Deconstructing the Diabolical Anti-Choice Movement

In many ways, the anti-abortion movement is one of the most hypocritical and downright diabolical elements of the Republican party platform. It’s been over 40 years since the Supreme Court decided that a woman has the right to choose a safe abortion for her pregnancy, but the Tea Party surge in 2010 and Republican gains at the state level in 2012 have put that in jeopardy. Abortion bans in some form have been passed in 10 states since 2010, and are moving forward in other states at this very moment. Not only that, but abortion clinics have been facing unprecedented regulations in states across the country, designed with the sole purpose of shutting them down–effectively making it harder for any woman seeking a safe abortion to receive one.  One case in particular, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization in Mississippi, is facing the possibility of getting shut down after a license revocation hearing scheduled for April 18th. As the last abortion provider in the entire state, being forced to close would make it impossible for any woman to receive a safe abortion in Mississippi. But what exactly is the anti-abortion movement attempting to accomplish? Once we take a further look at the numbers and real life consequences, we see just how dangerous this “movement” is.

Let’s say we did issue an outright ban on abortion–how many women would end up dead or severely injured from seeking an unsafe alternative? How many children would end up in abusive homes, or in an already overburdened foster care system? Are the anti-abortion activists going to guarantee help for the mother if they give birth and keep the child? Early childhood assistance, WIC, food stamps and even free lunch programs at schools have been ridiculed and railed against by many of the same people (and elected officials) who are anti-abortion. But what about the adoption option?  What if the mother gives the child up–are they going to guarantee that all of these children will be adopted at birth? Absolutely not. Take away a woman’s right to choose and we’ll have a whole new society of unwanted children being raised in foster care and orphanages, many for their entire childhood.

The statistics back it up. Currently, there are about 1.2 million abortions per year in the United States, according to data and estimates analyzed by the Guttmacher Institute. Let’s think about that number as we take a look at this data collected on FosteringConnections.org. The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System tells us there are between 50,000 – 60,000 children adopted from foster care per year in the United States, with another 115,000 or so ready to be adopted but left behind. Of these, over half will not be adopted this year–or next year. For some, the dream of a loving home will never be realized.

So let’s assume for the sake of argument that half of the would-be abortion total were to instead end up in the foster care and orphanage system every year. Somebody please tell me–where is an already overburdened system going to find the resources, necessities and billions of dollars to care for an extra 600,000 newborns every year? And what about the rest of those children who aren’t given up to the system but are instead kept by the birth mother or family? There is no way to know how many of these children would grow up in loving as opposed to abusive homes, which is perhaps the most important and saddest aspect of the entire hypothetical situation.

What we can estimate are ballpark dollar figures on what this would cost the nation, since many of the same anti-abortion fanatics are also staunch fiscal conservatives who claim we can’t keep adding to our debt. If we take a conservative approach and assume only 300,000 of these children end up receiving SNAP and WIC benefits, the total cost per year would be approximately $630 million. This doesn’t take into account the mother, who would also most likely collect SNAP and WIC for herself. It also doesn’t take into account health care costs paid for by the government, as well as any cash benefits the mother may qualify for. When you factor in and estimate everything, the cost is easily well into the billions per year.

Now, I personally am not one to put a price on life–it is my feeling that after a child is born into this world, they should receive basic, quality health care and access to nutritious food regardless of whether or not the parents can afford to pay for it. However, I wanted to put the dollar totals in print for the specific benefit of these “staunch fiscal conservatives” who love to complain about government assistance but also want to ban abortion. I’ve got news for you–you can’t have it both ways. Is every “life” precious enough to protect and provide for? If so, why are you pushing to limit and sometimes deny basic health care and food support to the millions of children already alive in our country today?

