The Problem With Pro-Life
Posted by Joe Rivett on 06.11.2009
The difference between pro-life and anti-abortion...
The murder of Dr. Tiller has brought abortion back into the news/debate cycle. This causes labels to fly around carelessly. I hate the term pro-life because it is misleading. What is the opposite of pro-life? Pro-death? I'd hate to think that I'm pro-death.
The other major problem with the term pro-life is that it can be applied to other issues. So if you are truly pro-life you should be:
- Against abortion in all cases unless it is clear that the mother will die (Who cares about rape ar incest if you believe it is murder.)
- Against contraception (If you are against abortion because it destroys a potential life, then condoms prevent a potential life.)
- For guaranteed health care for children AND adults (You can't be for free health care for a fetus and then against treating it when it is born or treating a pregnant woman.)
- Against wars that aren't self-defense (I'm referring to Iraq and Vietnam - If you are going to care about a fetus, you should care about 2 million dead Vietnamese and 50,000 dead Americans.)
- For vegetarianism and against killing animals (You can get your protein in other ways without killing an animal which is theoretically life. They have feelings too.)
This is a hefty criterion for a person to meet and I'm sure one would struggle to find a lot of people that believe in the majority of these issues. Unless you believe in the aforementioned issues, you should probably stop or never call yourself pro-life. Call yourself what you really are: Anti-Abortion
It is simple and straightforward. I know where you stand on abortion and you don't make yourself out to be some kind of peace and love hippie that cares about all people.
That is a pretty old argument. You should look up some of the work of the comedian Bill Hicks. He pretty much explained your point of view almost two decades ago. They pro-life hypocrites should join arms and block cemeteries!
Posted By: David (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 10:44 AM
The main problem I have with the pro-life crowd is the fact that they all envelope their lives with their religious beliefs. What righteousness is there in a decision the government makes for you?
Posted By: Guest#3527 (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Then by that rationelle, if you are pro-choice, you should:
-Be supportive of infanticide in native cultures such as the eskimos, because, hey that's their choice and their culture.
-Support private savings accounts for Social Security or even the option of participating in Social Security at all.
-Support the terrorists on 9/11 because that's what they chose to do with their bodies.
Cut the semantics kid.
Posted By: ScottyFlamingo (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Why even argue about this? Even if every person with a pro-life stance started using the term anti-abortion instead the two sides are no closer to being reconciled.
Also your point above leaves out any room for discernment. You are clearly for abortion but I'm willing to bet that you still draw a line on when. Are you okay with abortions happening at 8 and a half months? Because according to your own logic you should be. Just as you use discernment in your view, so do us "pro-lifer's". Personally I can understand having an abortion if you've been raped. I'm okay with eating meat because it's part of the cycle of life and it serves a need. But I'm not okay when it's used as a way to relieve ourselves of the resposibilities of our actions.
Posted By: Matt M. (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 11:14 AM
I can just as easily turn that argument around on the "Pro-Choice" crowd.
They're pro-choice when it comes to abortion. But they're often NOT pro-choice on plenty of other issues.
So why not just say you're pro-abortion? I know where you stand and you don't make yourself out to be some kind of lover of absolute individual freedom.
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 11:46 AM
"But they're often NOT pro-choice on plenty of other issues."
Issues like...?
Posted By: The only sensible one (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 12:29 PM
I am not in favor of outlawing abortion, changing current control legal authority and do believe terminating a pregnancy is without question terminal interference in the development of a human life, but good grief this crap is tedious. You really nailed the anti-abortion supporters with this one Joe.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines" Emerson.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 01:16 PM
Wow.... just wow. Pretty sure you just compared an animal to a human.
Just more typical liberal-fail.
Posted By: Rehab (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 01:16 PM
Is a list of criterions similar to a datums set?
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 01:20 PM
But Joe! A blastula has ore personality then an 18 year old soldier.
Posted By: Andytobo (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 01:33 PM
"Wow.... just wow. Pretty sure you just compared an animal to a human.
