Pro-Life by most really mean Pro-Birth

[RedhorseWoman]

There is a tremendous difference in the two meanings. The diffetence is seen after the birth occurs and into childhood. The politicians are getting closer to the Death Penalty for abortion providers and some states have jail time on the books for the woman getting the abortion.
Look closer at how these states allocate funds for those born into poverty. It pretty much says it all.

The Jewish religious leaders in the time of Jesus who behaved the same way as our Republican politicians of today, also clocked their evil behaviour in righteousness.

This is something that I could never understand. Those who are most vehement about "the sanctity of the life of the unborn" are often the ones who are most vehement about not supporting those single mothers who are struggling to provide for the children that they really couldn't afford to have.

Once the child is born, the majority of the "pro lifers" just write the child off. It just boggles the mind!

 

[The Reverend Bob]

This is something that I could never understand. Those who are most vehement about "the sanctity of the life of the unborn" are often the ones who are most vehement about not supporting those single mothers who are struggling to provide for the children that they really couldn't afford to have.

Once the child is born, the majority of the "pro lifers" just write the child off. It just boggles the mind!

Because it isn't about doing the right thing or saving fetuses, it is about control. They want to control and limit women into a specific role: SUBMISSIVE.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Because it isn't about doing the right thing or saving fetuses, it is about control. They want to control and limit women into a specific role: SUBMISSIVE.

I personally do not like the idea of abortion, but I also believe that a woman should have the right to decide what is best for herself and her family.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

I personally do not like the idea of abortion, but I also believe that a woman should have the right to decide what is best for herself and her family.

I don't think anyone likes it, it's not like a sport or anything like that. It is just one of unfortunate things that sometimes happens because it is necessary. A necessary evil.

 

[Scott C.]

Look at your religion, bud; you people aren't exactly known for your pro-feminist stance in fact you are known for the opposite and people like Jim Jefferies who enslave women aren't exactly helping the public image

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

I don't think anyone likes it, it's not like a sport or anything like that. It is just one of unfortunate things that sometimes happens because it is necessary. A necessary evil.

Unfortunately, this is true. It would be wonderful if there were no cases of pregnancy due to rape or incest and that every unborn child could be born without serious defects and into a loving family that could afford to cherish that child and raise them without worrying about finances.

Sadly, that is not the case, and, as you said, it is a necessary evil.

 

[Rival]

I am sure that the house slave was much more pro-slavery than the field slave. What is this supposed to prove besides that your wife and daughters drank the patriarchal kool-aid and want to be good little submissive wives who serve male masters. Because it doesn't impress me.

Wow.

There are plenty of women out there who, through their own volition, are not the people you think they would be if only they had the sense to free themselves from those awful patriarchal shackles, oh my. Believe it or not, many women, as opposed to what you seem to suggest, can actually think for themselves to decide what they do and do not support. I love how you seem to think that women somehow have to be brainwashed in order to support a pro-life position, because in your scheme all women apparently think the same and if only they hadn't been brainwashed then they'd all be raging feminists who support abortion.

This isn't true. Women can make their own decisions and what do you know, some of them happen to differ.

And while we are at it, not all of them are Christians, as other posts from you seem to suggest. Here's another radical idea: atheist women can be pro-life too. Shocking, I know. How counter-cultural. How very human.

 

[crossfire]

The percentage of pro-choice women is very close to the percentage of pro-choice men. When I think of my wife and daughters, I would say they are more passionately pro-life than I am. And I am pro-life. They have given birth and their motherly instincts revolt at abortion. I'm not quite as emotionally attached to the issue, having never been pregnant. I see no correlation whatsover between pro-life and anti-women's rights. People who believe there is a correlation have surprisingly little understanding of the pro-life position.

I can definitely see how one can be both pro-choice and pro-life: such a position would entail rejecting abortion for oneself and working to reduce circumstances where the question of abortion would even need to be considered, while respecting and having compassion for others who have to face that difficult choice. This would include those who believe that abortion should be legal, safe, and above all, rare.

I would be interested in hearing more about other pro-life positions that preserves the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You are misunderstanding, probably on purpose, my position.

I legally support abortion in the first trimester. Long after the zygote period.

Misunderstanding, perhaps, but not on purpose.
What's your position on abortion?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The percentage of pro-choice women is very close to the percentage of pro-choice men. When I think of my wife and daughters, I would say they are more passionately pro-life than I am. And I am pro-life. They have given birth and their motherly instincts revolt at abortion. I'm not quite as emotionally attached to the issue, having never been pregnant. I see no correlation whatsover between pro-life and anti-women's rights. People who believe there is a correlation have surprisingly little understanding of the pro-life position.

That might also depend on your definition of 'pro-life', and where you would want laws enforcing your opinion, I think.

 

[PureX]

This is absolutely wrong, as any biology text that covers "lifecycle of a primate" will explain to you.

Biology does not define a "human being". Philosophy does. And even then, it's definition is debatable.

