucky and the Southern Baptist Seminary exchange a touch of rhetorical fire from time to time in Louisville, and it's very clear which side I fall on.

Catholicism represents the very best of what organized religion can offer, despite its human failings.  I am obviously not Catholic, and have doctrinal differences with Catholicism (although I'm probably almsot as close to the average American Catholic in viewpoint as Thomas is), but the Catholic church, while being one of the most civic-minded faiths I know of, seems to do a much better job of negotiating the faith-government barrier than the cudgels American Protestantism sometimes uses.

Lord, I know I am opening myself up for hate on this one, but it always pains me when Thomas ties Catholicism so tightly to the right.  

Outside of a small host of life issues, I'm at a real loss for when I've ever "tied Catholicism to the right."

Reached an accomodation with secular government some aeons ago.

All of your usual historical acumen and keen grasp of details.

I am extrapolating from your vision of leftist attacks on the Catholic Church.

And anti-Right doesn't mean there is a perfect Venn Diagram overlap. Lord knows I've said so before.

Making me blush!

in general and I assumed you were too.  Most pro-lifers (especially the most activist among them) take the position that life begins at conception.  That is their deeply held belief for religious or other reasons.  My point is simply that this belief is also consistent with a view that the pill and IVF are also tantamount to murder.  Actual opposition to the pill may only be advocated as a policy by the most die-hard of pro-lifers, but it is nevertheless consistent with the set of beliefs being "marketed" in the original post.  The "branding" of the movement should be accompanied by some gut-check as to what personal beliefs are and how far they should be legislated.  This comes up in a discussion about branding because it is disingenuous to formulate a marketing strategy that hides the overall philosophy behind the "product".

And I'm not sure what my posts have to do with anyone being Catholic.  I am new here and wasn't aware of your religion, I just assumed you were, like me, taking in the pro-life movement as a whole.

Don't be ridiculous

The stem cell and RU-486 issues are of course linked to a fundamental truth -- you're killing someone.

Opposition to the pill on the narrow grounds that it will prevent (or truly, might prevent) implantation is something for only the hardest of the diehards in the movement.

The idea that most pro-lifers actually give a dang about legal birth control is a stupid left-wing canard.

"Theology" (I repeat) is the Study of God, just like Geology is the Study of the Earth.

Good grief, please look the word up!

There is absolutely nothing "theological" about the question of when human personhood begins. The proper term for such questions would be (metaphysical) anthropology.

You are trying to create a strawman for purposes of bashing Christians.

Metaphysics (Def'n from: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=metaphysics):

(used with a sing. verb) Philosophy. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.

(used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.

(used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.

(used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.

Theology -- even according to your (incorrect*) definition -- fits within the second and third definitions of metaphysics.

And, then, there's this (from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics):

[Aristotle's] Metaphysics was divided into three parts, now regarded as the traditional branches of Western metaphysics, called (1) ontology, (2) theology, and (3) universal science.

Please don't tell me to "look things up" until you've confirmed that your definition is, in fact, accurate.

von

*A better definition of theology (from: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theology):

The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.

A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.

A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.

Where is the woman's responsibility if she is impregnated by a rapist?

And to the child's life.

The stem cell and RU-486 issues are of course linked to a fundamental truth -- you're killing someone.

Fundamental truth? Proveable fact? The fact is, sometimes the product of a conception turns out to be a large mass of horribly formed cells that would naturally abort (miscarry) if given enough time. Which means if the woman had an abortion, she would not, in fact, be killing someone. She would be having a bunch of malformed cells removed.

And I'm pretty sure the reason the abortion fight is so vehement on both sides is that "the moment of conception produces a human being, a person with all the rights of any other person" has NOT been established as a scientific ("fundamental") fact. It is, in FACT, considered anything BUT fact by those who disagree with the anti-choice movement's position.

Fundamental truth? Proveable fact? The fact is, sometimes the product of a conception turns out to be a large mass of horribly formed cells that would naturally abort (miscarry) if given enough time. Which means if the woman had an abortion, she would not, in fact, be killing someone. She would be having a bunch of malformed cells removed.

Carefully putting snark to the side, and merely pointing out that I know what a spontaneous abortion is, I presume that you're now willing to limit abortion to those cases where the "lump of cells" will never be a newborn (without your side's much-beloved scissors, that is).