Just more typical liberal-fail.
Posted By: Rehab (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 01:16 PM"
this just in: humans are animals.
Posted By: Guest#7014 (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 01:54 PM
It's Rivett.
He's just like Zimmmer and all the other liberals...instead of giving reasons why they believe something should be a valid option- they attack the people who say it's not.
Rivett has never once written anything that was not an attack against conservatives or people who disagree with him.
He believes in making someone a villian rather than defending his position with any facts.
This is the hardcore liberal way- It's no surprise.
Here is a fact- for the first time ever more people are against abortion than are for it.
Matt M. Makes the point and this is to add on to his argument.
Hardcore liberals like Rivett, and Zimmer, and the media really think that the election of Obama has to do with their ultra hardcore beliefs...when it really has to do with an anti-Bush movement.
Just because Obama was elected does not mean that everyone in America is ready support late term abortions.
That's what Obama stands for- he is has voted for positions on abortion that most moderate liberals will shy away from...
Obama and his supporters think that just because he was elected they can start killing babies in the third trimester...and nobody will stop them.
Well, the facts cited above, just like with most of Obamas failed projects indicate that most Americans are against his views.
They might not be conservative- they might be liberals, but they are more moderate than Obama, or Rivett.
So the natural tendency for most moderate Americans is to refute or go against the leaders that are ultra-anything.
They did it against Bush (who really was not a conservative in anything other than religion and abortion, and grew government and spent like a liberal).
Hardcore liberalism fails. California is in massive debt, New York is taxing everything that moves, Michigan is completely fallen apart due to unions, and New Mexico has become a welfare state.
Nothing works under liberalism.
And Abortion is not as popular as you think Rivett. It's not a valid option that promotes any responsibility.
I can empathize with rape victims- but the number of pregnancies brought about by rape is miniscule compared to the number brought about by people simply being irresponsible.
We should not blame unborn children for that irresponsibility. We could be killing the person who cures cancer or AIDs...or stops hunger and famine.
There are better ways- and this is more then an argument about woman’s rights- its about the potential for life and responsibility.
Posted By: The Spook (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 01:56 PM
So why not just say you're pro-abortion? I know where you stand and you don't make yourself out to be some kind of lover of absolute individual freedom.
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Because many of us find abortion in itself to be an unpleasant, undesirable act. We just happen to think letting the government control women's bodies is worse. I certainly wouldn't want my medical decisions left to a majority vote.
Of course since most of us can agree that abortion is undesirable, we should easily agree that preventing unwanted pregnancies is good policy. But then the real issue surfaces. It's really about religious dogma and the sexism ingrained within. Women are supposed to be pure until marriage, and only have sex for procreation. If they stray from that rule, a bastard child is their punishment. All of that we could roll our eyes and ignore until the push comes to make it the law.
The push for prayer in public schools failed, so it was rebranded as "intelligent design". Moving to outlaw abortion on religious grounds would likewise fail, so it's branded "pro-life".
If you can't state openly and honestly what your agenda is, you shouldn't be part of the discussion. You should also be able to make a case about an issue without demonizing dissenters. So if what I've written about the anti-abortion side is inaccurate, let me know. I'm sure there are atheists who oppose abortion, they just don't seem to be as fanatical about it.
All I ask is that if you flame me, do it while reconciling being opposed to abortion AND contraceptives without invoking the bible. I'm very serious. If someone can do so I would be intrigued.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 02:00 PM
For The Only Sensible One:
Most lefties don't believe in public school choice. You send your kids to the public school closest to your home. Period. No choice. No competition (unless, like the Obamas and many of our lefty congressfolks, you can afford private school.)
Most lefties don't believe in retirement choice either. 6.2% of my paycheck (and another 6.2% seized from my boss) is taken without my consent and put into the Social Security shithole ponzi scheme. I would gladly OPT OUT of this system forever. In fact, they can keep every dime I've given up to now as my gift. But I want out, because it's a failed program. But I can't opt out. It's not my choice.
