Perhaps we are all being rather narrow-minded with one another. We reject too much and accept too little. Outside the dueling tunnel visions of 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' there might be possibilities more inclusive to embrace. To be humble enough to admit that one does not know 'where life begins' is a start. When pressed on the subject even mainstream science admits it does not know what 'life'--I mean beyond the textbook definition of cell division, etc--really is. And religion cannot explain why god chose to put human and dinosaur bones in different piles. If enough of us cannot make a break from a fixed narrow collective viewpoint--enough to at least begin to empathize with what the other perspective feels like--will we not be fated to forever remaining divided into camps of entrenched believers, slinging slogans and rhetoric that neither can accept? Calling a thing 'woo' will not make it go away or shrivel up and repent. Consider that there is always something there, some need or truth the 'believer' of seeming wild claims is attempting to accommodate by its idea. If we cannot even accommodate this possibility, than here we are left once again dismissing one half of who we are, rather like the serial processing left brain dismissing the parallel processing right brain, or a pilot trying to fly a 727 without a left or right wing. Who wants to be a passenger on that plane? Is it a wonder we don't seem to get very far, socially, politically, spiritually, in such an atmosphere of chronic refusal and fixed intellectual-emotional entrenchment? Come on . . . let's spread our imaginative wings into more open and inviting skies!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If I follow the argument correctly, the complaint, here, is that the anti-choice people tend to stretch their points beyond the limits of what the evidence can support to a level of likelihood that satisfies most people. Ironically, the author does the very same thing on the way to making this claim.

For instance, herbs are distinguished from "real medicine," although the folks behind "real medicine" (i.e., big pharma, which has been busted for falsifying the results of several drugs, sometimes with deadly results) frequently warn that many herbs contain the very medicines their industry extracts or synthesizes. Goodness, how woo!

And where is the scientific "proof," or, hell, even a cogent argument, that the anti-abortion people have no grounds for making their claims? Oops, the article completely omits that. Instead, we get innuendos about how absurd it is to claim that condoms do not work, when the linked page makes it clear that expert opinion backs up that claim, if by "work" we mean provide a failsafe guard against STD's or pregnancy.

Look, there is an argument to be made against the core of the anti-abortion argument that life begins at conception, but the essence of that argument is philosophical and not given to an absolute proof of right or wrong inasmuch as it rests on assumptions and personal values. The nub of it is that the qualities we value as human, such as personal identity, higher levels of cognition, interpersonal communication, emotional response, etc., are just not happening for your average zygote, so it is fair game to treat those little bundles of cells as just little bundles of cells instead of human beings. That is my position. But there is nothing woo about having a different take on that when we consider that there is not clear demarcation as to when a human becomes a human, let alone whether a child or adult who does not develop as quickly or fully as the majority of children or adults can also be denied human status based on the criteria I have set forth. It is a legitimately gray area, and anyone who thinks they have a slam dunk answer to it is probably as closed minded and lacking in perspective as any anti-abortion advocate they wish to label as being "woo."

Yes, the anti-abortion crowd does make plenty of offensive and unsupported claims. We should call those for what they are. But let's acknowledge that until we can definitively explain how the substance and essence of life came to be, let alone make an objective study of consciousness, we are not in a particularly strong position to claim we know all there is to know about how, when, and why a fetus deserves to be honored as a member of humanity, or when an apparently hopeless victim of brain damage is truly hopeless (given that "experts" have been proven wrong on that call).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So any belief in, e.g., acupuncture or chiropractic therapy or conspiracy is a delusional belief waiting to be debunked by skeptics? What makes skeptics so infallible? That's delusional in and of itself.

The fact is, until science defines the moment, which it may not be able to do, the point at which human life begins is at best a religious question.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Many skeptics, while still being pro-science, might be amenable to the idea that women should be held as second class citizens by laws against reproductive justice"

That's unfortunately probably the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In America, we don't kill retards (and I use that term for rhetorical effect), even though they're nothing but a drain on our resources and exist in a state of constant misery. We don't do this because our society believes that human life has some kind of inherent worth, even when the human in question has less to offer society than a monkey or a dog, and when this human's continued existence weakens us all. Families who care for their retarded or autistic kids find meaning in their suffering through all kinds of rationalizations - caring for their disabled kin teaches them compassion, or makes them more aware of the good things in life, blah blah blah.