What it boils down to is a movement which likes to define itself as “pro life” but is actually about as anti-life as one could possibly be. Part of me could understand their strong feelings if they were consistent. If these people were discussing real solutions instead of stomping their feet in contradiction, it would be much easier to take them seriously. Instead, many of them reject even the simplest way to prevent an abortion–easy access to contraceptives. When they can’t even rally together and agree on that as a start, there’s really no hope that they’ll ever push for truly “pro life” solutions. Knowing that these types of people have already gained power in states across our nation should be a wake-up call to Progressives and sensible moderates alike. It’s time to reclaim the meaning of “pro life”–no longer should it mean pushing for the uninterrupted development of a fetus. To be truly PRO LIFE should mean caring and providing for a CHILD after birth, assuring that they have access to health care, food, a home and most importantly a loving family. If that message resonates with at least one “anti-abortion” advocate, I will have hope that more will understand.

Thomas Barr

Thomas Barr

Thomas Barr is a writer, editor and activist who's passionate about progressive ideals, with extra attention given to the fight for universal health care, medical marijuana, and saving our nation from decades of devastating trickle-down policies. Thomas is also a dedicated advocate for Type 1 diabetes research and education.
Be sure to check out his archives on Forward Progressives for more of his viewpoints.
Thomas Barr

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Rick Murphy

    Pro-Life is simply another method of enforcing a permanent underclass. Growing up in the Deep South we managed to successfully accomplish that task with blacks for the better part of 300 years by depriving them and their children of an education. Middle and upper-middle class white women will always have access to abortions, illegal or not — just as they always have. Denying a poor woman the right to choose virtually insures her unwanted and often unloved child will grow up in poverty. Ask yourself …. WHY is virtually EVERY Christian anti-abortion advocate group, also opposed to Food Stamps, Head Start, WIC, Welfare and any other Federal Program designed to provide financial assistance and educational opportunities to young mothers with children?

    • Rick Murphy

      Perhaps not surprisingly, the Pro-Life Movement has little to do with life and everything to do with getting Conservative Republicans elected to state, local and national office. It is an outgrowth of Nixon’s highly successful “Southern Strategy” to win back the Democratic “Solid South” in the Demo fold since Reconstruction. Nixon’s simple plan was to capitalize on the anger of Democratic voters in the South over their Party’s championing of Civil Rights, Integration and Voting Rights for blacks.

      Although Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” was effective, it had become apparent by Reagan’s run that not every Southern voter was a bigot and there needed to be additional blocks of votes to counter the hundreds of thousands of people of color disenfranchised for the past 100 years. Reagan’s solution was a “Pact with the Devil”, actively court the rapidly growing “Fundamentalist Christian Movement” led by Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority”, Pat Robertson’s “700 Club and PTL Network” and scores of national televangilists. To appeal to the fundamentalist’s strict interpretation of the Christian Gospel, The National Republican Party chose to wrap themselves in the mantle of “Family Values” and brand themselves as the “New Saviors” of America and opponents of everything the godless Democrats were doing to try to undermine American society. Republicans sought out every hot-button issue in the nation – Abortion, Gays in the Military, Gay Marriage, Prayer in Schools, Illegal Immigration – and sought (successfully) to turn those issues into campaign contributions and VOTES.

      Sadly, the harvest of 50 years of “Hate Mongering” is the sorry situation we find ourselves in today. A bitterly divided and polarized nation and society, a broken Washington and Congress completely unwilling and unable to address the REAL and serious problems with which we find ourselves, having ignored them for so long, and wasting so much of our nation’s precious time, money and energy fighting imaginary battles over one segment of society’s God-given mission to try and tell someone else how to live their individual and personal lives.

      • Laura

        I just have to say your last paragraph is so wonderful! It sums it up! Very astute!

      • Sasha

        I agree with Laura. Bravo!

      • Andrew C Livingston

        Rick, if I may call you Rick, collect your notes, write that book, fully referenced, and I’ll buy the first damn copy. And I hope you’ll sign it for me.

    • Andrew C Livingston

      Yup. And their overtly expressed fear belies their sense of guilt, they know exactly what they’ve done since the birth of our nation.

    • MorganLvr

      And WHY are they against contraceptives? The advent of safe, effective contraceptives cut the abortion rate to even lower numbers than when it was illegal. That’s not counting the illegal abortions that were never reported.