Many lefties don't believe in the choice to own a gun. They'd LOVE to toss out that pesky second amendment.
Lefties = anti-choice on so many things. But don't you dare question a woman's right to terminate a 3rd trimester fetus! THAT'S HER CHOICE DAMMIT!
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 03:06 PM
Eric: Calling social security a ponzi scheme is one of the best lines I've heard in a long time. It's SO true.
For what it's worth I'm a leftie who supports guns rights, short of assault rifles at least. On school choice my only concern is the sort of voluntary segregation I've seen all my life in Chicago. In my grade school black kids were bused in and no one minded. But at lunch about 80% of the tables were one race only. Our neighborhoods are the same way.
Spook: So, what if a woman is on the pill, never once misses it, and gets pregnant anyway. Or a condom breaks, etc. If you say she has to have the baby anyway, the responsibility argument is out the window. As for the potential argument, when a kid's parents were too dumb to use a rubber despite not wanting to conceive, do you really think they will raise society's next genius? Poor people could have ten kids under the same argument, and conservatives would scream.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 04:15 PM
This was a total waste of time and it's pretty clear that you put all of 10 minutes of thought into this post. Next time, do something clever and try to make it 140 characters or less.... or you could actually make a post that shows some effort. I can't believe that 411mania allows this kind of junk on their site. I'm not upset with your opinion, just your lack of effort.
Posted By: Chris (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 05:30 PM
Spooky,
I never stated it was wrong to be anti-abortion, I simply stated if you are going to call yourself pro-life, you should care about the fetus once it is born, when it gets sick, and taking care of the woman pre-natally even if they can't afford it.
I don't have a problem with people that are against abortion, I have a problem with people that care more about an embryo than an actual human being.
Posted By: joe r (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 05:36 PM
Anyone can see from a mile away what you're trying to pull. You're not stupid, you know that the word "abortion" has a very negative connotation. Hell even those that support it don't like the word itself.
Therefore, it should come as no surprise that you want your opponents to utilize the word abortion in their ideological label, as the word has an inherent negative connotation. This is why all the pro-abortion people cling so tenaciously to the "pro-choice" label. Let's face it, you support the idea, concept, and continued legality of abortion. Even if you don't want to admit, that makes you pro-abortion. All of this "choice" shit is just a cop-out, you're either for the damn thing or against it.
Furthermore, the word "life" has an inherent positive connotation, therefore you want your opponents to not have it in their label. Again, you're not stupid, you know what you're trying to pull.
People may think I'm simply arguing semantics, but words are a powerful influence on people. Nice try at the sleight of hand.
Posted By: Guest#1943 (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 08:15 PM
Hi Joe,
I'm one of the few on the left that actually would classify myself as pro-life. I just want nothing to do with those who call themselves pro-life for exactly the hypocrisy you describe. I do believe you get two of your points off base here:
1) Being pro-life does not mean being against contraceptives.
If life is defined as the moment when the egg is fertilized then the life doesn't exist. If there is no life, then it is fundamentally a different argument. "preventing life" as you describe it is fundamentally different to taking life, in the same way that I do not believe that every time I have sexual intercourse it should result in a human being. The morning after pill, however, would be an entirely different argument because you're talking the point that, by this argument, life begins.
2) Pro-life has nothing to do with vegetarianism. There is a fundamental argument about the difference between an animals life and a human life, and whether pro-life means you should also be a vegetarian depends on the conclusions you draw from this argument. If you conclude that a human life is not the same as an animals life, then this argument does not stand.
I would also argue that to be pro-life would mean you must philosophically be against the death penalty. I agree with it meaning against wars of choice. I agree that it should only be in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, but to do this means a much greater level of support in the social structure of society. Forcing a mother to give birth to a child when there is no system in place to protect that child once it gets here is infanticide. Healthcare? Of course. It should be fundamental to anyone who calls themselves pro-life.
