You can call yourself "pro-life"

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

If you are against all wars
If you are against the death penalty
If you are for neonatal programs
If you are for providing care for unwanted children by adopting them yourself or paying for others to do so
If you are for making it so that mothers are economically and emotionally able to handle raising kids
If you are for programs to improve the quality of life for all people

If you are only interesting in being able to deny a woman a choice over her own body, then call yourself what you are--anti-choice.

And if you dare use the word "pro-life", be prepared to be called a hypocrite.

[musette_sf]

1. if you are for PUBLIC EDUCATION

instead of your freaky little religious schools that teach non-science and non-history, or the forced isolation from society and peers known as "home schooling",

i'll believe then that you might possibly be "pro-life".

QUALITY PUBLIC EDUCATION is necessary to promote the ideals this country was built upon.

if you are against quality public education and if you are against your children participating in quality public education,

then call yourself what you are - an anti-choice BIGOT.

[dem629]

37. Is that where they teach students proper use of capital letters?

[musette_sf]

42. i had to read e.e. cummings at my public high school

so i learned that when you are expressing yourself, capitals can be optional.

sorry your school wasn't quite so open-minded.

[texastoast]

46. Whole Language

Pfft.
:banghead:

[musette_sf]

47. oh honey, i'm way older than application of "whole language" theory

and the e.e. cummings was presented to us in high school as poetry, not "whole language". we all pretty much had that readin' and writin' thing down by then.

cripes, if it isn't the grammar police, the spelling police, or the proper use and application of conjunctions police, it's the capital letter police.

[lindisfarne]

2. If you are for access to quality health care for all

[dem629]

38. Good addition to the list. Access to health care should be a right.

I wish we had politicians with the guts to make it a Constitutional Amendment.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Great post

[NanceGreggs]

4. Off to the GP with ya ...

:kick: & REC'D!!!

[Tim01]

5. I hate the word games.

Pro choice and anti choice seems a LOT more accurate.

[Echo In Light]

6. Yes...although by your postulation, not many people would meet the criteria. Not even Dems

...who often seem to be in favor of war (Afghanistan, cause M$M established that framework early on, and so most people adopted it, much like Bushco's supposed "incompetence.")

[REP]

7. No thanks. I don't like associating myself with terrorists in any way

Or diluting their message. So-called pro-lifers have their agenda; why do their PR by doing good works in their wretched name? No thanks.

[gorfle]

8. I don't think it is so black and white.

Let me preface this by saying I am anti-death penalty, anti-Iraq/Afghanistan war, and pro-choice.

That said, I think we can all agree that an unborn fetus is innocent of anything that could warrant death. This is not to say there are not times when it is necessary that unborn fetuses should die, such as when a mother's health is in danger. But surely no one could say that an unborn fetus has done something to deserve death.

But not all wars are unwarranted, and thus not all killing in wars is unwarranted, and some people who fight in wars deserve to die.

I'm against the death penalty because so many have been exonerated after having been found guilty and sentenced to death. But I don't have a problem killing people who, beyond any shadow of a doubt, have savagely killed others. These people also deserve death.

In short, there are people in this world who, by their own actions, deserve to die. I don't think any reasonable argument can be made that any unborn fetus deserves to die.

I do not see a dichotomy in holding this position.

I agree that our society should have mechanisms in place so that mothers don't have to choose between a life of poverty and killing their unborn children, and we should have mechanisms in place to allow children to flourish no matter what circumstances they are born into.

[noiretextatique]

9. who determines who "deserves to die?"

do actual viable children who happen to be iraqi or afghan "deserve" to die? does the unborn fetus of an iraqi woman "deserve" to die? innocent people (and fetuses) are killed in war too. i am totally against war. humans need to find a better way to resolve conflicts.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. as am I

thank you for posting this.

[noiretextatique]

15. welcome

:hi: i met a woman the other day who is pro-life, but she understands that as HER belief...i can respect that. as for the pro-life movement, it is more misogynistic than anything else. there is an article on DU today written by jimmy carter. he's calling out religious misogynists by telling than that no god directs men to be evil to women r to control us. the misogynists want to control women...plain and simple.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. Saw that article

it was quite good, and drew attention to the fact that many in the so-called "pro-life" movement are only interested in gaining control over women.

[gorfle]

12. I don't know how to answer this.

I don't know how to answer that question.

But I do know that I am far more sympathetic to an unborn fetus than I am, say, a u-boat full of German sailors, or a Humvee full of Blackwater operatives.

The point is, as much as we might be against it, sometimes killing is justified. I don't think there is an inherent conflict in recognizing this fact and cherishing the unborn.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. the only "pro-lifers" for whom I have respect

are those who walk their talk. I know of a Catholic couple who adopted not one, but two children, one of them special needs. I have told them that though I don't agree with their position, I can respect it because they have walked their talk--and continued to do so by donating money to orphanages and food banks, etc.