Similarly, most people shudder at the idea of using genetic-engineering to make the average male height 6'1" like the Dutch, make the average IQ 135, and make all girls pretty, even though the benefits of this are easy to imagine. This is because we believe that human life in all its diversity has value, and that we should trust nature, God, evolution, etc. over our own limited understanding of what's good. Yet, we rebel against nature, God, evolution, etc. when we try to find cures for cancer, or feed the world's population, or create vaccines - again, because of the "dignity" of human life.

How is this different than what the pro-lifers believe? They extend these ideas of "personhood" and "dignity of life" to the earliest stages of human development - but they're using the same nebulous concepts of "personhood" and "dignity of life" that the rest of us use to justify preserving the lives of retards and allowing people with inferior genetics to breed. I'm afraid that most of our cherished beliefs are "woo."

I'm deeply afraid of what's going to happen to the psychological state of humanity when peak oil, overpopulation, and ecological collapse force us to disregard all this "woo," or at the very least disproves that human beings are valuable in the big scheme of things as billions of us die-off wretchedly. I think we invent this "woo" to stay sane.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"woo" -- a catchall term for beliefs that have little to no grounding in reality

Sort of like the feminist belief that gender is a social construct.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Richard Smith, an outspoken former editor of the British Medical Journal, contents that medical journals have become 'creatures of the drug industry', in his book
The Trouble with Medical Journals one of the key areas this is evident is around issues of reproductive health and contraception.

Explain to me again, how exactly the anti-choice movement is pitching woo, and the choice movement isn't ? Seems to me corporate involvement in reproductive health issues ought to be examined in as thorough a manner as the fundie wingnut impact on womens health issues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This may be a bit off the topic of the article.

The extreme opinions on the abortion debate......you can have. I'm tired of listening, and reading about rabid Pro-Choice and Pro-Life in your face movements. I'd like to be associated with a movement of common sense.
That's it then.......I'll call it the Common Sense Movement.

It's not to say that the two sides don't have common sense....I would hope that the "rabid" views were a small fraction of their supporters....but I think the only voices we hear from each side are the voices of political anger. I don't think that the majority of Pro-Choicers are void of morality or any emotion and anguish that can come with the decision to have an abortion. Likewise, I certainly believe that the majority of Pro-Lifers do not, in any way, support the violence and threats thrown at clinics and doctors. These stories, however, make for great headlines......and heated political debate.

The Pro-Life movement tells us that life begins at conception. Well...that may be true.....but only in the form of a cluster of cells. I hardly think it's anything remotely close to a human fetus. If you really believe that women and couples should not have a "choice"....that life and ones health be left in the hands of your God.....then to avoid any hypocrisy, I hope you would do the same for your own toothache....your ulcer.....a broken bone....your cancer.

The Pro-Choice movement brings up issues of a women's health....abuse....incest....in the fight to keep abortion a safe and legal practice. I couldn't agree more with those views. However....I still believe the majority of abortions are done as a result of irresponsible behavior.....a form of birth control....Plan-B aside.

"A women's reproductive rights"........a phrase that just irritates me...is used over and over. We all have reproductive rights.....men and women.....and with that we have responsibilities to ourselves and partners. There is NO excuse for sexually active people to NOT use any birth control...especially condoms...when pregnancy is not the goal. You can go to any grocery store....pharmacy....Planned Parenthood.....clinics...to pick up birth control....particularly condoms.

Personally, I believe if you choose to not use any form of birth control...to risk pregnancy.....STD's....AIDS...... whether you're a man or a women.....you're throwing your reproductive rights to the wind!

Somewhere between conception and birth......a human life begins. I don't know when. Common Sense says the window is getting smaller and smaller with advances in medicine.....but Common Sense should keep that window open at all times.


Allstar Cookie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is the point of this article? To denounce antichoicers or to convince us to load up on "real medicine" instead of herbs? Why does corporate America infiltrate Alternet so much? Stick to the subject and stop advertising for corporate poisoners, would you? We really do not appreciate this at all. Just stop it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I began this article with enthusiasm, thinking it would shed some light on the claims of the anti-choice movement. Instead, I encountered a lot of absolutes concerning other subjects that left me wondering about the logic of this writer.

A belief in the possible existence of aliens is quite different from a belief that someone has led a parallel existence aboard an alien vessel. There is no more specific proof that there is a lack of intelligent life anywhere in the universe - or even that there has never been an alien observation of earth - than there is whether or not a higher power (which some choose to call "god") exists. As with religion, on the subject of aliens, I'm an agnostic in the sense of "I don't know and you don't either."