Spook: You once again missed the point of the argument Joe is making. The anti-abortion movement is just that. They call themselves pro-life to earn political points with the name, but they do not fundamentally believe in the sacredness of human life, hence their willingness to take human life like the case of Dr Tiller. They call children laboured with babies through rape "baby killers", but do nothing to see that that same child has an opportunity to become fully functioning humans.
They have lost their fundamental empathy for other human life, and by becoming so single minded and single issued, they have lost the morality of the title they have taken.
Posted By: raychurch (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 08:36 PM
Nice argument Shocky,
Real neat how you blended in someone who is RESPONSIBLE to wear condoms or engage in protected sex with the STUPIDY of people who don't having unwanted kids.
You whole argument does not make any sense from that example(s).
My point is very simple- If you choose to have sex you are choosing to take a risk...if you don't want to take that risk then don't engage in sex.
But don't kill the baby if you or yours pops hot.
I understand that this whole argument has some religion mixed in- and it does. But it also has responsiblity in there too.
People need to be held accountable for their actions.
If someone is raped I do have empathy for that person- its not their fault, and I could understand the arguement that its not their problem.
What I don't understand is the other tend of thousands having abortions because it was an "accident".
These people have to take responsiblity for their actions...and in my opinion killing a baby is not an act of responsibility it is an act of cowards.
Rivett- please, don't even try to reason with me. You are nothing more than a talking head Obama puppet.
Until you or Zimmer begin to at least make an attempt to see through the bullshit that you write you will never get an ounce of respect from me.
And I don't expect an ounce from you...
Obama is a joke. He is a liar, he always has been- and you all are falling for everything that he says.
How can Obama promise healthcare reform without raising taxes? Where is all the stimulus money- what happened to a transparent government?
Obama has outspent Bush ten times over in four months...and most of you all voted for him to stop this nonsense.
Obama claims that he wants to move beyond race- but he nominates a racist to the supreme court.
Obama told us all he would not put in lobbyist...but he has including Geitner who is a tax cheat and in charge of all the missing money.
Obama said he would pull troops out of Iraq- he has not, and there are no plans...I am in the military, there an no plans to do this.
Obama said he would close GITMO- he signed a bill to do so without a plan...and now he is struggling to achieve this promise.
Obama does not support gay rights, either marrige or military...
He is raising taxes with Cap and Trade and a national sales tax...
Why do you support this man?!
Answer those questions and then we might be on some common ground- I'm not looking for agreement...I am looking for understanding of what this guy stands for.
because he, so far, has stood for nothing and lies about everything.
Someone, anyone please tell me what this man has done to warrent any hope of success?
Posted By: The Spook (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 09:02 PM
I would classify myself as Pro Life. I left the catholic church, so religion has absolutely no bearing on my opinion. You don't need to be a bible scholar to value life. Most of my family would classify themselves as liberal, and are religous, and pro life. So I get frustrated when I see this issue become about religion or politics. To me abortion is legalized murder. In the eyes of the law, there is nothing wrong with it. However, while people like Obama and other democrats constantly harp about "common sense" gun laws, they always are totally against "common sense" abortion laws as well.
As for this article, I agree with Chris, terrible effort. Joe, I like you because you give me a good idea of where the left is coming from most of the time. But seriously, did you just not have ANYTHING else to write about?
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 10:34 PM
"They call themselves pro-life to earn political points with the name, but they do not fundamentally believe in the sacredness of human life, hence their willingness to take human life like the case of Dr Tiller. They call children laboured with babies through rape "baby killers", but do nothing to see that that same child has an opportunity to become fully functioning humans."
Wow. I was nodding my head reading your comment till I got to this paragraph. Maybe you worded it poorly, but basically you just implied that all "pro-lifers" are bloodthirsty murderers in waiting. The murder of George Tiller by a deranged asshole does not justify slandering the entire pro-life community the way you just did. If that doesn't sink in, just think about times you've seen it implied that all muslims are terrorists because of the acts of a small percentage of idiots.