  • Peter

    Really? So because there are problems with systems then it is ok to kill the child that may enter such systems. So for instance, if a father and mother both lose their jobs just after a child is born and then must enter these terribly over burdened systems. Of course these parts could simply abort their child’s life so they wouldn’t have to live such a terrible life… I know this sounds absurd but it is exactly the same argument made above, just plain stupid. Killing someone is not excused because of welfare, WIC or abortion procedure deficiencies. FIX the deficiencies and stop murdering a large portion of a generation.

    • Charlie

      I think that’s a bit of an oversimplification. The point of the article seemed to be that large parts of the anti-choice movement *also* don’t want to do anything to improve social systems, and therein lies the hypocrisy. They don’t actually care about people, they just needed something to claim the moral high ground over.

    • Amalthea

      Peter, sweetie, if you’re so worried over all those fetuses and abortions, start holding funerals for women’s tampons and pads, because 60-80% of fertilized eggs, i.e., embryos, never imbed in a uterine wall. Most embryos are flushed out during menses; not just unfertilized eggs are expelled in menstrual flow. I thought I would mention that because rightwing nutjobs don’t seem to understand that fact. Gynecologists say that half of those embyros could have grown into viable “babies” if they had imbedded. Half of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, i.e., miscarriage. So, millions and millions of “unborn babies” end up on women’s hygiene products…so start holding those funerals, or I just won’t take your concern over the “unborn” serious. “Abortion” is a natural process in a women’s reproductive system, but how dare we women take control of our own damn bodies and our own lives. (sarcastic here, honey, up yours with a transvaginal wand). To quote another pro-choice person: “If all of those embryos and fetuses are “babies”, then “God” is responsible for killing billions and billions of them. It is ridiculous to believe that every conception is a special life created by God when so many of them fail to result in a full term pregnancy.”

      • Rick Murphy

        Thank you Amalthea. Another extremely intelligent post from a woman’s perspective, as all your other posts have been. Thank you for your courage and your insight. As ever, it is your body and your decision. NO ONE no matter how inspired or self-righteous has the right to weigh in on that most difficult of decisions. You are extremely articulate and an inspiration.

    • MorganLvr

      Are you incapable of understanding that a zygote is not a baby? It’s not even a fetus and the odds are it never will be. If you check the Bible, the only mention is breathing the “breath of life.” In other words, being BORN.

  • kayway

    One thing you fail to mention to is the increase of babies being ‘disposed of’. Back in the old days, women took their unwanted babies ‘out back’, buried them or drown them in a well. I have heard many stories from those days, and see it still happening today as young scared mothers throw their babies away, leave them to die in some field somewhere or on the side of the road. It’s horrible but it will happen more and more. Many of these young women who seek abortions are scared to death to bear their child, for reasons we may never know, since many hide in silence. I would hope any state that tries to ban abortion would pass a law allowing people to drop their babies off at the hospital anonymously, but I doubt that, since they seem quite intent on making women criminals anyway they can. I can’t imagine living in that kind of society. And the foster care system is a nightmare!! I wouldn’t wish that on any child.

    • Suzanne Dubinin

      Such an excellent point!

  • Pogonip

    This issue is not about the life of a fetus, it is about punishing the woman who gets “caught.” By forcing her to carry to term and to have a “bastard” child, she can be identified and shunned. The child bears the “sins of the father” and is also shunned. Thus neatly creating an underclass. Now the woman should be grateful for anything anyone sees fit to offer, whether it’s an underpaid job as a servant, or as a “side piece” for a man who will toss her a few coins. So, too, are the children to be grateful for anything they receive, such as table scraps or outgrown clothing from the magnanimous “proper” folk. This should sound familiar to readers of history.

    • Milicent Fahwara

      What century are you pontificating from Pogonip? Of course it sounds familiar to readers of history, Victorian era history. We live in a different world today. This type of behavior would certainly be the minority in today’s society. And, actually, the issue IS about the life of the fetus. If we would prosecute that women or anyone else for disposing of a fetus after it moves through the birth canal, what difference does the position of the baby make; ie, still inside the mother’s body (where it is legal to take its life) or a few inches lower, outside her body, where it is recognized as the precious life it always was? (Unless he or she is the victim of a botched abortion, in which case they are left to die, something so absurdly immoral and unethical it is completly unconscionable.)