Cherishing the unborn is fine--but that cherishing should not stop once they are viable human beings.

Now I have compassion for those German sailors and for the Blackwater operatives--as much as I have for any human being. Those German sailors may have been drafted, you know, and were where they were because of circumstance (since I have German relatives, this really hit home--my brother's in-laws were people who lived with their trauma of being in war their entire lives, and were not "evil"). I might not understand why someone would want to sign on with Blackwater, but I'd bet in many cases it was for economic reasons. If there was no war, and the money spent on war used to give everyone on the planet enough to eat and decent clothing and shelter--I don't think we'd have to worry about soldiers.

[gorfle]

21. "Just following orders"

Cherishing the unborn is fine--but that cherishing should not stop once they are viable human beings.

I agree.

Now I have compassion for those German sailors and for the Blackwater operatives--as much as I have for any human being. Those German sailors may have been drafted, you know, and were where they were because of circumstance (since I have German relatives, this really hit home--my brother's in-laws were people who lived with their trauma of being in war their entire lives, and were not "evil"). I might not understand why someone would want to sign on with Blackwater, but I'd bet in many cases it was for economic reasons. If there was no war, and the money spent on war used to give everyone on the planet enough to eat and decent clothing and shelter--I don't think we'd have to worry about soldiers.

While what you say may be true, the fact is, the people we are talking about are far more complicit in a wrong doing than any fetus ever will be.

German soldiers were the willing instruments of a maniac bent on molding humanity to his warped vision. Blackwater operatives are mercenaries complicit in the invasion of a sovereign nation, to say the least. You can be sympathetic to the plight of such people, to the circumstances that led them to where they were, but in the end, they are complicit. And if someone didn't stand up to them, and, if necessary, kill them, the evil that they were complicit in may well have prevailed, because they were and are certainly ready, willing, and able to kill in their complicity.

Again, the point being, there is no hypocrisy in killing those who deserve it while defending fetuses who don't.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

29. We agree to disagree, then

By your definition, anyone in any army is complicit in whatever that army does, and so "deserves" to be killed. I disagree with this, as there are too many nuances involved. Besides, who decides who "deserves" killing? Doesn't that definition change depending upon who is talking?

As for fetuses not "deserving" to die--what is your position about it when allowing the fetus to live means the mother will die a slow and painful death? I wouldn't call it "deserving" to die, but there are times when only one being will survive--are you saying that it should always be the fetus, no matter what?

[gorfle]

35. ABSOLUTELY.

By your definition, anyone in any army is complicit in whatever that army does, and so "deserves" to be killed.

ABSOLUTELY.

Not only is anyone in the army complicit with whatever the army does, but so is anyone in the civilian population that supports that army. No one gets a free pass unless they literally had a gun to their head forcing them to be slaves to an unjust cause.

This is why I have little sympathy for the people of cities like Dresden, or Hiroshima. People get the government they deserve. And when they allow or worse create a government that goes forth in their name to wage an unjust war in their name then those people reap what they sew. Just as America has reaped what it has sewn in the middle east.

Besides, who decides who "deserves" killing? Doesn't that definition change depending upon who is talking?

Do not fall into the trap of moral relativism.

As for fetuses not "deserving" to die--what is your position about it when allowing the fetus to live means the mother will die a slow and painful death? I wouldn't call it "deserving" to die, but there are times when only one being will survive--are you saying that it should always be the fetus, no matter what?

No, as I said, I am pro-choice and I support any woman being able to kill their fetus at any time for any reason whatsoever.

My point all along has simply been to dispute the argument that someone cannot be "pro-life" and "pro-war" at the same time. There is no dichotomy in the position if you believe that unborn life is inherently innocent and some wars are just.

Myself I'm pro-killing-fetuses and pro-war against evil doers.

[noiretextatique]

17. so, you are really just pro-fetus

not pro-life. thanks for clearing that up.

[gorfle]

22. Not really.

I may not be "pro-life", as I am not ashamed to say that not all life is equally worthwhile, for we are as we do, and by our own actions do we make ourselves worthwhile or worthless. A fetus, of course, not having had an opportunity to act, is blameless and an innocent.

But I am "pro-choice", as I believe any woman should be able to kill their unborn fetus at any time, for any reason. I don't think most would consider my position "pro-fetus".

[noiretextatique]

25. wow

your belief that some people are worthless and deserve to die makes anything else you believe worthless. seriously...seek therapy. and yes, i believe you are pro-fetus.

[gorfle]

27. You are wrong.

wow your belief that some people are worthless and deserve to die makes anything else you believe worthless. seriously...seek therapy.