Second, how do you know that pro-life advocates do nothing to help unwanted children in this world? Do you have a list your consulting with everyone's personal, private, and professional contributions to the welfare of children born of rape?
Honestly, it's this kind of lame half thinking that lead to Joe's column being written in the first place.
Posted By: Guest#2064 (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 11:00 PM
"How can Obama promise healthcare reform without raising taxes? Where is all the stimulus money- what happened to a transparent government?
Obama has outspent Bush ten times over in four months...and most of you all voted for him to stop this nonsense.
Obama claims that he wants to move beyond race- but he nominates a racist to the supreme court.
Obama told us all he would not put in lobbyist...but he has including Geitner who is a tax cheat and in charge of all the missing money.
Obama said he would pull troops out of Iraq- he has not, and there are no plans...I am in the military, there an no plans to do this.
Obama said he would close GITMO- he signed a bill to do so without a plan...and now he is struggling to achieve this promise.
Obama does not support gay rights, either marrige or military...
He is raising taxes with Cap and Trade and a national sales tax...
Why do you support this man?!"
Because he's so cool and smart man!
(actually it's because they are all sycophantic monarchists who long to be ruled by a charismatic demagogue.)
Posted By: Guest#8923 (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 11:04 PM
I often find myself wondering why we don't have more "conservative" writers. The site is asking for them, and, if one thinks the writing here is one-sided, then it would be great to hear that other side.
I don't think anyone would want to be considered "pro-abortion". Who actually thinks abortions are good?
Personally, I am "pro-choice" because our society does NOT agree with when life begins, and I do not feel comfortable taking away that call from the mother. It isn't about what /I/ feel... which is the real point.
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on June 11, 2009 at 11:17 PM
To Guest#2064:
Fair point, and maybe I'm being overly hasty in the way I worded it (remember that I did describe myself as pro-life). I did paint the entire pro-life movement when I was only looking at a certain extremist part of that movement.
My point was towards what you would call the "single issue" anti-abortion advocates. Talking to many of the Anti-Abortion groups around me, their focus on abortion was often about identity politics and not about a true pro life position. They cared little for the Iraq war, little for social welfare programs and many were public supporters of the National movement (I'm a kiwi, so think of this as the equivalent to the Republican party), who were vehemently opposed to health and welfare, but more than happy to shout about abortion.
With regards to the Tiller murder, that is a fairly clear case of the hypocrisy we're talking about.
Beyond that, I do think protesting people who are making a decision I disagree with is legitimate, but I also think that there is an appropriate time and a place for protest, and the way slogans like "baby killer" get thrown around in the protest of abortion clinics does show a lack of critical empathy. I'm running here on the assumption that people do not make the abortion choice lightly, even if I disagree with that choice.
I also think it's not the best way to solve the problem we're trying to solve. Instead of banning abortion outright, I would rather create a world where we don't need to because abortions won't be sort out, and that requires a different level of engagement. By singling out abortion without including the bigger picture of issues, it's kind of like protesting immigration without dealing with the tremendous gaps between the rich and the poor countries in the world.
Posted By: raychurch (Guest) on June 12, 2009 at 01:37 AM
Spook: I suspected you are of the mindset that having sex at all means an assumed risk of prenancy as a consequence. I just didn't want to assume so.
Every time I drive my car there's a chance of an accident. I fasten my seatbelt and obey all traffic laws to minimize the chance of a tragic outcome. If I get in an accident anyway, am I at fault for driving at all? On a logical level I don't understand blaming someone for engaging in a common activity while taking all precautions.
The only anti-abortion argument I really give any merit to is that you're taking a life. The woman doesn't want to be an incubator for another human being. The anti-abortion crowd more or less says that her comfort and privacy is outweighed by the fetus' right to live.
