The theme of the discussion was Nadine Dorries’ proposed amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill which cover the issue of abortions. The tl;dr version is that Dorries was trying to strip not-for-profit charities who carry out terminations of the right to counsel pregnant women because they might try to improve their profits… By… Wait a second… Not-for-profit…. Worried they might profit… Say, somebody’s not being honest here. And it’s Dorries. And her backers (rumoured to be US based “pro-life” organisations, but that’s unconfirmed because they’re hiding behind a law firm as a front, and the law firm isn’t saying – neither is Nadine Dorries).

Anyway, back to the argument. The lady on Facebook, let’s call her Derpina, treated us to a grisly tale of woe in which she was emotionally manipulated by one of their counsellors into paying the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS, one of the aforementioned not-for-profits) for a termination that she didn’t really want, they were only interested in her money, she only went there for contraceptive advice but instead they used her partner (who didn’t want kids) to emotionally blackmail, trick or otherwise coerce her into a termination. Yeah, I know. Visiting a charity who carry out terminations (rather than, say, your doctor), in order to ask for contraceptive advice, for a couple who are already pregnant. Sounds legit.

So anyway, after I’d very politely dismantled her story and her claims that every woman who’s used them hates BPAS by posting reams of positive testimonials and their Quality Care Commission reports (their average patient satisfaction survey score is 9 out of 10), she messaged me the following:

“Hi – about the abortion thing, I do not really expect you to understand. I am not going to post on [the board we were using] any more as I have made my point as clearly as I can. As things stand it is possible to get abortions really easily, and post-abortion councelling. Where the balance is wrong is that it is really hard to get impartial pregnancy advice. You would not agree but I can see that abortion clinics are more interested in getting money off vulnerable women than advising them, are very doom and gloom places and are far from impartial, in my limited experience (but at least I have more experience than you!). You argue that religious groups would blackmail pregnant women into keeping their babies. Again in my experience that was absolutely not the case! Thanks to people like you, I will be taking up this issue further. How would you feel if you had booked in for contraception advice, turned up to find that you were booked in for an operation on your most private parts and was pressured into going through with it “before it’s too late”, in the presence of your partner who does not want any children with you, who then say they are not in a position to offer any couple councelling, and then charge you £50? I can’t think of a better analogy that a man may understand? Yours in disappointment… with a British culture that just does not value life :(“

Well, something about that didn’t sit quite right with me… So I checked Derpina’s Facebook page. Want to guess what she has under “Religion” and “Favourite Book”? I’ll spare you my reply to her, but suffice it to say I pulled no punches. Quite unlike me, I know.

The whole exchange reminded me strongly of a page we talked about here two or three years ago, but which I couldn’t find in the archives, so I assume it’s never had a thread of its own: “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion” – When the Anti-Choice Choose, published in 2000 by Joyce Arthur. I recommend reading that whole page if you haven’t already, but the one she reminded me of was this one:

“We saw a woman recently who after four attempts and many hours of counselling both at the hospital and our clinic, finally, calmly and uneventfully, had her abortion. Four months later, she called me on Christmas Eve to tell me that she was not and never was pro-choice and that we failed to recognize that she was clinically depressed at the time of her abortion. The purpose of her call was to chastise me for not sending her off to the psych unit instead of the procedure room.” (Clinic Administrator, Alberta)

With perhaps a soupçon of this one:

“”I once had a German client who greatly thanked me at the door, leaving after a difficult 22-week abortion. With a gleaming smile, she added: ‘Und doch sind Sie ein Mörderer.’ (‘And you’re still a murderer.’)” (Physician, The Netherlands)”

One of the ideas that Stross considers is “mind uploading.” Our minds are systems of information stored in the chemicals and electrical movements of our nervous system. Theoretically, there’s no reason our minds cannot be moved to a different substrate; say, the memory of a super computer. This is sometimes mentioned as a type of immortality.

Stross considers some of the technical problems, but he also touches on some potential religious and political problems:

However, if it becomes plausible in the near future we can expect extensive theological arguments over it. If you thought the abortion debate was heated, wait until you have people trying to become immortal via the wire. Uploading implicitly refutes the doctrine of the existence of an immortal soul, and therefore presents a raw rebuttal to those religious doctrines that believe in a life after death.