The author totally dismisses homeopathic medicine as quackery, but certain herbs and home cures have been proven to help maintain health. Some people undoubtedly take this to an irrational level, but experience and studies have demonstrated that some herbs have the same properties as, for example, aspirin, and do alleviate symptoms. To lump all homeopathic remedies together and debunk it all is narrow-minded and uninformed.

After reading the first part of the article with its overblown skepticism, I had a hard time even respecting the rest. And for the most part I absolutely agree with the assessments of the anti-choice rhetoric.

Claims made by "pro-life" advocates are often over-the-top and arbitrary. But when a writer opens the argument with a lot of unrelated absolutes, it does little to increase understanding or sway the reader to the author's point of view.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...tell me how they feel Mrs. Clinton's mandates impact choice in health care?

I support a woman's right to choose how to take care of her body, and not only from a medical perspective. Here strangely--and in contrast to the "health care mandates" crowd--I also support everyone elses'.

A government mandate on health care is about as anti-choice as I can possibly imagine. Strange that it's so popular amongst certain circles.

I submit that it's not really about sex; it's about power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author lumps anti-choice fans, UFO believers, homeopathy, chiropractic care, acupuncture, and herbal medicine together in one large category of unbelievable things she calls "woo." In the case of holistic medicine she shows her bias towards allopathic care or perhaps Big Pharma when she cites as an example of woo, "...taking herbs can be a substitute for real medicine."

Herbal medicines have a track record that is thousands of years old. The therapies that were successful were the ones that were incorporated into healers' body of treatments. Acupuncture is now recognized by most insurance companies as an effective treatment for pain based on its statistical results.

Modern pharmaceuticals have a history that is barely 100 years old and fraught with disastrous side effects. Even when properly prescribed by a doctor modern drugs can cause more harm than good. The suicide rate of people on antidepressants, the cancer rate among women on HRT and the thalidomide and DES tragedies are just a few examples.

For me, believing in marketing pitches and other political or corporate propaganda is "woo."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is possible to be both. A country that kills 50 million babies is bound to suffer some serious karmic consequences. It cannot continue. No one should be against a person's right to choose to have an abortion, but it should still be socially unacceptable meven if totally legal. The government should not interfere in this area any more than it should interfere with people's right to eat trans-fat if they so desire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...expensive. Do they have Woo at Best Buy?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

During 1986 - 1988, when I had access to USENET, a nationwide computer network linking corporations, military bases, think tanks, universities, etc., I paid close attention to the abortion debate. The subject of animal rights always came up, albeit indirectly.

The mentality of the pro-choicers was that the fetus wasn't human, but rather some kind of lower life form--and that lower life forms couldn't possibly have rights.

When a pro-lifer discussed the potential humanity of the unborn, a pro-choicer replied, "MY CAT has more potential than that!"

One pro-choicer said sarcastically, "Maybe the kid (the fetus) should be raised as a vegetarian. After all, don't cows have the right to life?"

Another pro-choicer, Oleg Kiselev, upon hearing the pro-life argument that brain waves can be detected in the unborn as early as six weeks, pointed out that animals also have brain waves. He then added, "Excuse me, while I eat my veal stew."

In the spring of 1988, Stephen Carrier, a grad student in Mathematics at UC Berkeley, pointed out that chimpanzees share 99 percent of their DNA with humans, and so, to argue that species membership alone makes life worth protecting "is to fetishize DNA."

A pro-lifer responded: "If it'll please you, I will agree to protect anything that is 99 percent human."

To this, Stephen responded: "Okay. How about 50 percent? That would probably bring quite a few species into the net."

Stephen Carrier admitted, "I don't know what makes it acceptable to kill animals for meat. Some people think it's wrong, and I have no logical answer for them. But it's not killing, and I believe abortions are analogous. Yes, it's killing--but it's not murder."

Stephen admitted his argument was "not a mathematical proof, but there is no mathematical proof that will resolve the abortion debate."

In the fall of 1986, pro-life student John Morrow of Rutgers University compared abortion to slavery: Roe v. Wade denied rights to an entire class of humans merely on account of their age and developmental status, just as the Dred Scott decision of 1857 denied rights to an entire class of humans based on the color of their skin.

Dave Butler of Tektronix in Oregon responded: "Abortion and slavery? Not even close. A fetus isn't human. If you believe it's wrong to eat meat, should your morality be imposed upon everyone else?"

"Not even close" has become a popular slogan with pro-choicers. It even appeared on the headlines of most San Francisco Bay Area newspapers in November 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected.