But why isn't this extended to all adults? Shouldn't we have forced organ donation? Even things as simple as signing a donor card or giving blood are optional. If a human life outweighs the comfort and health risks of another, shouldn't the state force these things?
No one would support that because we don't want the government imposing its will on our bodies. The only way abortion opponents can draw a distinction is to blame the woman for getting pregnant. And since that belief primarily stems from a religious opinion that sex for fun is "sinful" and pregnancy is a punishment, making it law would be tantamount to state enforced religion.
I had asked anyone who opposes abortion AND birth control to reconcile those things without using the bible, and there were no takers. That means this entire argument should shift to why we aren't doing more to promote safe sex education and making birth control options as readily available as possible. Then abortion becomes a moot point in most cases. Bristol Palin is the poster child for what happens when moral crusaders dictate sex education policy.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on June 12, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Joe,
Obama voted against the born-alive protection act when he was a state senator in Illinois. This act was thankfully passed anyway, but the act was meant to prevent babies born alive after botched abortion attempts from being left to die with no medical care. Obama voted AGAINST protecting these babies. Not fetuses, babies. So your argument that this cold,compassionless man who is now our President somehow believes in health care for all while pro-lifers do not, is completely fallacious.
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on June 12, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Shockmaster,
Abstinence education is taught a heck of a lot less than birth control methods in schools. I don't really see the unwanted preganancy rates improving from years and years of sex education, do you? Maybe if we tried uniform abstinence education, it WOULD work better. Nothing is fool proof, as your reference to Bristol Palin attests, but how can you say it woudn't be better if what is being taught is a miserable failure?
Abstinence education certainly does not have to be a religious thing either. Societal benefits on a secular level can be the justification for teaching abstinence only lessons.
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on June 12, 2009 at 11:17 AM
First off Shocky,
I agree with what you said- remember if you will, not that I expect you too, but my masters degree is in Biological Anthropology.
I'm all for the use of birth control- and having sex is a risk.
At the basic science level, sex is about reproduction, nothing more. Sex feels so good that it makes us want to have it all the time. This is a trait that is designed to grow the species- and it works well.
The moral side of me expects that people in this country to have a certain level of responsibility. We live in a country that is supposed to be free and decided by a voting public...
That means we have to demand responsible people to live here- or those freedoms will go away.
I look at the ability to have sex with anyone you want as a right of a US citizen, because there are plenty of countries where that does not happen.
People get stoned in the middle-east for having sex with someone who does not belong in the same class. (This is one example). The point is sex is a right protected in our country.
I think that abortion is act of cowards who are afraid to deal with the life they created. They can have all the sex they want but don't want to deal with the responsibites that it brings.
I think that sex education should be taught better- and parents need to show kids exacty what those risks are.
And its not just unwanted pregnancies- we are talking about the spread of dangerous dieseses too.
Africa is dying of AIDs, the whole fucking continent is infected- because they never assumed the risks of having sex.
Liberals always throw in the Bible as an evil tool used to corrupt minds. I'm not even suggesting that it is used to teach anything on this subject.
I'm stating that abortion is a lack of respect to life, and shows no willing responsibility- if we are a truly a free people we should not encourage our people to shy away from the hard realities for the easy solution.
This has nothing to do with religion- but as a Christian, who was trained to be a soldier, and educated to love science, I understand why liberals use that arguement.
You are trying to divide the playing field between those who believe in the bible against all those who believe in something else.
Do you really think that I am that dumb to debate religion with someone who does not believe?
I could, but it does not matter. So I am using science and social reason.
The Science is easy- sex feels good so we do it. We do it to reproduce- nothing more.
The Social responsibility should be easy to identify: We live in a free country, and we have responsbilites- every time we as a nation ignore those we lose our rights.
You expect Obama to make everything easy for us- and each time you do he takes our rights.
Posted By: The Spook (Guest) on June 12, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Think about it...
Obama is already starting to punish everyone with taxes on everything to pay for things we don't need.
He is paying for an entire nation to go on welfare with the entire nations collected money...it makes not sense.