John Scalzi disagrees:

I think Charlie’s correct that there will be theological arguments about it; I don’t think he’s necessarily correct that trying to upload one’s brain into the cloud implicitly refutes the soul any more than any other non-organic life-extending therapy, like getting an artificial heart or blood dialysis. In the case of a brain upload (or more accurately, I suppose, mind upload) what would be extended is not the physical body but some aspect of the consciousness, but it’s an open question of whether this represents a difference of degree or of kind. I think a theologian worth his or her salt could very easily make the argument that if the soul is not threatened by an artificial heart, neither is it threatened by the consciousness having its lifespan artificially extended via the cloud (or the net, or the wire, insert your favorite computing metaphor here).

The only thing I’d add is that it’s very difficult to predict what issues are going to become religious and political firestorms. When Evangelical Christianity became America’s majority religion, its first big issue was stopping Sunday mail delivery. This, when the issue of slavery was beginning to split the nation. After that, the big issue was temperance and prohibition, which isn’t a natural outgrowth of the supposedly bible centered worldview of the Evangelicals.

Stross’ mention of abortion is probably the best example. It’s been well documented that Evangelicals once considered abortion a Catholic issue and were reluctant to get involved. It wasn’t until Francis Schaeffer made it the centerpiece of his campaign, which crystallized the movement we call the Religious Right, that the issue took center stage. It’s possible to imagine a world were Schaeffer never got involved, and so abortion would not be the flashpoint it is today.

Click here to view the embedded video.

“A far-reaching anti-choice bill, introduced by Republican Chris Smith and supported by 173 members of the House, includes a provision that could redefine rape in the realm of federal funding for reproductive health care.

Right now, federal dollars can’t be used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger. But the Smith bill would narrow that use to “cases of ‘forcible’ rape but not statutory or coerced rape.”

As far too many women know, bruises and broken bones do not define rape – a lack of consent does. Please sign the petition today.

A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to your Senators and Representative.”

Essentially, some US senators are trying to redefine rape so that drug rape, date rape and marital rape don’t count. I’m not going to equivocate about this: THIS IS WRONG – and it’s driven by misogynists on the religious right.

I can’t sign the petition because I’m not a US citizen, but if you live in the USA and you’re as horrified about this as I am – go and sign the petition.

Thank you all.

The remains are widely believed to have come from illegal clinics.

Abortions are only permitted in Thailand in cases of rape, incest or where the mother’s life is in danger.

But official statistics suggest around 300,000 abortions are carried out each year, the vast majority in back-street clinics.

The gruesome discovery of so many foetuses in the grounds of a temple has prompted debate about an issue usually considered taboo.

This is just more evidence (as if more evidence were needed) of what pro-lifers don’t want to acknowledge: If you ban abortions, they’ll happen anyway – but they won’t be clean, safe, clinical procedures. They’ll happen in back-street clinics with no regulation or assurances of standards of safety or competency of practitioners.

“Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has so far resisted demands for new legislation, saying the problem lies in society’s values.”

Burying his head in the sand much?

Women will take massive risks, and some will die. How do pro-lifers rationalise this? Do they ignore it, or do they just not care? Worse, do they want desperate women to have to risk their lives?

Maytinee Bhongsvej has been working [at the Association for the Promotion of the Status of Women] for almost 20 years, first as a volunteer, now as the director. In all that time, she has seen little change.

Young women in particular, she said, are often ignorant about sexual matters so when they accidentally become pregnant, there is a tendency to panic.

“They do everything they can think of to get rid of it,” Maytinee said, in a calm voice that belied her evident frustration.

“They walk into things deliberately, have accidents deliberately, fall down the stairs, get a friend to kick them in the tummy, all because they don’t know what to do.”

The tragedy here is that it is men like Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva who get to make the law.

Alisha Arnold is pregnant. Along with her husband Pete, she is asking folks on the internet to vote … on whether or not they abort or keep the child. From Adrian Chen at Gawker:

That someone would do this is almost impossible to believe, of course. We asked the Arnolds if this was some sort of a prank. “No, it’s not. We are taking this very seriously,” Pete replied. We then asked if this was some sort of convoluted pro-life stunt. Alisha laughed. “It’s definitely not a pro-life campaign,” she said. “I believe in a woman’s right to choose.”