 

[PureX]

It's interesting that all these republican sponsored bills and laws, lately, banning abortion, are all about punishing pregnant women who don't want to be pregnant rather than supporting pregnant women and their unborn children so they can more easily endure their pregnancies. I guess when it comes to "saving babies", saving money is still more important. Or, as I suspect, it's not about "saving babies" at all. It's about punishing women for having sex without the approval or permission of the self-righteous phonies pushing for these laws.

 

[Shiranui117]

Biology does not define a "human being". Philosophy does. And even then, it's definition is debatable.

To the contrary, biology does in fact identify individual members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, and it has clear definitions for when you have a new individual member of the human species: At conception. It's the philosophical and legal definitions of "human being" that get muddled and murky.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You missed out the most important bits:

Democrats want to HELP newborn babies, children and so on-- with Free Education, Free Health care, Free Food and so on.

Whereas Republicans want these deadbeat newborns to GET TO WORK ALREADY. They are a burden on Capitalism. Back To The Mines with these lazy kids.

I'm curious. What do you mean "free"? Do you mean no one has to work for it or pay for it?

 

[Shiranui117]

It's interesting that all these republican sponsored bills and laws, lately, banning abortion, are all about punishing pregnant women who don't want to be pregnant rather than supporting pregnant women and their unborn children so they can more easily endure their pregnancies. I guess when it comes to "saving babies", saving money is still more important. Or, as I suspect, it's not about "saving babies" at all. It's about punishing women for having sex without the approval or permission of the self-righteous phonies pushing for these laws.

I agree that we could be doing a lot more to make abortions unnecessary or even obsolete. Our health care system is utter garbage at most things when it comes to making quality care and treatment affordable. I strongly disagree with abortion outside of cases where the mother's life is in danger and we have to pick which person we want to save (which is a crappy situation no matter which way you go), and I cannot abide tearing apart an unborn child in the womb. Even if the unborn baby is dead, we should treat the baby with the same respect that we treat all human corpses--you wouldn't saw apart a man's body when disposing of the remains, for example.

Our adoption networks may need reform as well to more quickly find suitable families for foster children and orphans. Admittedly I'm not well read-up on that side of things, so I'll defer to those who have experience working in, working with or going through that system. Paid paternal leave for both the mother and the father is also a must, and it baffles me that the one industrialized nation which most prides itself on maintaining traditional values has thus far left young families largely to fend for themselves in the realm of childcare.

I also think men should accept the responsibilities that are involved with having sex. A rape that results in an aborted pregnancy should carry even higher sentences in my mind, because he has not only raped (which everybody agrees is unspeakably vile), but he has also forced the killing of a human life that he created.

 

[columbus]

To the contrary, biology does in fact identify individual members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, and it has clear definitions for when you have a new individual member of the human species: At conception. It's the philosophical and legal definitions of "human being" that get muddled and murky.

I don't see why this is so difficult for so many feticide rights people to grasp. Sometimes talking to them is like discussing biology with a creationist.

If the facts don't match your ideology, pretend that the facts don't exist.
Tom

 

[Scott C.]

I can definitely see how one can be both pro-choice and pro-life: such a position would entail rejecting abortion for oneself and working to reduce circumstances where the question of abortion would even need to be considered, while respecting and having compassion for others who have to face that difficult choice. This would include those who believe that abortion should be legal, safe, and above all, rare.

I would be interested in hearing more about other pro-life positions that preserves the woman's right to bodily autonomy.

I will admit that in a country (USA) where about half of the people think abortion should be legal in any circumstance, where those people have no moral objections to the practice, it will be diffcult to write laws that allow it in the rare circumstances but disallow it generally. I'm Ok with abortion if the mother's life is it risk. I'm also Ok with it if medical doctors are certain that the fetus is so damaged that it will not live after birth. And if the woman or girl was raped or is the victim of incest, an abortion may be the best choice. It would be difficult to enforce a rape provision, for example. Does the woman need to report the rape to the police? Does she need to present evidence? Does the doctor need to then receive authorization from the government? Can all of this happen before the woman is now 6 months pregnant, or can it happen in a few days? If these procedures are not in place and the law simply says "if the woman tells her doctor she was raped, that's all that's needed", would every woman who wants an abortion just say this with a wink wink to her doctor. I see this as problematic. The problem is that our society is so far off base on the morality of this issue that it makes legislation tough.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

I love how you seem to think that women somehow have to be brainwashed in order to support a pro-life position

Nope. But I do believe they have to be brainwash if they kowtow to a uber-patriarchal religion like Mormonism which is known to be oppressive towards women.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

To the contrary, biology does in fact identify individual members of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, and it has clear definitions for when you have a new individual member of the human species: At conception. It's the philosophical and legal definitions of "human being" that get muddled and murky.

Biology doesn't grant personhood, though I will grant that the fetus is human (though not fully a human being) it just isn't a person in and of itself.

 

[Shiranui117]

Biology doesn't grant personhood, though I will grant that the fetus is human (though not fully a human being) it just isn't a person in and of itself.

As long as pro-choice people accept biology, that at least gives pro-lifers and pro-choicers some sort of starting ground for continuing the conversation about the (im)moral nature of abortion and the legal nature of personhood.