I do indeed some people are worthless and deserve to die. At the risk of Godwinning the thread, I will use Adolf Hitler as an example. Here is an example of a completely worthless person who deserved to die. Seung-Hui Cho was another person who was worthless and deserved to die. Timothy McVeigh was another person who was worthless and deserved to die. I could go find countless examples of people who, by their own actions, rendered themselves worthless and deserving of death. I don't believe I need therapy for holding these opinions.

i believe you are pro-fetus.

I believe that a fetus is alive. I also believe that a woman has a right to kill her unborn fetus at any time for any reason. If this is your definition of "pro-fetus", so be it. Personally, I call it "pro-choice".

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

31. But again, it is judgment on your part

If we went back in time, say 125 years or so, you'd hear the common refrain that all Indians are worthless and deserving of death. "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" was a common description--and this attitude didn't change until in my lifetime.

[gorfle]

34. Of course it is.

But again, it is judgment on your part

Of course it is. I think most people would make the same judgment.

If we went back in time, say 125 years or so, you'd hear the common refrain that all Indians are worthless and deserving of death. "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" was a common description--and this attitude didn't change until in my lifetime.

So does this mean that all "Indians" are on the same moral ground as Adolf Hitler, Timothy McVeigh, or Seung-Hui Cho?

Of course not. The difference, of course, is that your example is a judgment based on ignorance and stereotype, while mine is an example of judging specific people and based on their specific actions.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

49. But you went on

saying that the entire population of Germany was guilty because Hitler was their leader. You said that the people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki deserved to die because they were Japanese, and therefore supported their Emperor. By all you included infants and children. Just clearing things up here.

[gorfle]

55. Yes, that is true.

But you went on saying that the entire population of Germany was guilty because Hitler was their leader. You said that the people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki deserved to die because they were Japanese, and therefore supported their Emperor. By all you included infants and children. Just clearing things up here.

Yes, but again, there is a difference between these people, who willingly supported and instated their governments to go forth and act on their behalf, and American Indians, who collectively did nothing more than want to live on their own land.

The people you cite who wanted to kill all Indians did so out of a sense of racism. This is not the case for Germans or Japanese in WWII.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. The reason for this post

was a response another DUer gave me on a thread about whether or not pharmacists had to make Plan B and other such drugs available. She ignored the fact that churches who say they are "pro-life" often do very little to promote social programs to help the children once they were born. Instead, said poster went off the deep end, saying that I wanted to force every doctor to perform abortions, which is NOT what pro-choice is about at all.

Actually, pro-choice is not about whether or not a fetus deserves to die--it is about not making that judgment when you, as an individual, are not involved.

[gorfle]

13. Does this mean...

Actually, pro-choice is not about whether or not a fetus deserves to die--it is about not making that judgment when you, as an individual, are not involved.

Does this mean that I am not allowed to make judgments about people killing other people if I, as an individual, am not involved? Of course not.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

20. Let's look at the word "people"

I think this is where we have the problem. From your post, you must think that a collection of cells, not viable outside the womb, is a person. To me, a fetus becomes a person only when it is viable.

And even when it is viable outside the womb, if there are medical complications that would make the baby's life a short and painful one (such as having no brain), again it is not my business to decide unless I am the mother--any more than it is my business to decide if an adult who is in a coma with irreversible brain damage should be taken off life support. It is a decision that can only be made by a physician and the loved ones (if a DNR isn't in place).

[gorfle]

26. An arbitrary distinction.

I think this is where we have the problem. From your post, you must think that a collection of cells, not viable outside the womb, is a person. To me, a fetus becomes a person only when it is viable.

The problem with this is that there is no magic indicator as to when this "viability" event happens. And as medical technology progresses, the definition of "viable" is going to continue to change, pushing farther and farther back to conception.

To me, life begins at conception. Any other marker is arbitrary.

And even when it is viable outside the womb, if there are medical complications that would make the baby's life a short and painful one (such as having no brain), again it is not my business to decide unless I am the mother--any more than it is my business to decide if an adult who is in a coma with irreversible brain damage should be taken off life support. It is a decision that can only be made by a physician and the loved ones (if a DNR isn't in place).

I agree with you. But you can see why some people don't. Society does take a stand in preventing people from killing other people, even when they are not directly involved. Even people who are brain dead, as they Terri Schiavo case demonstrates.

But you are bringing up a special case - brain damaged fetuses. What society really takes exception to is killing innocent, healthy people, even when they are not directly involved. What about the ones where the mother's life is not in danger, or where the fetus is not damaged somehow? Just a normal, healthy fetus that, if left alone, would grow to be a normal human being.

Just as someone would want society to step in and prevent someone from killing someone on the street, personally involved or not, you can see how some would want society to step in and prevent someone from killing a fetus.

Like I said, I personally have resolved that it is OK to kill people under certain circumstances, and I'm all for a woman to be able to kill her fetus at any time for any reason.