      • Amalthea

        The issue, Milicent, is that I own my own damn body and make decisions over it, not you, not the GOP, not the religious wingnuts. I am not a slave brood mare to a rapist; I am not an obligatory breeding machine.

      • Maryanna

        The difference is that it is in her body or out of it. Obviously. It’s the same reason that I don’t get to steal your wallet or grab your dick when we’re sitting next to each other on the bus even though we’re only inches apart.

      • Ishmael

        I think a more appropriate analogy would be to pierce his dick with a coat-hanger and attach a bowling ball to it to carry around for the rest of his life.

      • If it’s such a different world, then why do they keep trying to pass laws to recreate the conditions of that era? Guess what, with every success in passing these laws, we are brought one step closer to doing so. Also, if you really thing that type of behaviour would be in minority, I don’t think you are paying attention, at all.
        The issue is most certainly NOT about the life of the fetus, no matter that the anti-choicers would have you believe such drivel. If it truly was, then they would be lined up in the streets screaming for free contraception for all, but what we see is the opposite. You want to reduce abortions? Prevent unwanted pregnancies.

        If your group is fighting against the prevention of unwanted pregnancies to begin with, then it is absolutely not about the life of the fetus, it is about “slut shaming”, and not allowing women to control their own bodies.

        And here’s another little history nugget for you, “outside her body, where it is recognized as the precious life it always was?” THAT is one of the big reasons that it must remain legal. THAT is exactly what anti-choicers are supporting when they try to eliminate access to safe abortion.

        You are so far off the mark, and out of touch with reality, it’s just sad.

      • Heh… man, the irony of someone with the name “Milicent” claiming that we “live in another era” is choice. Nobody’s been named Milicent in a major city for 60 years; you are either from a farm, or at least 65 – but you’re going to tell us about the “modern world” we live in. Comedy gold!

        The fact is, Pogonip is absolutely correct; the mores he mentioned are the pillars of conservative “ethics,” and we all know it. You do too – you’re just trying to BS your way out of the tough spot him telling the obvious truth puts you in.

        The conservative “platform” would be the death of the middle-class, and the return of the feudal system, were it to ever be fully implemented. Serfs and lords, with 99% of us as the serfs.

      • Suzanne Dubinin

        Come on friend, your comment is really good, but why take away from it by personal insult? Gotta do better than that.

      • splashy79

        No, it’s not about the fetus, or forced birthers would push for ALL potentially fertile girls/women to have shelter, food and health care. They don’t, and in fact want to cut funding for those things.

      • Lindsey Leigh Phillips

        Glad to see you enjoy the rape, neglect and physical abuse of foster children, you dimwitted shitstain.
        Its so helpful and accomodating of your sort to say out loud what reasonable people already know about your priorities.

      • MorganLvr

        Are you kidding? What planet do you live on?

  • George Volgyesi

    Talking about the financial advantages of abortion is a heartless dismissal of the destruction of potential human life. There is no question about choosing abortion to save the life of the mother, but “abortion on demand” for any other reason. or no reason at all, reduces the value of the unborn to zero.

    • Lauren

      But — then explain this — if conservatives REALLY and TRULY are upset about the “murder” of fetuses, then why do they NOT support 100 percent full, free and easy access to birth control?

      The answer is this — because they also feel the value of the unborn is “zero” — or actually less than zero, because they are willing to use unborn fetuses in a campaign to control women and control poor people.

    • Lauren

      It is also interesting that you claim pro-choice progressives value a fetus at “zero.” Those of us who are parents, like myself, who spent untold time and money to make sure our pregnancies were healthy and our fetuses were taken care of in the best possible way, most certainly take issue with your opinion!

      Being “pro-choice” does not mean I think abortion is a super fun party fest. I think abortion is a tragedy, personally, but I think it is imperative, absolutely imperative, that abortion access is a right we protect for the sake of poor women, abused women, raped women, teenage girls or anybody else who needs to make that very difficult choice.