When you accept that Obama will support abortion- you have to believe it will be on his terms.
Everything else is- the man does not understand his job is to uphold the freedoms of the this ocuntry, not interpert them for all its citizens.
Obama will support abortion and protect that "right" but at a cost that will mean less freedom for all of us. This might not result in new rules or laws on this but it continues to erode the the fact that this is a nation of free people.
We should not have to depend on the government to protect us- the government should depend on us to protect it.
This is the biggest argument left out of abortion- no reasonalble person would ever deny care to a child.
Why would a reasonable person want to kill one?
It's amazing that liberals, who shun war and support civil rights, would even consider the destruction of a life.
I sometimes think that the only reason why liberals support abortion is to stick it to Christians.
Because liberals typically fall on the side of life- anti-war, anti-execution, anti-torture, pro-welfare, etc.
And those ARE noble acts. But why this hard stance to kill a baby?
For woman's rights? Nobody is against woman's rights but what about the right of a child? Does that not matter at least EQUAL to those of the woman?
And if it does not, then what of all the liberal arguments to any civil rights question?
The left gets to choose who has more rights than the other. This is completely against the idea of equal rights- it is determining who gets to live without responsibility for actions, and who gets to die.
Throw out religion and look at this beyond that.
Obama voted for a bill that would stop all treatment of a baby born after a failed abortion.
This is the character of our President.
He will send money to our enemies. He will shake hands and smile with them.
He will distance us from our allies.
He will take our money as if it were his and spend it all without telling us where it is.
He will tax us to pay for welfare- and he will put us under the control of the government in all facets of life.
And he will kill babies that are alive after being born...to "protect" the liberals rights.
Socrates says beware the man who will offer to protect your rights- because he is a tyrant.
Abortion is part of a bigger game of Obama's plan to bring more government control upon us all. He does not care about womans rights or life.
Posted By: The Spook (Guest) on June 12, 2009 at 12:41 PM
Da Man: Teen pregnancy rates overall have been declining for decades. That's not to say the problem is less serious today. But there are no stats for successfully prevented pregnancies. There's no basis for calling sex education a miserable failure. I won't get into dueling with stats because that never goes anywhere.
Abstinence is a great idea and I wish society embraced it. But too often it is used as an excuse to keep fertile young people uninformed and leads to far more "accidents" than it prevents. The sad truth is teen sex is far more frequent than it has ever been. Yet pregnancy rates have not spiked. Sex education works, but the scope of the problem has worsened. Adult behavior and pop culture tell teens our bodies are amusement parks and it's fine to give anyone a free ride. Then we turn to them and teach abstinence. Show me any teen in history who doesn't insist they're ready to be an adult.
Knowledge is power. Arming young people with as much information as possible is never a bad thing. As long as the average adult acts like a teenager, abstinence speeches are little more than "do as I say, not as I do", and teens see right through it.
Teens who practice safe sex become adults who practice safe sex, which can only help limit abortions and STD's.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on June 12, 2009 at 12:57 PM
"Spook: I suspected you are of the mindset that having sex at all means an assumed risk of prenancy as a consequence. I just didn't want to assume so.
Every time I drive my car there's a chance of an accident. I fasten my seatbelt and obey all traffic laws to minimize the chance of a tragic outcome. If I get in an accident anyway, am I at fault for driving at all?"
Wow... just wow.
Is it your fault that you got in a car accident? Not necessarily.
Is it your fault that you made a baby? Yes, it is YOUR FAULT!
Both scenarios involve YOU making a decision, knowing the potential risks, and living with the consequences of YOUR decision.
And yes, having sex AT ALL means an assumed risk of pregnancy. If you caught Herpes, which is also an assumed risk of having sex, would you not feel at least partially responsible for it?
Posted By: Seriously? (Guest) on June 12, 2009 at 02:19 PM
True enough Shockmaster. Either one of us could argue that our education method prevents more unwanted pregnancies, but then that would be like Obama claiming his stimulus has "saved" x number of jobs when there is no way to prove it.