[lunatica]

58. I assume that you just forgot to say "In my opinion"

Because the bottom line is it's just your opinion as to who deserves to die. Nothing more and nothing less. But you do have the unqualified right to your opinion.

[dysfunctional press]

14. and if someone is going to call themselves 'pro-choice'...

they must also back people who want to exercise their choice to own firearms.

[defendandprotect]

67. As long as you acknowledge the opening clause . . . .

[dysfunctional press]

74. and you support people choosing how to interpret it.

[Cha]

19. I just made this point on another thread in GDP..

"Pro life" is a misnomer for the hypocrites who are anti-choice but are pro Death in any other situation.

They don't get to be hypocrites without being called on it.

[Deja Q]

23. To respond to each point, numerically:

1. Are you pro-life if you let somebody stand there and kill you and/or your friends, neighbors, or countrymen?
2. Somebody killed somebody else in the most vicious way possible. And as means to compel others not to engage in the same grotesque behaviors, it is not "death penalty". It is "execution of an animal".
3. No argument for this one.
4. If we were all truly pro-life, there'd be no frigging need for adoption or anything else. We'd all care in the first place. Then we wouldn't have indolent jerks like Levi running around, saying how _____ "isn't realistic".
5. No argument on this one either!!!! Paying for a job done well only encourages the employee to work better, and having time to raise the children is more likely to result in good children too. Again, parents also have to be pro-life and give a damn -- there are no exceptions.
6. No argument here.

7. With choice comes responsibility. If Spider-Man can say it, so can everyone else.

[TexasObserver]

24. Anyone who doesn't support Universal Health Care isn't Pro Life!

Anyone who opposes WIC, or food stamps, or programs to help young children isn't Pro Life.

If they want to use the term, they need to live it.

[zagging]

28. Out with nuance!

You can't really call yourself an animal lover unless you hand feed fresh fish to hungry grizzly bears.

My rules, you rotten animal hater.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

54. Why that reaction, are you "pro-life" as in "abortion should be illegal?" -nt

[GeorgeGist]

30. You can choose to call yourself "pro-life"

but if you're not your still pro-choice.

[LeftishBrit]

32. Great post - k&r!

[Ilsa]

33. I think the death penalty should be used only for the most extreme cases.

Like the prisoners that escaped from prison and murdered a security guard at a mall, for example. But mostly, I am against the death penalty because it is so unfairly applied. I am certain we have executed the innocent.

[dem629]

36. I'm pro-life.

Being against "all wars" however would require one to give up self-defense, so that doesn't work. You could change it to preemptive wars and it would be more legitimate.

So, yeah, I'm pro-life. But I don't care if others "allow" me to use that label.

[quaker bill]

39. I am good with the entire list

except the last bit, and so much more. I have no interest in controlling women. (beside that, I have two in the house and they are more likely to control me than the other way around) So can one be so apparently "pro-life" and still support freedom of choice? Because I do both....



Quakers oppose all wars and the death penalty - and I already voluntarily support programs that do the rest. We are a curious sort of Christian.

[Fire Walk With Me]

40. Kick and Recommend.

:hi:

[Th1onein]

41. Then I must be pro-life. And I AM anti-abortion.

This one, though:

"If you are for providing care for unwanted children by adopting them yourself or paying for others to do so"

is something that I have a problem with, and really, it is not a fair requirement. Not all people can afford to do this, even if they were equipped to do it. You can be FOR providing care without actually adopting children, or paying for others to do so, yourself.

That's like saying that if you're pro-choice, you need to go ahead and do some abortions, yourself.

Oh. And I am also against doctors performing euthanasia without the patient's permission, like they do in Texas

[musette_sf]

43. i'm still sad about what happened to your sister

but RIGHT TO CHOICE for women is the only way we can have autonomy. otherwise we are just slaves to our biology, and to the patriarchal sexists who want to legislate our biology to be our only destiny.

[Th1onein]

44. I very much disagree with you.

As I disagree with most people who present these either/or false and extreme choices.

I think that you have to use some common sense, sometimes, and especially when it comes to these wedge issues. With the advent of modern birth control methods, women DO have quite a bit of control over their own biology. I believe that, at the point where you are carrying another life, and I believe that that life begins at conception, you are no longer in charge of just you. You have another life to consider. And where that life begins, your rights end.

[musette_sf]

45. no, i can never agree with you.

"where that life begins, your rights end"

sorry, this just makes a woman a vessel, a container, an incubator, not a person.

a woman must have the choice or she is just a slave to biology.

i have managed my entire life to manage my contraception successfully. it would be easy for me to say "hey, i did it, i controlled it, so if you don't it's your own damn fault".

instead, my experiences have made me an even stronger advocate for choice and privacy in reproductive health care.