      But what’s funny is this — you question the author’s attempt to put a dollar amount on an abortion ban. BUT. All the anti-abortion folks also seem to be the exact same folks who 100 percent refuse to fund programs that benefit poor women and poor children. So — to them — the value of poor women and their babies is, um, “zero.”

      Do you see the problem here with the supposed “a fetus is sacred” logic?

    • George Volgyesi-

      It seems you missed the point of the entire hypothetical situation. I only attempted to “put a dollar figure” on it for the benefit of the “fiscal conservatives” who consider themselves pro-life. As I said in the article:
      “Is every “life” precious enough to protect and provide for? If so, why are you pushing to limit and sometimes deny basic health care and food support to the millions of children already alive in our country today?”

      This is a question which I’ve yet to hear even one logical, truly “pro life” answer to from the far right. That is why I went through the trouble of calculating and estimating approximate totals. Not to “put a dollar figure on life.” As I said, it is my belief that all children born into this world should have access to healthcare and nutritious food regardless of whether or not their parents can afford it. My question to those who believe otherwise is, quite frankly, why are you trying to claim you’re pro-life if your actions say the exact opposite?

    • Amalthea

      Georgie, the pro-lifers are all about controlling women–their sexuality, their access to contraception, and to force them to give birth. Go screw yourself with a transvaginal wand, honey. You seem oblivious to the fact that millions and millions of fertilized eggs, i.e., embryos, never imbed in the uterine wall and are flushed out with the menstrual flow. 50% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion–a miscarrige. So, “God” is pretty busy aborting the “unborn”, and it doesn’t look like “God” particularly cares about “life at conception”. The GOP is busy enacting stupid, downright harmful dangerous laws over my own damn body. Do you know it is a crime in Utah for a woman to have a miscarriage unless she can prove it occurred naturally? It’s the “miscarriage bill” sponsored by idiot Teabaggin’ Carl Wimmer. My favorite, though is the “Women As Livestock” bill put forth by Rethug Terry England, Georgia, to force a woman with a stillborn fetus to go to term with it because by dang, the cows and pigs on the farm do. The Democratic women in the state legislature staged a walkout when that bill was passed. I’m not a third class citizen after men and a fertilized egg, sweetie. I vote, and my pro-choice friends vote, and we vote for the Democrats who recognize our bodily autonomy.

  • Julia Vanhoy

    Almost every woman I know whi has chosen abortion has done so out of desperation. Contrary to what the politicians would have us believe, it’s not a snap, easy decision. The laws passed banning, even allowing for the ‘life of the mother’ never take into consideration the impact on the life of the living, breathing person carrying the baby. While pregnancy would not kill me, it could easily take away my ability to walk. Thankfully, I have been blessed enough to afford dependable birth control. Yet another thing these men want to take from me.

    • Andrew C Livingston

      They don’t care about the life of the mother. This is about vengeance and retribution.

  • Osiris

    Thats a great point of view Mr Barr. I never thought of it as a financial issue. So all we have to do is slaughter all the kids before they are born and we wont have to worry about them growing up in an unloved household nor do we have to worry about spending money on them. Brilliant work sir.

    Maybe we should try fixing the issue and teach more on safe sex and other ways of stopping this issue before it begans rather than just saying “Ahh screw it. Lets just kill them. Whatevs, Im already alive so I made the cut.”

    • Of course preventing unwanted pregnancies is the goal and generally speaking women do not have abortions on a whim but after contraception has failed and deep serious consideration. However the recent republican war on women want to prevent or make access to contraception more difficult and abortion impossible leaving women with no choice but the dangerous back room abortions or having a child they can not afford or want. I truly believe that if men carried children instead of women this wouldn’t be an issue. Being a woman that is old enough to remember the horror stories pre-RoevWade of women dead from trying to self induce an abortion i’m outraged at how these mostly men feel they have the right to decide what is best for a women. If you have no womb you have no right to decide what happens in one.

      • Mark

        It’s not a matter of a womb.. it’s a matter of killing a baby. I think everyone should have say who murder don’t you? We know via science that a baby can be born at 23 weeks and go on and live a normal life. Are you willing to ban killing all babies 23 weeks old or older? You do believe in science right, it’s a baby, not a fetus, a baby. Or is the location of the innocent baby determine when we can kill it?

