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?
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?
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.
How lucky the baby is to not be born but be part of this world. oh I mean Really I mean, I mean the baby never suffered, and that is a miracle.
The mother sufferes, let her chose.
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.
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.
Pregnancy. What an unfortunate consequence to sex!
No-one ever got pregnant without it. (putting IVF aside)
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.
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.
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
"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
I concieved of me having another baby in a year or so, what if I change my mind?
NO! Ad infinitum implies no beginnig.
"In the beginning, God... Genesis1;1. It all goes back to Him. and he says what goes!
"I concieved of me having another baby in a year or so, what if I change my mind?" Immaculate conception.
" "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.
by Chris Mills 5 years ago
I am pro-life. I am so adamant about seeing the number of abortions decrease that I am in favor of providing contraception to minors without parental consent. I could actually work side by side with a pro-choice person on this point. I may not agree with this person on anything...
by Jackie Lynnley 24 months ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
by Mikel G Roberts 8 years ago
If using birth control is a sin... and since abstinence is a form of birth control, doesn't that make abstinence a sin?If abstinence is a sin... is being celibate an even greater sin?And the final point, if birth control in any form is a sin, then anytime we don't have sex at every opportunity are...
by Stump Parrish 7 years ago
Did anyone get the e-mail on this?According to the Faux News network America became an anti-choice country recently. //The abortion debate has returned with vigor to Congress after many years of dormancy, and the result may be different this time around. That's because while Washington wasn't...
by MissMelissaK 3 years ago
Do you think God cares if you have sex outside of marriage? Yes or no and why?The reason I ask is because it is clearly stated in the Bible that sex outside of marriage is wrong, but today it's twisted by those who claim God wants us to be fruitful and multiply so sex is not a sin or that...
by Paul Swendson 7 years ago
Is it possible for pro-life and pro-choice people to find any common ground? Too often, the argument becomes fixated on the morality and legality of abortion, which are both worthwhile topics. But in the end, I think that almost all Americans would like to reduce the number of abortions. So why...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|