* because NO FORM of contraception is 100% effective

* because every child should be a wanted child

* because no woman is free if any woman cannot control her destiny and have privacy to make her choices

ideally every pregnancy termination (with the exception of late-term terminations performed for the health of the woman and/or non-viable or dead fetus) should be done as early as possible, as safely as possible, and without shaming or guilting by others.

but until all US women are guaranteed the RIGHT, the AVAILABILITY, and the OPPORTUNITY for early pregnancy termination, the thornier ethical questions will just have to be a reality. the forced birthers and the anti-birth control nuts only make things worse on the reproductive health care rights topic.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

53. Hear, hear!

I would also like to add that there is a hint that "the woman deserved it" whenever there is an unwanted or health-threatening pregnancy. The idea seems to be that no woman who gets pregnant when she doesn't want to be could ever be considered "innocent" like the fetus, but I beg to differ. Case in point:

I know a woman whose daughter was born with severe handicaps--she cannot speak and has limited mobility and is mentally challenged. She was raped, and the rape resulted in pregnancy. To carry the child to term would have, in the opinion of the doctors, seriously damaged the daughter, maybe even kill her. The woman, who was a Catholic and would normally not do so, agreed to have the procedure performed on her daughter.

[Th1onein]

56. We are ALL slaves to biology.

Nothing is 100% effective (except abstinence), but 99% of the time, if you don't want to become pregnant, you can do something, short of abortion, to see to it that you don't.

I'm arguing for some common sense regarding this issue.

I don't believe that we have the right to kill a baby, no matter whose body it is in. On the other side of that coin, women should have the right to birth control. And it is wrong to kill doctors, or anybody, for that matter, no matter what they do, or have done.

[musette_sf]

62. common sense

would dictate that scientific knowledge and medical help are possibilities for an unwanted pregnancy.

and until it is born, there is no "baby". conflating a fetus with a baby is one of the reasons why the forced birthers can get sympathy among the uneducated, the ignorant, the "religious", and those who are emotionally troubled from other life and death issues.

i have to stop responding to you now, as i have empathy for your personal issues, but i am appalled at your sense of righteousness that you would seek to force upon others to assuage your pain.

[Th1onein]

63. You know something? I don't need your empathy.

I didn't ask for it and I never even brought it up. You did.

And, I guess, because of my "personal issues," you are also now judging me to be "emotionally troubled from other life and death issues." Jesus, do you think that you could possibly insult my intelligence a bit more? Does my opinion not count at all, simply because my sister died and my son died? I just can't think logically anymore, right? I guess nobody who has had a sibling die or a child die can weigh in on this issue without their opinions being discounted as coming from someone who is "emotionally troubled." What a crock of shit.

And as for being uneducated, ignorant or religious, I am none of those. I have thought long and hard about this issue and I have done it in a logical manner. If you choose to discount my arguments or my position on this topic, then for fuck's sake, do so on the logic, don't take the easy way out and start attacking me personally.

We disagree on when a life begins. You believe it begins after birth; I believe it begins at conception. Because I believe it begins at conception, I logically view abortion as murder. Because you believe it begins after birth, you believe that abortion is simply a right that a woman has over her own biological processes, like the right to birth control.

Nothing more to it. No matter what you decide to imbue our argument with. And, by the way, in case I have not made myself absolutely clear on this issue, don't bring the death of my family members into this argument. Got it? Good.

[musette_sf]

70. i was expressing compassion for a worldview that is not acceptable to me

because of your experience, which you had no problems posting about at length when you wanted our help.

you don't want compassion? fine.

then don't come here looking for it when you want the support of progressives for your cause.

you can't have it both ways. don't bring the detailed stories about the death of one of your family members to this group when YOU want sympathy and support, if you don't want people to know these things about you.

i'm disappointed in myself that i ever allowed myself to feel compassion for you, now that i see that you would be willing to make women suffer when there is absolutely no need for them to do so. i feel used, by someone who now qualifies as an abuser of females in my book.

i'm not engaging with you any more. you used DU to get sympathy and support for your cause when the pain and suffering of a loved one was going on in your life. now you use DU to support imposing pain and suffering upon females. you're a self-centered user.

[Th1onein]

75. I don't mind compassion, when it is given honestly, and not used as a battering ram.

No one wants "compassion" that is not real compassion, but is, instead, used against them. Especially when you use it to insult my intelligence. It's not genuine, when you use it that way, capische?

You might as well say to me, "Hey, your sister died, so your opinions don't count here."

And, by the way, do you have the permission of all of the members of DU, or even a majority of them, to speak for them? I told DU about someone trying to kill my sister. I blasted that information to the entire internet. Is it now to be used against me? Do you really speak for all of DU, musette? Is anyone who is not pro-abortion/pro-choice now not worthy of your compassion, or DU's compassion, simply because they disagree on this issue with YOU? Do you really have that much power? Oh Gosh!