"Not even close" is not a new slogan. Peter Singer writes in Animal Liberation that when Mary Wollstonecraft, a forerunner of today’s feminists, published A Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792, "her views were widely regarded as absurd."

Thomas Taylor, a distinguished Cambridge philosopher, tried to refute Mary Wollstonecraft by demonstrating that if women could be given liberation, then animals could be given liberation, too. And since this is "absurd" it must be equally "absurd" to give women liberation. Taylor called his parody, "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes."

"Not even close" is the "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes" of the late 20th and early 21st century, because it takes for granted the invincible prejudice that other animals couldn't possibly have rights. It is this prejudice which we in the animal rights movement are struggling to overcome.

Again, the mentality of the pro-choicers was that the fetus wasn't human, but some kind of lower life form--and that lower life forms couldn't possibly have rights. This led me to conclude that if there's any group out there which ought to be sympathetic to animal rights, it's pro-lifers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow, and I thought anti choice meant if your pregnant, have the baby! I guess some things are not so simple!

I guess we are way above the rest of life on earth!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

homeopathy is NOT repeat NOT herbal medicine. whether homeopathy works or not, i don't know. what i've read about homeopathy is so biased, from any direction, that i cannot come to an honest conclusion.

herbs have a millenia-long history of medicinal use and demonstrable value: willow bark is the osrce of the salycylic acid synthezied as asprin; foxglove gave us digitalis; etc., etc., etc. turmeric is antibacterial and stops the growth of cancer cells in dishes. it is now being studied so that in a few years pharma can present a fake compound for hundreds of dollars, instead of the natural compound for pennies.

penn and teller are good, admirable sceptics--who, to make a point, LIED. gotta love the integrity of those sceptics and applaud their differences from the misleading woo-lovers. not to mention their ethical standards and respect for truth and fact.

so what we have is an article that demonstrates the same sort of bias, the same lack of honesty, lack of information and lack of rational, well-informed thought the anti-choice brigrade demonstrates.

so helpful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is absolutely right: The anti-choice movement is generally anti-science, and routinely rejects or distorts scientific evidence, such as:
* How hormonal birth control really works
* The efficacy of condoms
* The efficacy of sex education vs. "abstinence-only" education
* When fetuses begin to feel pain and acquire a rudimentary consciousness

Contrary to many of the opinions in the comments section, these points are purely factual, not philosophical. I for one would love to redirect the abortion/contraception debate in this country toward the facts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you want an abortion, get one. If you're against it, don't, and mind your own goddam business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The whole point here is specious.

For one thing, the science-based (a.k.a. reality-based) medical community HAS been countering many of the pro-lifers falsifiable claims, such as that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer or that abortion causes some vaguely-defined mental health syndrome, etc.

But the primary claim of the pro-lifers is not inherently falsifiable. When "life" begins is a religious question, not a scientific one. They're talking about metaphysical concepts, such as when a being gains personhood or the existence of a soul.

Those aren't questions skeptics concern themselves with.

Meanwhile, many adherents of what you're calling "woo" already tend to be social liberals and don't always have a friendly relationship with skeptics. Those who believe in "alternative" (a.k.a. non-reality-based) medicine are likely already pro-choice to some degree.

Granted, "alternative" medicine is quasi-religious in the sense that it only works if you believe in it. But its claims are inherently falsifiable by their failure to withstand replicable study.

If you don't believe me, just watch the low ratings I'm going to get on this post by adherents who swear by some form of medical quackery.

These people are already liberals, most likely pro-choice, and don't consider skeptics their friends.

The problem here is that you're assuming liberals/pro-choicers are rational whereas conservatives/pro-lifers are not.

In reality, they both adhere to a lot of nonsense. They just differ in which nonsense they prefer to believe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Those two neocon buffoons are so not useful to humanity. Mythbusters, I can handle, they use science and the scientific method, and they're willing to explore their methods when fans and actual scientists point out flaws in them. P&T have no interest in science or the method, they just like to spew their bilge and bile and make money.

From there the author completely lost me... when I got to homeopathy... holy batshirt, fartman, the whole premise begins to fall apart.

Come on, yes, the anti-choice f*ckers are full o' woo. Let's stay focused on that and not get all whacked out on Penn and Teller and homeopathy and UFO abductees and all that other shite.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How about basic sex education in ALL of our public schools? Abstinance only programs are a joke. Pandora's Box has been opened. Teach kids how to protect themselves from an unwanted pregancy and STD's. While abortion is certainly an extreme bith control method, it must be safely available to all women and girls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]