      • Just sayin’

        Mark, if only it were that simple. I’m betting that, with a name like Mark, you will probably never be faced with the decision of whether or not to have an abortion and thus, just like me, cannot fully understand everything that goes into it. But your rhetoric indicates that you think a woman has a to-do list tucked somewhere that says:
        1. Go to the mall 2. Get a manicure 3. Pick out a party dress 4. Get an abortion 5. Drinks with the girls
        I’m thinking the reality may be just a little bit different for most. No one should ever be faced with having to make such a difficult, horrible decision, but those who are faced with it shouldn’t have to be driven to the most desperate lengths to try and resolve it. Just once I’d like to hear someone who characterizes themselves as pro life say, “Remember, the woman is a human being too,” without having to add by innuendo, “but she really doesn’t count, the slut.” Give it some thought, Mark.

      • I love it when men remember to think of women….:)

      • @Just saying …i fully agree with your reply. To bad these pro-birther’s aren’t as pro-child and pro-women as they are pro-minding everyone’s damn business. Since when does a woman’s private medical decisions have to be a decision by committee but soon as the child is here and needs food, clothing, education and shelter the committee turns it’s back.

      • MorganLvr

        A zygote is NOT a baby! Most of them die anyway because they do not manage to implant or spontaneously abort early on because of gross defects. I WISH you guys knew something about female reproductive biology!

      • “If you have no womb you have no right to decide what happens in one.”
        Love this…probably the simplest and best argument to use. Thank you!

    • Uh, have you been paying attention? Most of the people who are against abortion are ALSO against teaching safe sex because they think teaching safe sex to kids and teens encourages them to do it (as if they weren’t already going to anyway). They don’t want sex taught AT ALL in school and many don’t even approach the subject with their kids at home except to say “don’t have sex” and then throw a bible at them. Many are against ANY form of birth control at all, and nearly always on religious grounds. Every Sperm is Sacred and all that tripe. People like the Duggars.

      Obviously, safe sex is the best answer, but in a social culture that demonizes safe sex as sinful or (if you believe people like Rush Limbaugh) slutty, then you have to formulate arguments that do not include safe sex so you can try to reach these people on multiple fronts.

      So if you rule out the birth control angle, AND the financial angle, then all that’s left is abstinence and everyone with two brain cells rubbing together knows that shit doesn’t work. Yes, it would be lovely if we lived in a perfect world where everyone was responsible with their bodies and actions and thought about consequences before having instantly-gratifying fun… where no one ever gets pregnant from rape (cause no, we can’t Shut That Whole Thing Down)… where teenagers can keep their hormones under control… but unfortunately we don’t live in that world.

      • MorganLvr

        Many of the women who have abortions are married. My parents were married, but my father did NOT want children. My mother did the best she could with what was available in 1944, but obviously accidents did happen. My mother loved and wanted me, and I’m sure abortion would never have crossed her mind. Still, all things considered, maybe it should have.

    • Just sayin’

      Osiris, I think you may have missed the point just a tiny bit here. After all, this is print, not television, so you absolutely must devote more than 30 seconds to reading it to gain any understanding. Try again, but slowly.

    • QueenTheia

      Abortions DO NOT “kill kids”. They stop the development of a fetus that would become a child IF it were allowed to finish growing. Abortions don’t end life, they prevent life from developing. And even if it did, it’s none of your fucking business what a woman does with HER body. My life, my body, my pregnancy, my health, my money, my family, MY CHOICE. And if you don’t like it, fuck off to Afghanistan. Thanks. 🙂

  • Great article i read another recently about a southern red state making access to contraceptives or abortion more difficult i don’t really remember but the cost of this caused them to reverse their decision. Laying out the dollars may be the only way to make those teatards understand that access to abortions as well as contraceptives is a must and not another way to control women.

  • “pro-life” is such a misnomer… Life is from birth to death and everything in between – which is largely ignored. To be honest, they need to call themselves “pro-birth” as that is their focus. Few, if any, promote support for the mother and child once the child is born.