Not everyone who is against abortion hates women, musette. Not everyone who thinks abortion is murder wants to impose pain and suffering upon females. Is that really so difficult to comprehend?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

52. So you are saying that the rights of a fetus trump the rights of the mother?

What of a woman who is raped? Should they lose their rights just because a fetus is conceived?

What of a mother who has a husband and other children and finds out they have cancer and that the only way to save their life is to have chemo, which will kill the fetus? Are you saying it is better for the family to lose their mother because the unborn child is more important?

[Th1onein]

57. To the first, I say, yes, absolutely.

A woman who is raped should carry the baby to term.

To the second, of course not. If the mother's life is at stake, and she decides that she wants an abortion in order to save her life, then she should be able to get one.

I'm arguing for a culture of life. I happen to believe that life begins at conception. We should have a culture that celebrates life, period.

[musette_sf]

61. 'A woman who is raped should carry the baby to term.'

oh my

this is why we must rely on science instead of religion.

i know you have suffered much pain over life and death issues. but to wish that a rape victim be refused the right to remove the rapist's poison from her body...

i hope you find peace someday on your personal issues, because they are causing you to support evil being done, when science and medicine can help the living, breathing woman find some sense of peace after a criminal violation.

[Th1onein]

64. A child is not a poison.

And, by the way, I am a scientist and not religious at all (although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive).

What I have endured in my lifetime has nothing to do with this. Please don't indulge yourself by bringing it up over and over again.

What I have endured in terms of the loss of my loved ones has NOTHING, whatsoever, to do with my stance on this issue. I believe that life begins at conception. You believe that it begins only after birth. That is our disagreement. NOT my personal life.

[musette_sf]

65. i think you are highly affected by your personal life story

which you shared at length here to rally people to your cause. so please don't be disingenuous and try to disassociate yourself now from it.

i'm trying to be as compassionate as i can with your position, knowing about your situation. but if you want to refuse my compassion, so be it.

a fetus is not a child so don't push your "child" analogies when you are referring to a fetus.

the seed of a rapist IS poison and no woman should be forced to risk her life to give birth to the result of being poisoned, physically and emotionally. and to say that a woman SHOULD be forced to do so, on a progressive message board, is tantamount to considering women to be second-class citizens, living only to be at the effect of male ownership (whether it was consensual, or if it was stolen by the crime of rape).

one would think that someone who works in biochemistry would have a science-based worldview that supports women's reproductive health care choices.

[Th1onein]

71. And who is NOT "highly affected" by their personal life story?

Does that automatically preclude their ability to use logic? I don't think so. As much as you would like to make it so, I don't think so. And your bringing up the death of my sister, and the medical community's attempt to FORCE EUTHANASIA is really a low move. And, if you think that it has anything to do with this, you're wrong. It isn't logically aligned except when you put it in the context of being prolife, which only furthers my argument, not yours.

To YOU, a fetus is not a child. In MY opinion, a fetus IS a child. If that is true, then it is also true that abortion is murder. See how logic works? See how euthanasia doesn't really belong in this argument about when life begins? Geez.

The "seed of a rapist," if one believes that life begins at conception, as I believe, is a child. And a child is not poison. I know that you are really into making assumptions about me and why I am prolife, but please, just try to follow that line of logic, and you will see that your assumptions have no place in it.

This is a progressive message board and I have belonged to this board for about five years now. You see, I am a liberal, despite the fact that you would have me moved over to FR in a minute simply because I disagree with you on this issue. And, by the way, I am a woman, too. And I have fought all of my adult life for my rights as a woman, and probably for yours, too. My view that abortion is murder is shared by quite a few liberals, in fact, and has not one thing to do with moving women into the second class citizen status or "living only to be at the effect of male ownership" (whatever in the hell that means).

[defendandprotect]

68. When a female becomes pregnant she loses her right to self-defense . . .!!!!

[musette_sf]

73. + 1

so true, thanks for saying it loud and clear!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

50. I guess I didn't make it clear

I realize not everyone is in a financial position to adopt a child, but by saying "paying for others to do so" I meant paying into a fund to help those who wish to adopt--could be as little as a dime--or if there is no money at all, volunteering for the organization. Any of those actions would be supporting the adoption movement.

[Th1onein]

60. Yes, of course, we should all pay into such a fund.

Life is precious. If we cannot cherish the lives of our own species, what kind of species are we?

I would gladly pay into such a fund. Of course.

[Bluenorthwest]

51. You just think the government should have the rights over our bodies

not ourselves. You are against choice by individuals, and for choices made by government. Any government that can tell you you can not have an abortion inherently has the right to tell you that you must have an abortion. The choice is theirs not ours. And that is the end you seek.
I would like to ask you to be clear and direct about your inability to pay for the care of a child or to contribute to that care. Are you saying that you could not do so, or just that some could not? Are you not doing so when you could? Do you have cable? Buy brand name foods? Take vacations? Have hobbies?
I just note that you do not say you can not afford to care for any child in anyway, just that some can not. The actual point is that many can and do not, while still demanding that 'life begins at conception' and all of that rot. Are you saying that all anti-choice types who are able adopt and help others to adopt? Are your really?

