It's crucial for you to know (in case you don't) that you don't have to go.  There is no moral obligation to go a cousin's wedding.

If you're feeling alienated and embittered right now toward your family, maybe you need to "rise above it", as so many here are suggesting.  Maybe, though, you need to look at the way you've been relating to your family and they've been relating to you, and decide whether you want more or less of that in your life.

I don't see anything wrong in taking a kind of personal time out from a family dynamic that you feel has been dragging you down rather than supporting you and your life. 

Amy, having just finished reading Co-dependent No More plus other stuff on the cult dynamics of some religious sects and clans (wrote a post on the subject recently, here), I have a different set of thoughts about this than I might have had before. 

If you've grown up in a family or group that was oppressive and kept  members in line by shame and guilt, and if you're struggling to get free of that dynamic, then deciding you're not going to go because you don't want to go may be exactly the right thing for this "moral moment" in your life.

People who were raised in co-dependency are constantly driven by phantom "shoulds".  They don't feel free.  They don't act from freedom.

There's a significant moral difference (don't you think?) between taking or prescribing birth control pills to avoid pregnancy and taking or prescribing drugs to kill a newly-conceived baby.

I'm grateful for doctors who refuse to perform abortions.  I wish there were more of them.

I wish there were more like Cattle King's physician, who also decline to prescribe birth control pills.  

DocJay, this seems oddly out of character for you.  

No one is comparing you to Gosnell.  

We're talking about language and ethical realities (not political platforms).  Personally, I'd be rejoice to see laws enacted that draw the line where you do: no invading the uterus.  So would virtually all pro-lifers.  

 You have granted that a human life exists from the moment of conception.  So why should you be offended and defensive when someone says that the deliberate destruction of that nascent human life is not contraception, but abortion?

No one in the pro-life movement rejects the use of the terms zygote or embryo or blastocyst or whatever, except where those terms or any other terms (like "blob of tissue") are employed to mislead a young girl or woman into believing she is not pregnant.  If a new, living human being has been conceived within her, she is pregnant in the morally relevant sense.  

There may be medically meaningful reasons for defining pregnancy as beginning at implantation, since that's the moment the woman's body undergoes a dramatic change.  But that doesn't change the relevant fact that if she acts to destroy that tiny life before it has a chance to implant, she is committing abortion, not contracepting.  Conception has already taken place.  The new life is present—"knit together" by the Author of Life.

There is all the metaphysical (and moral) difference in the world between a "potential person" and an actual, really existing person.

We have moral obligations toward the latter, not the former.  

Fertilization is an event, Joseph, not the condition of a woman.  

There is no pregnancy in a petri dish because there is no woman. 

A woman carrying a newly conceived human being is a pregnant woman, even before the child has implanted in her womb.   This, it seems to me is the ethically relevant reality.

But I will grant you that there may well be a scientifically meaningful reason (such as the fact that only at implantation is the hormone released that causes such dramatic changes in the woman's body—orienting it toward nurturing the life of the child) for defining pregnancy as beginning at implantation.  

(There's also an invalid political motive for defining that way.)

Will you similarly grant that to call, say, an IUD, or "the morning after pill", "contraception" is false, since it doesn't prevent conception?

None of this is to the point, Joseph.  The point was about the definition of pregnancy, not the correct scientific names for stages of fetal development.   

The political left wants to pretend that pregnancy begins at the moment the baby implants in the uterus.  That's a lie, utterly falsified by science.  

A completely unique individual of the species comes into being at conception.  

I don't know you, Eric.  But your line of reasoning and your mode of approach in this thread have not be notable for thoughtfulness.  I have no doubt you can do better, though, when you want to.

Few people are always thoughtful about everything.  And all of us can improve.

It starts with listening.

It also has to do with not being defensive—not making everything about ourselves— but rather focussing attention to the thing under discussion.

So, for instance, in this last comment, you skip over my whole argument, which was in response to questions and comments of yours, and pretend I have somehow insulted you, when, in fact, what I did was defend So-Cons from your more-than-implied charges of irrationality.

You suggest we're inconsistent to want to outlaw abortion but not contraception.  I reply that, on the contrary, we're thoughtful people making sound, practical distinctions.

You get all huffy: "What, so you're saying I'm not thoughtful?"

It's not what anyone would call a thoughtful response, is it?

We can recognize that using contraception in order not to get pregnant is not in the same class of evil as consciously choosing abortion to kill a living baby.

We can recognize that abortion is a grave offense against God, against natural law, and against the founding principles of our nation, without recognizing the same about contraception.  (I would venture to guess that most pro-lifers don't see anything wrong with contraception.)