    • That’s the truth, isn’t it, Betty? I’m so tired of these folks commandeering our language and abusing it to forward their own small-minded agendas.

    • Tom

      “pro-choice” is the ultimate misnomer. Call it what it is. Pro-death. It’s the choice to kill an unborn child. At least be that intellectually honest.

      • Karen Christie

        “Pro-choice” is EXACTLY what it’s called. The mother’s RIGHT to CHOOSE whether or not to get pregnant in the first place, nevermind what she CHOOSES to do if the unexpected takes place. She may CHOOSE to have the child and raise it, she may CHOOSE to give the child up for adoption, and she may CHOOSE to terminate the pregnancy and her reasons for any of those decisions should be private between her, her doctor and whatever deity she believes or doesn’t believe in.

      • Andrew C Livingston

        Actually, there is a definition of the word “child”. And it does not agree with your statement.

  • I REFUSE to use the words “pro-life” when describing these people. They are either pro-birth or anti-choice. Most of the time they are just hypocrites.

    • splashy79

      I like forced birthers as the term to use.

  • Mr. King

    I like your posts most of the time, but this is sadly an ad hominem argument for the most part… instead of looking at the argument straight on, lets look at what SOME pro-lifers believe about OTHER issues! I expect better from you.

    Also, the argument that pro-lifers should be responsible for the unwanted children is flawed. Imagine that you saw a woman beating her three year old and when you told her to stop she said “you can’t tell me what to do unless you are willing to adopt my kid.” It is as if you think people have no responsibilities over their own bodies and sexual habits. Everything has consequences. Sex included.

    “But what about rape and incest?!?” many of you will cry. Those are horrible cases but less than 1%. Besides that is like saying we shouldn’t have traffic laws because there is a scenario one would have to break it (like rushing to the hospital).

    • Vada Bodimer

      Seriously? Im positicley speechless when one likens a child growing up in a poverty stricken potentially abusive home to a 200 dollar speeding ticket

    • Runawaygirl83

      Being a man, you will never understand what women go through when faced with decision like this. When the majority of anti-choice (not pro-lifers since we know that isn’t true) are religious and use their religious strongholds to dictate to someone else what is right or wrong, and then, because of their religious strongholds, use that influence to prevent access to affordable birth control, pre-natal care, family planning, and actual SEX EDUCATION instead of abstinence only (where places like Mississippi have the highest teen birth rates in their abstinence only education), it is going to raise the amount of unwanted children in this world and in our country. We have way too many adoptable children in our system already and nobody seems to care. You want to curb abortions and unwanted pregnancies? Then fine. Provide access to affordable birth control and sex education that is not influence by religion, but science, since that is the only truth that can be proven. Not everyone follows your religious background which means that not everyone is going to listen to the “abstinence until marriage” crap that is spewed out by everyone, even though those same people are dealing with their own children having babies and cannot seem to figure out why. Idiots.

  • Sensable

    This is a bunch of crap. I’m poor and when a republican was in office my child could get antibiotic shots at the doctor instead of medication, could get 2 sets of glasses per year, got raises on social security, ect. So don’t feed me that republicans ain’t for the poor cause I got more services under them than a democrat. Democrats just like to run on being for the poor when their not. Tell yourself all you want that a child doesn’t deserve to live cause the mother doesn’t want it but it’s still murder. 1.2 million babies are not comprimising the mother’s life and that’s the only time it should ever happen. Then it should be the mother’s choice.

    • Vada Bodimer

      Lady I don’t know where you live but my boys services for autisim were cut this year, so was day care assistance, housing assistance and any other form that is established to help the “working poor” …. What changed … Our legislature.

    • Spring1217

      And, they had to abide by the laws that were already in place! Who made those laws? and who decided to rewrite them so that the poor were adversley affected? Republicans hate the safety nets; the poor are moochers, remember?! They’ve become the red herring and scape goat for every ill in this country, just wait until they’re done slicing and dicing programs that benefit the least of these, in our society. You can cry “murder” all you want, but if it was the prime concern you’d be protesting greedy corporations who take their products overseas to enjoy cheap child labor or the buying of products from a country that promotes abortion, in record numbers. And, how often have you protested the killing of people on death row? Is that not murder, too? You can’t have it both ways!!