[Th1onein]

59. That is your framing, not mine.

The government can tell you that it is illegal to murder. Murder is taking a life that is not your own. To me, life begins at conception. Therefore, abortion is murder and should be illegal.

I have cable; I am too old to care for a child properly; I travel too much (for my profession) to take care of a child properly; I take no vacations, buy no name brand anything, and my hobby is studying (the cost is nothing more than an internet connection). But none of these things has anything to do with the point at hand. And you should know better than to argue them.

I don't believe that you can just toss a child out into the world, with no help. If we actually had a culture that revered life, we would not just outlaw abortion, but also provide all of the necessary services to care for these lives, whether they are wanted or unwanted.

[MellowDem]

76. + 1

You're brave to bring it up too. Progressives will have to come to terms with the fact that many other liberals are very much pro-life as described in the OP.

It's frusterating how many people will accuse you of attacking women's rights when in fact the reason for being pro-life in this instance has nothing to do with women's rights and everything to do with the belief of when life begins. It's what has always troubled me about abortion. Even looking at it from a purely scientific standpoint, a fetus is simply a human in its earliest stages. I've never heard any convincing argument that a fetus is not human.

I wouldn't vote to outlaw abortion, but I am personally opposed to its use. I realize abortion is going to happen no matter what, so the thing to do is make it safe and rare. Unfortunately, our society has only made it safe, but definitely not rare. And that can be blamed on the lack of funding for our children, sex education, etc. etc.

[defendandprotect]

77. But are you saying that a fetus has supremacy over the rights of the female?

I don't think that progressives here have problems with people who are anti-abortion,
except when they hide their positions or when they refuse to debate --

and I mean debate ABSENT of "because my book says so", or "because god says so."

I think the suggestion that you have to be "brave" to debate the issue here is somewhat
of an exaggeration. But I think if you feel it's true that it should probably be
discussed here openly. I think that what does happen often, IMO and from what I observe,
there is little movement in the debate because of the above religious reasoning. Finally,
those who are anti-abortion -- even from the moment of conception -- do not want to debate.
Do not want to acknowledge or broaden their view and will avoid actually weighing what
"pro-choice" debaters are saying.

For instance, let's look at this statement . . .

It's frusterating how many people will accuse you of attacking women's rights when in fact the reason for being pro-life in this instance has nothing to do with women's rights and everything to do with the belief of when life begins.

The simplest response to that is that no male ever becomes pregnant. How then do you not
acknowlege this to be a question of women's rights?

Additionally, the belief that a fertilized egg or a fetus is the equal of the female as far as
rights are concerned also seems to be shied away from.


It's what has always troubled me about abortion. Even looking at it from a purely scientific standpoint, a fetus is simply a human in its earliest stages. I've never heard any convincing argument that a fetus is not human.

I doubt that any "pro-choicers" would deny that. However, what you are saying is that it has
a higher value than the life of the pregnant female. Is that what you intend to suggest?

And, again, here . . .

I wouldn't vote to outlaw abortion, but I am personally opposed to its use. I realize abortion is going to happen no matter what, so the thing to do is make it safe and rare. Unfortunately, our society has only made it safe, but definitely not rare. And that can be blamed on the lack of funding for our children, sex education, etc. etc.

You say you're personally opposed to the use of abortion. Are you saying that if you had a sister
or wife, or daughter who had a problem pregnancy that you would prefer that there be no abortion
and that you would risk the life of your loved one in hopes of saving a fetus?

These are the questions where I never see anything that seems like true engagement in the debate
when "pro-lifers" post.

Further, late term abortion is rare -- only 1.1% of the abortions happen after 21 weeks or more.
They are done for medical reasons -- at a time in the pregnancy which is very dangerous for
the female -- and must be approved.
Last I estimated that it's about 4 in every county in the US.

Here's my county -- Union County NJ
Nine years ago there were 522,451 people in 21 different towns
and from that there would have been 4 abortions done after 21 weeks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_County,_New_Jersey#Demographics

Again, speaking for myself, I have no problems with "pro-lifers" who are honestly responsive to
questions like these.

61.3% in the first 9 weeks -
17.8% from 9-10 weeks
9.6% from 11-12 weeks
6.7% from 12-15 weeks
3.5% from 16-20 weeks

[MellowDem]

78. In response...

I understand how abortion is a woman's right from the idea that men cannot get pregnant, I'm just talking about the opposition to that right rests on the grounds of when life begins, not from wanting to control a woman's body, in this instance.

