jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (19 posts)

Don't Be Fooled Pro-Life Is The Real Pro-Choice

  1. Thinkaboutit77 profile image77
    Thinkaboutit77posted 8 years ago

    People who are pro-life are really pro-choice because it is the pro-lifers who wish to give the unborn child a CHOICE rather than have the choice made for them.

    The pro-choice movement is really a pro-abortion movement because abortion is a big business, there's a LOT of money involved in this side of the issue. Do you think abortion clinics and abortion doctors perform abortions for free?

    1. Earl S. Wynn profile image84
      Earl S. Wynnposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      You think you're being clever, but you're not.

      Pro-Life is anti-abortion and anti-women's rights. It's a hate stance, just like "protecting marriage" by trying to amend the constitution so gay people can be barred from the marriage club. Consider the fact that Pro-life's agenda is to eliminate the right of women to have any abortions anywhere. They "hate" abortion. Is there an opposite movement? A "mandatory abortion" movement? No. No more than there's a "gays only" marriage movement trying to "protect marriage" by amending the constitution so that opposite-sex marriages aren't legal. Nobody hates quite like those with a religious agenda trying to shove their crap down everyone else's throat and make the world conform to their limited idea of what is acceptable because it doesn't make them question anything.

      Being "pro-life" is being short sighted. It's ignoring the population problem we have, it's ignoring the low quality of life people have to live with when they're born with horrible birth defects, and it's destroying the freedom women have in this country to choose whether or not to birth a child from their body. What part of "taking away people's rights?" isn't clear to people?

      Oh, and that "giving the unborn child a choice" crap. Do you know anything about human biology? Embryos and bundles of cells can't make choices. They aren't cognizant. Do yourself a favor and take an Anthropology class or even actually make an effort to understand how things work before you spout off and make a fool of yourself.

      And the money argument is just plain stupid. If anything "makes more money" it's the pro-life movement. Do you think that the hospital is going to provide medical care to families who choose to give birth to children with birth defects for free?

      1. aka-dj profile image78
        aka-djposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        Your assertions amaze me! How do you know that embrios are just a bundle of cells. They may not be in aposition to make choices, BUT, they were conceived nonetheless. I would not have wanted to be aborted. (though I had no choice then) I am glad to be here. Maybe you are not so glad, and would have not cared to be aborted. (you tell me).
        Irrespective of wheter we like it or not, agree with it or not, all human life starts at the point of conception. That foetus may not be conscious ( not that we know for sure), but left alone, it will be born and become a living, breathing human, worthy of value.
        Whom has the right to deny that? You? Society? Governments?
        We are guided by our values. If you value life, you will nurture it. If you do not value it, you won't.

        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          How lucky the baby is to not be born but be part of this world.  smile oh I mean sad Really I mean, I mean the baby never suffered, and that is a miracle. 

          The mother sufferes, let her chose.

        2. Earl S. Wynn profile image84
          Earl S. Wynnposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          Like I said, spend some time learning about how things actually work, biologically speaking. Spouting off with remarks like "how do you know that embryos are just a bundle of cells" when you obviously know nothing but what your backward religion has taught you about human biology (like a pastor with a book written by goat herders knows more than all of modern science combined. Come on.) just makes you look like an idiot. Do you remember being a bundle of cells? No. And if you go off of your "but left alone" point, it's easy to condemn people who practice any kind of birth control, and BAM. We're back in the stone ages, only with the added "benefit" of an already booming population. I firmly stand by a woman's right to do with her body as she wishes. Once an embryo reaches the point where it is recognized as cognizant by science and the well educated men and women who actually know what they're talking about, then abortion should be avoided, but legislation along those lines is already in place.

  2. kerryg profile image86
    kerrygposted 8 years ago

    See, I would say the pro-choice movement is the real pro-life movement, because pro-life beliefs tend to go hand in hand with support for abstinence-only education and opposition to birth control access (for both teenagers and adults), which leads to higher numbers of abortions and higher STD rates in teenagers and adults because the people who do choose to have sex outside of marriage (which is comparable to the number of people who choose to have sex outside of marriage after comprehensive sex ed) don't know how to protect themselves.