And I'm pretty sure the reason the abortion fight is so vehement on both sides is that "the moment of conception produces a human being, a person with all the rights of any other person" has NOT been established as a scientific ("fundamental") fact. It is, in FACT, considered anything BUT fact by those who disagree with the anti-choice movement's position.

More like disagreeing with the anti-baby-murder position. Characterize it how you want.

It is indisputable that at conception a member of homo sapiens comes to be. If you're comfortable deciding that some humans are not persons, hey, the Democrats have a long pedigree of that. I personally am leery of treating any humans as non-persons, but that's me.

It would help position ourselves in the abortion debate - if more stories like this one were picked up by the MSM. I'd really like someone to fact check this for me - because it's admitted that most/all of my sources are from sites that lean both heavily evangelical and pro-life. However, the interview with the CME, if genuine, is rather hard to refute.

Has anyone seen this story picked up on local media outlets, etc.? Is anyone besides the abortion clinic refuting the facts of the story?

"It is indisputable that at conception a member of homo sapiens comes to be" is, on its face, patently false considering people spend hours and hours disputing it.  If it is inconceivable (no pun intended) to you that others think differently, that is fine.  If you think those who disagree with conception=human are somehow corrupted or evil, that is fine too.  But the matter here is what is fact and what is belief.  And the statement "at conception a member of homo sapiens comes to be" is a belief.  That may be a noble or passionately-held belief, but it is a belief nonetheless, one that is not universally shared and one which, according to the original post, is being "branded" and "marketed" as a "product."

Explain yourself.

Homo sapiens is a genetic fact. Personhood is where the battle line is. I happen to think it's monstrous to declare that some members of homo sapiens are not people, but that's where we are.

Or at you asserting that the "product" of a human conception is not a biologically discrete organism with human DNA? I need to let my old micro prof know, if that's the case.

Thomas, that is a ridiculous statement, especially from you.  The parties bear such tangential resemblance to the organizations of the 1960s, much less the 1860s, that saying the Democrats supported slavery has no meaning other than silly spite.

The Southern Strategy, from folks who applaud Jefferson-Jackson dinners, they can hear about segregation and slavery.

I think claiming Jefferson or Jackson was a Democrat, in the sense that Ted Kennedy or heck, John Kennedy was a Democrat, is trite and stupid.  Or claiming Lincoln was a Republican, in the sense that Trent Lott or George Bush is a Republican.  The fact that it is done does not make it right, or logical.

The reason why I think the Southern strategy still has relevance in this discussion is to remind "colorblind" conservatives that the two do not necessarily go hand-in-hand, and to note that there are some, fortunately in decline, that still support "states rights" for the codeword nature that phrase has held since antebelleum times.  Moreover, the events surrounded the Southern Strategy occurred at the formation of the modern Republican party.

As you have pointed out before, the northeast and west, Republican and Democrat alike, imposed civil rights on Southern Democrats.  During that time, the South became Republican and the Northeast and West Democratic, and took the shape we see today.  If you think slavery has equal relevance, so be it, but I think you're wrong.

a miracle by which two haploid cells become one diploid cell capable of becoming a human being.  And what is there is human (adjective), in the same way that your liver is human.  But is it a human being (noun)?  Is it a person?  I sure as heck don't know but I do know that science has not shown it one way or the other.

Is an embryo "biologically discrete"? What does that term mean?  Discrete means separate, identifiable as a different thing.  But what is "biologically discrete" and why is that a standard for personhood?

as to whether conception=life or conception="clump of cells", can you address my original point, which was that the belief (or fact, if you prefer) that a fertilized egg is as much a life as any other human being is consistent with opposition to the pill and IVF.  My point is that this is why "branding" fails at some point, because the inherent philosophy jibes with the pill and IVF, two parts of modern life that many would fight to retain.

But I've said exactly as much elsewhere.

But to be absolutely clear: I'd oppose the pill as a form of birth control because it can prevent the implantation of a child, and therefore her death; and IVF, as it's largely practiced, means that a lot of children are created, and most destroyed. Insofar as you can have chemical birth control that does not risk killing the child, and IVF that does not result in mass murder, I'd move those two issues waaaay down my priority list.