And I don't suggest that a fetus has a higher value of life than the female. The cases where there has to be a choice between the woman's living and dying or the fetus are rare, but I would not oppose the abortion of a fetus in order to save the life of a woman. In cases where it is a medical necessity to preserve the life of the woman, then I see much less reason for opposition. After all, you are still preserving life in such cases and doing what you can do.

It is the vast majority of abortions that I personally oppose where it is simply an unwanted pregnancy. I understand the necessity of having abortion available for those who choose to do so, but my personal preferance would differ in most cases is all. It's the idea that there are so many unwanted pregnancies that is the problem in this age of relative sexual freedom and access to birth control. There is a lot more we have to do to honor the sanctity of those who are alive today before we can ever move on to reducing the number of abortions from unwanted pregnancies, and I understand that. It's ironic that much of the "pro-life" movement actively support policies, such as no safe sex education, that exponentially increase the number of abortions.

[defendandprotect]

81. Thank you --

In response...
I understand how abortion is a woman's right from the idea that men cannot get pregnant, I'm just talking about the opposition to that right rests on the grounds of when life begins, not from wanting to control a woman's body, in this instance.

How can you miss the obvious that if a church insists that from the moment of conception
the egg has supremacy over the life of the female it represents an attempt to control a
woman's body.

How can you miss the reality that organized patriarchal religion is mainly concerned with
controlling normal human sexuality and reproduction?

And I don't suggest that a fetus has a higher value of life than the female. The cases where there has to be a choice between the woman's living and dying or the fetus are rare, but I would not oppose the abortion of a fetus in order to save the life of a woman. In cases where it is a medical necessity to preserve the life of the woman, then I see much less reason for opposition. After all, you are still preserving life in such cases and doing what you can do.

Glad you agree that these contests late term abortions are "rare" -- good start!

It is the vast majority of abortions that I personally oppose where it is simply an unwanted pregnancy. I understand the necessity of having abortion available for those who choose to do so, but my personal preferance would differ in most cases is all. It's the idea that there are so many unwanted pregnancies that is the problem in this age of relative sexual freedom and access to birth control. There is a lot more we have to do to honor the sanctity of those who are alive today before we can ever move on to reducing the number of abortions from unwanted pregnancies, and I understand that. It's ironic that much of the "pro-life" movement actively support policies, such as no safe sex education, that exponentially increase the number of abortions.

Of course we need increased research on birth control methods -- more user-friendly and
effective products - and it is the effort mainly by patriarch/organized patriarchal religions
which prevents that progress.

As I recall the figures, 2/3rd of pregnancies are unplanned . . .
and 50% of those go to term with 50% being aborted.
THAT is one of the reasons why patriarchal religion fights improved birth control,
condoms and abortion -- they would lose 50% of those unplanned pregnancies!

It's also enlightening to understand that the previous Pope only a few years ago went to
the Italian Parliament to speak and insisted that they "make Italian women have more children." This couldn't make clearer the history of the RCC in trying to control
reproduction. Further, he did not cite the value of human life, the love of children --
nor suggest that women, families be aided - perhaps with child care, or other kinds of
assistance. What he stressed was that in order to grow the nation needed labor!

I'd also add this . . .

It is the vast majority of abortions that I personally oppose where it is simply an unwanted pregnancy.

An unwanted pregnancy is not something "simple" . . .
It involves many considerations which women have to weigh. Their own mental health.
Their physical health. Their ability to care for and provide for their other children.
Their marriages - their relationships -- other responsibilities at the time.
Nature gives women most of the responsibility for children -- from conception to
gestation to breast feeding and carrying the child in her womb for 10 months.
Women also take on responsibilities for the home which aren't always shared equally by
male partners. Oftimes women are also helping older parents. Sometimes there is
already an ill child in the family who needs care.
Sometimes women are unmarried and don't choose to carry the burden of child care on their own.
But women -- each individually -- make those decisions for themselves.



:)

[JerseygirlCT]

48. Nicely said. Well worth a recommendation! nt

[defendandprotect]

66. And when you acknowledge a pregnant female's right to self-defense . . .

a right that everyone has pregnant or not!

Even if the attacker is a fetus!!!

[defendandprotect]

69. K&R . . . late

[musette_sf]

72. and if you dare to support forced birth on a progressive message board

be prepared to take the heat,

and to be ignored if you persist in supporting institutionalized abuse of women.

[hiphopnation]

79. yes

time to reframe this debate and take this bullshit talking point back from rethug douchenozzles

enthusiastic :kick: & r

[omega minimo]

80. Rec #30 too late

:yourock: :grouphug: The watery and casual use of that particular Right Wing hate meme is particularly noxious.

Enough time has passed, memories fade, some well meaning people have adopted it and object to being reminded WHAT IT REALLY MEANS and where it comes from. Some were rather not know or think about it.

Thanks ayeshahaqqiqa