According to the couple, they’ve been unsure about whether they’re ready to be parents and have concluded that the best way to proceed is to ask random people on the Internet if they should have the child. (Tests have revealed that the fetus is a boy.) Alisha said that two pregnancies ended in two miscarriages in the past year and a half. During the second pregnancy, the couple bought the birthornot.com domain, and were in the process of deciding whether to put the birth up to a vote when they lost the baby. When Alisha got pregnant a third time a few months ago, they decided to launch birthornot.com.

… words fail me.

Chen sees three options: prank, pro-life stunt or real. I’m siding with “stunt” myself. Chen asks, “Could this site be a confused parable to illustrate the peril of putting an unborn baby’s life in the hands of voters?” That’s my best guess.

Justin Carl Moose, 26, is a self-described “extremist, radical” and the “Christian counterpart of Osama bin Laden,” according to an affidavit filed by FBI agents. Agents arrested Moose, who lives in a northwest Concord neighborhood, on Tuesday.

His arrest followed an investigation that began after Planned Parenthood alerted the FBI to a Facebook page registered to Moose, which the group said was advocating extreme violence against abortion providers.

From the Salisbury Post:

Federal authorities identified Moose as the person who made the Facebook page. On it, he writes: “Whatever you may think about me, you’re probably right. Extremist, Radical, Fundamentalist…? Yep! Terrorist…? Well…. I prefer the term ‘freedom Fighter’. ‘End abortion by any means necessary and at any cost’. ‘Save a life, Shoot an abortionist’

The affadavit says that starting Jan. 19, Moose made numerous statements “advocating the use of violence in order to affect his ideological and political beliefs. The majority of these postings relate the issue of abortion and the murder of abortion providers.”

One posting on Aug. 22 was “List of death camps with address’ Do with it what you wish.” The affadavit says that post referred to a list of abortion clinics throughout the nation.

Another post, on Aug. 3, provided a link to a website that authorities say contained a recipe for making explosives. In a post the next day, the affadavit says, Moose warned advised readers how to use the explosives without harming themselves.

On Aug. 23, the affadavit says, Moose posted this:“To all the feds watching me:”You can’t stop what is in motion. Even if you bring me in, my men will continue their mission. Furthermore, I will not go peacefully. Do you really want another Waco?”

Moose also claimed to be a member of the Army of God, an extremist anti-abortion Christian organization that may include the Olympic Park Bomber Eric Rudolph. My hunch is that Moose’s membership could be a delusion – if you’re going to be an effective terrorist it’s best not to tip your hand on Facebook. But he did seem to have the necessary knowledge to create a bomb.

One would think then that anything to make adoption easier and broaden the pool of the number of people who can provide for children effectively to be a welcome change.

Unfortunately, a family court in Georgia doesn’t see it that way. As covered over at the Volokh Conspiracy, in a March 2010 decision, the court ruled that a late middle aged couple who had been foster parents to an infant girl and decided to adopt her were not suitable to adopt, even after acting as her foster parents for three years. What was the one factor that disqualified them?

They weren’t married.

Interestingly, according to Georgia law, being married is not a requirement for legal adoption. The court, in a rare and flagrant case of conservative judicial activism, decided to ignore the strictures of the law and substitute its own moral judgment, saying: “[the couple were] living in an immoral, meretricious relationship, … and that the adoption and their continued custody is inappropriate.”

Thankfully, a Georgia Appeals Court swiftly reversed the decision. Still, it shows just how far reaching of a hold that religious categories of sexual morality, and specifically a monomaniacal emphasis on marriage as the only appropriate form of sexual relationship, can have even today in the context of a simple legal proceeding. It is remarkable that the hold of those beliefs overpowered consideration for the well-being of the child as well as adherence to the law.

I’m pretty conflicted about religion. On the one hand, I’m a huge fan of abortion. I like performing them, getting them, watching them, you name it. Then again, I think Communion wafers are delicious.

—Matt Tobey