We can decide that stopping the brutal, soul-destroying legal slaughter of innocents in our nation is a more urgent political priority than anything else.

We can deplore the dishonest rhetorical tactics of the left and its libertarian enablers, who teach women to think that SoCons will take away their access to birth control, without pretending that we think contraception is just great.

We can draw moral and philosophical connections between the explosive rise of abortion and divorce, plus the decline of sexual mores, and the widespread acceptance of birth control without advocating that contraception be outlawed.

Thoughtful people make such distinctions every day.

If you read back, you'll see that, on the contrary, I do desire that oral contraceptives be severely restricted in law (because they are abortifacient, abusive of women, ruinous of marriage, cancer-causing, environment-poisoning, etc.).  (They shouldn't be outlawed, because they have valid medical uses.)  But I am enough of a realist to see that it's not a politically viable issue at the moment.  Not even close.  Therefore, I do not want on our platform.  I don't know anyone who does.  Catholic pro-lifers generally support and give tons of hard-earned cash to politicians (like, say, Sarah Palin) who champion contraception.  Why?  Because those politicians are convincing opponents of abortion, which is a live political issue, as well as a moral absolute.

Politics is not moral philosophy.  It's "the art of the possible."

But even on the philosophical level, we can make distinctions.

You certainly implied it.  Over and over again you implied that SoCons' wrong-headed opposition to birth control is damaging the political prospects of the right.

You  mean stop resisting the legal slaughter of innocents?  You mean do I think we shouldn't vet candidates according to whether they will defend life or not?  Or that we shouldn't keep the pro-life plank in the Republican platform?  No, I don't.  I think opposition to abortion is both morally and politically essential to the Republican party.  If it abandons the pro-life cause, it will die.  In truth, I suspect its failure to defend marriage has doomed it already.

Nor do I see anything "slimy" about the pro-life movement's aims and tactics (not counting the fringe element.)

We're not using symbolic logic here, Eric. We're having a real discussion using real terms.  And real language, being concrete, has implications.  There is nothing unfriendly about gathering implications from a person's choice of words.  One thing that anyone reading this thread can gather from your words is that you (like many libertarians) are unfamiliar with tons of information that is highly familiar to virtually everyone in the pro-life movement.

Keep even modestly abreast of these life and death issues, and you become keenly aware that one of the ways the left lies about the destructive nature of oral contraceptives is by pretending that there's no pregnancy until the embryo implants in its mother's womb.  This flies in the face of science and common sense.  It radically de-humanizes the tiny new baby.  It's part of their agenda.  You've evidently fallen for it, since you thought it was normal to think that pregnancy begins when the baby attaches.

Now you know, and can be more aware. (Yay, Ricochet!)

You do it again right here:

I'd like to see even one example of a credible present day SocCon doing any of the following:

1. Proposing a law against contraception

2. Proposing an anti-contraception plank in the platform

3. Vetting of candidates according to their views on contraception.

Maybe if you scrounge around on Google you'll be able to come up with something.  I've never come across it though.  

Contraception is a live political issue in two and only two respects:

1. The left is forcing everyone to pay for it, in direct contravention of the first principles of our founding.

2. Leftists and their libertarian enablers use it with good rhetorical effect as a part of a lying propaganda campaign to discredit and marginalize SoCons.

If you cherish your image of yourself as a logical guy with good critical thinking skills, you ought realize you're helping their cause.

A logical guy should care.  He wouldn't think it's okay to call a fetus a toddler, or anything but an actual person a person.  He should also take note that it is not SoCons who are inconsistent linguistically and logically, but liberals and libertarians, who play fast and loose with language and science in order to avoid coming to terms with moral realities they don't like.

It's not about what you may or may not have intended.  It's about what you actually did, which was write as if SoCons are hindering the cause of the right by pushing to outlaw contraception, when we're not.  Not even Rick Santorum did that.

Eric, you said:

which implies that the problem of contraceptive drugs causing abortion only happens in cases where embryos "manage to attach", when, in fact, many embryos are killed (i.e. aborted) by contraceptive drugs before they get to the mother's womb.

You may think words can be defined however one likes.  But if you're going to engage the public debate on these issues, you ought to be aware that the abuse of language is a prime tactic of the left.  

Change the definition of pregnancy and you can pretend abortifacient drugs are "preventing pregnancy."  Change the definition of death and you can harvest organs from lots more bodies.  Change the definition of marriage and you can reduce the foundation of the civil society to rubble in no time flat.