    Additionally, the rate of abortion in pre-Roe vs. Wade America and in countries today where abortion is illegal is comparable to the rates in countries where it is. The difference? In countries where abortion is legal, it's also SAFE (fewer deaths and complications than childbirth, in fact), whereas in countries where it isn't, women use do-it-yourself methods and back alley practitioners who can leave them maimed, infertile, or even dead. Worldwide, one woman dies every three minutes from a botched abortion. That, my friend, is the opposite of pro-life.

    I'll believe "pro-lifers" are really pro-life when I see any evidence whatsoever that they support measures that genuinely reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, here and around the world. If you don't, you're not pro-life, you're pro-controlling women's sexuality.

    And pro-coat hangers.

  3. aka-dj profile image78
    aka-djposted 8 years ago

    Pregnancy. What an unfortunate consequence to sex!
    (Sarcasm mine).
    No-one ever got pregnant without it. (putting IVF aside)

    1. kerryg profile image86
      kerrygposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I would be more sympathetic to that argument if all sex were voluntary. Unfortunately, all sex is not voluntary, and many pro-life advocates also oppose emergency contraception, which is an important tool to prevent pregnancy (and therefore, in many cases, abortion) in rape victims.

      Moreover, although I agree abstinence is an admirable goal, it's simply not realistic on a population-wide basis, not nationally and certainly not internationally. Humans are weak, especially where sex is concerned. As I said above, if you really want to reduce the number of abortions, you need to work with that weakness, not deny it. Improve sex education and access to contraceptives and abortion rates go down. Restrict access to information and contraception and abortion rates go up. What's worse, so do infanticide rates and cases of murder by neglect. If you can't stomach sex ed and contraception, at least work on improving the support systems for women experiencing unwanted pregnancies, instead of slashing funding as Republicans are wont to do.

      1. aka-dj profile image78
        aka-djposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        What would be the proportion of pregnancies that are in that category? I mean forcible pregnancy, vs free sex resultiong in unwanted pregnancy?
        Pretty disproportionate I would guess.

        1. kerryg profile image86
          kerrygposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          One in three women is raped in her lifetime. Now obviously, most of these do NOT result in pregnancy, but as a man, there is no way you can even imagine the stress of waiting for that next period to come. Emergency contraception, which is opposed by many "pro-lifers" in the mistaken belief that they are abortificants, is one way to increase the chance that it will come. And I (unlike, for example, Sarah Palin) personally believe that abortion should ALWAYS be a legal option for victims of rape.

          However, I also believe that allowing abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the mother places an unfair burden of proof on women who are already suffering, and for that reason, I oppose placing any legal restrictions on abortion, even though the idea of using abortion as a form of birth control repels me. As I have stated repeatedly, I believe that the way to reduce abortion-as-birth-control is not by outlawing it (which doesn't reduce its incidence, but instead drives it underground, to unsafe do-it-yourself procedures and back alley practitioners), but by improving sex ed and access to contraception. I support so-called "abstinence plus" sex ed, which encourages abstinence, but provides accurate and comprehensive information about birth control, STDs, etc.

          Here's a very timely article for you: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008 … ntPage=all

  4. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    "all human life starts at the point of conception." The conception of the child began with the conception one, which began with the conception of one's parents, which began with the conception of one's, grandparents, ad infintum

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      I concieved of me having another baby in a year or so, what if I change my mind?

    2. aka-dj profile image78
      aka-djposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      NO! Ad infinitum implies no beginnig.
      "In the beginning, God... Genesis1;1. It all goes back to Him. and he says what goes!

  5. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    "I concieved of me having another baby in a year or so, what if I change my mind?" Immaculate conception.

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      lol,  maybe that is how it worked back then.  lol yikes

  6. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    " "In the beginning, God... Genesis1;1. It all goes back to Him. and he says what goes!"
    No it all goes back to "The Precepts of Ptah-Hotep, 2200 BCE" It all goes back to him.

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe we have finally reached the stage in humanity where we all go backwards.

      Let's go back...to the beginning. (The Universe, History Channel)

  7. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    "(The Universe, History Channel)" The Big Harangue.

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      lol, I get it! smile

 
working