    • MorganLvr

      The “New” Republicans are somewhat different in that they have moved so far to the right they have entered extremists territory – Tea Party for instance. It IS the Congressional Republicans that have gutted our safety net, and it really got going with Reagan.

  • Nothing new about any of this.

    The problem with single-issue organizations like this is that, over time, they go from being issues oriented to being a money collection agency for the sole purpose of perpetuating itself.

  • Interesting bit of info you left out of this article. We are often shown “welfare moms/queens” , poor people who have multiple children so they can collect assistance. This means it is not the poor , the ones who can’t afford children, who are having abortions, it means the wealthy, the people who could support a child, are more likely to have an abortion. These would be the college educated women, so what does that say about our society? People often blame the poor for the ills of the world, but if they are popping out kids so they don’t have to work, then where are all these abortions coming from? Seems to me, it is the same group that protests them the most.

    • ACH

      Are they having multiple children to get more benefits, or because they lack access to or education about birth control? Benefits per child don’t pay THAT much.

      • Eruanion Nolaquen

        According to one person I know, once you reach 5 kids, you don’t pay taxes. I should have explained better in my OP that the welfare queen analogy is a false one. People think that the poor have multiple children so they can get rich or not work because the government pays sooo much in welfare. My original point was that if the poor are the ones having all the kids, then the wealthy must be the ones having abortions, else the idea that welfare moms with car loads of kids is false because you cannot have it both ways, the poor are either having multiple kids, or they are having all the abortions.

    • MorganLvr

      “Welfare Queens” was a fiction pushed by one President Ronald Reagan.

      • Eruanion Nolaquen

        Which shows that you didn’t understand the point, or read the other two replies to my OP.

  • Pro birth

  • “I’ve got news for you–you can’t have it both ways”
    What you’re missing is that they are “pro-life,” “fiscally conservative,” ….*bad at math*, and also not particularly pro-adoption.

    What pro-lifers really want is dirt-cheap labor from overburdened lower-class single moms with no other options than to take their garbage-paying job offers to pay for their unwanted and poorly-provided-for children…who will *also* have no better options when they grow up.

  • Grumpmaster_Zz

    What’s their motivation? The hard core of the GOP is run by the end-times rapture fanatics. They don’t really need to care about the care and feeding for the babies born in their post-abortion theocracy. They believe that zombie baby jayzus is coming (back) soon and needs all the souls as possible as cannon fodder for the battle of Armageddon. So they are going to do everything they can to ensure maximum soul production. Actual quality of life is irrelevant, especially when you are betting everything you are and everyone around you that you are one of ZBJ’s “chosen”

  • Margon49

    I believe that they want these “unwanted” children to be born… Watch governmental Social Services agencies become privatized and find a way to raise these children. They will then become indentured servants and have to earn their way to make up for the money used to raise them… they will become the “child labor class” of the future.

  • splashy79

    Forced birthers is what they are.

    They don’t care about the health, shelter or food for fertile girls/women, which affects the fetus they may be carrying, and they don’t care them after the birth.

    In fact, they don’t care if the birth is in a safe situation. All they care about is sadistically forcing birth on girls/women who have become pregnant, no matter what.

    To them, so what if the girl/woman suffers and/or dies, along with the fetus/baby. That’s the point! Hurt them as much as possible.

  • Lindsey Leigh Phillips

    Having just come from a thread detailing the atrocity that is texas’ foster care system, the answer seems simple: until every single child in foster care is adopted into a loving, stable home, not one goddamn cent should be wasted on cpc’s, antichoice legislation, antichoice research.
    These shrieking fetus worshippers can commiserate with each other about the “s!utty s!uts, aborting for “convenience” ” til their black little hearts are content, but not one cent should be wasted on pushing their fact-free agenda.

  • Calista Gann

    What I’m getting from this is that abortion is a sort of “population control” tactic for the U.S.