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on June 12, 2009 at 02:43 PM
I think you have to think of everything I am pro-life when it comes to a baby in the womb but I also believe in the death penalty..Think of it like this its not the baby's fault that they were born they did nothing wrong(and if it is a human life at the moment of conception then every abortion id murder so does that mean all of you that believe in abortion also think we should have a choice of murdering someone that has already began to live a life on earth that has done nothing wrong) ....newayz I believe in the death penalty becasue all of these ppl that creat heinous acts like terrorism,murder in general...as long as you have 100% evidence they did commit the crime...and ppl for the prolife movement came out and called it ho bthey saw it as a heinous act
Posted By: walter kronkite (Guest) on June 12, 2009 at 03:02 PM
So why not just say you're pro-abortion? I know where you stand and you don't make yourself out to be some kind of lover of absolute individual freedom.
-eric
The problem is that people who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion. I'm Catholic, abortions are against my religion, I personally think abortions are awful. But by siding with "pro-choice", I side with the woman who is going through that actual horrible decision of either keeping the child or aborting it. I support anything that woman does with her body. Thats what pro-choice means. You support the woman's right to choose.
And scotty flamingo. I have to say, give up on posting things. That was the worst rebuttal to any article ive ever seen. "well if youre pro-choice youre for the terrorists attacking on 911 because it was their choice". Can you let me know what state and school you went to growing up? I just need to cross off insane hick towns to avoid where they teach their children up until age 7 and just stop right there.
Posted By: mike (Guest) on June 12, 2009 at 05:21 PM
if youre pro life does that mean you also endorse the Milton Bradley game LIFE, and Life Cereal? what about that stupid movie with Martin Lawrence and Eddie Murphy called Life?
Posted By: Bryan Jones (Guest) on June 12, 2009 at 07:23 PM
Why is it that a number of conservative commenters on this site bring up President Obama in EVERY discussion? Joe never once mentioned the President... yet here he pops up again. Many on this site say that the "liberals" are in love with Obama, but they don't appear to be the ones obsessed with him.
I will repeat my point, as I think it got lost in the shuffle:
"Personally, I am "pro-choice" because our society does NOT agree with when life begins, and I do not feel comfortable taking away that call from the mother. It isn't about what /I/ feel... which is the real point."
Admittedly, that should have read "does not agree on"... but I think the point still remains. :)
Posted By: J. Alexander Mitchell (Guest) on June 12, 2009 at 07:32 PM
So, then, Pro-choice should be Pro-Abortion?
Posted By: Brad K. (Guest) on June 19, 2009 at 05:59 PM
I don't like the terms pro-choice and pro-life, but we seem to be stuck with them. Nobody wants to sound negative so there is no "anti". Still, pro-life sounds awfully pretentious. Anti-abortion would be far more accurate in most cases, just as others have commented. Pro-Choice is a clunky term but I have never even heard of someone who is "pro-abortion". It sounds like more abortions is desirable. Personally I think some abortions limits wouldn't be unreasonable but how should they be carried out in practice? Should the doctor have to bring the issue up to some sort of committee? I really dislike the whole idea of abortion but I can't say that it is wrong under all circumstances.
Posted By: ragnarok_13 (Guest) on July 03, 2009 at 11:02 PM
Let's get down to the core issue of this debate: The Federal Government has no business making a ruling on abortionnor does it have any business taking my money to fund abortions. If Obama has his way, under his plan, my money will be going to fund abortions whether I want it to or not. My money is already going to fund abortions overseas and I have no say in the matter. Abortion is, and always has been, a states rights issue, just like gay marriage. There is nothing in the constitution that says abortion should be under federal purview. Just because a "big government" court back in the day ruled for it to be the law of the land doesn't mean it's right.
Posted By: Guest#0232 (Guest) on July 27, 2009 at 01:09 AM
STAY CURRENT