The Religious Right is Not Pro-Life — They’re Pro-Violence, Anti-Women and Anti-Poor

perryrick1First, it’s important to note that the proper use of labels matters because words and how we use them matter. It is not appropriate that much of the anti-abortion movement(s) uses the term “pro-life” when they are only signifying saving the life of the pre-born from an abortion, and maybe perhaps the prolonging the life of those on life support. That is not pro-life, for their definition of life is severely limited. Even the life of the mother is suspect. Within the anti-abortion factions of Protestantism, the so-called pro-life movement seems to not give a flying rip about the lives of convicted criminals (pro-death penalty), of civilians and soldiers (pro-war), and often of the poor in the Third World or domestically (anti-poor). It doesn’t give a care to the concern of poor women, even as they are carrying the sacred pre-born (pro-shame, anti-health care). Nor does it seem to care for the victims of their favored Gunstianity (pro-guns, pro-violence). In fact, if the Evangelical anti-abortion movement is anything besides anti-abortion, it’s pro-violence. I don’t see how any of it is consistently anything but chaotic control.

Within the more consistent Catholic pro-life movement, the definition of human life is extended to the embryo to such an effect that the right to birth control is fought against in Catholic institutions and by Catholic bishops (those much closer to the ground such as nuns and priests may disagree but often are punished for verbalizing such), and the fight against reproductive choice in US Catholic churches supersedes fights against poverty and other forms of life. Even birth control is seen as a cardinal sin when the utmost virtue is to “be fruitful and multiply” despite the health or even life of the mother.

In both Protestant and Catholic anti-abortion cultures, then, neither is so much about a “culture of life” as much as a culture pitted against abortion. Oftentimes, anti-abortion people seem most concerned about the life of the potential baby, using whatever rhetoric or legislative means and trickery available to put the pre-born over and above the life of the woman.

But by now, most of us know that restricting legal access to abortion doesn’t make abortion happen less. Abortion, as in the case of Gosnell and back-alley coat-hanger procedures, happens regardless because the risks and needs involved in those who seek it are far greater and more complex and life-threatening than the anti-abortion excuse of “inconvenience for nine months.”

If anti-abortion forces wanted to truly fight abortion, they’d be pro-life and pro-woman and pro-poor. Or, to be short, pro-LIFE, in the sense that the term should be used. For life is about more than the fact of being alive. Life has to do with growth and movement and freedom. It has to do with liberation from control. And the current anti-abortion movement is, simply put, about controlling the female body and legislating and mocking what females do with their bodies. That’s not life, that is control. It tells the woman what her place is – always under the whim of the man.

If anti-abortion forces want to drastically reduce abortion, they’d fight poverty and spousal and parental abuse. They’d support comprehensive sex education. They’d fight rape culture, rather than implicitly support it through modesty culture and shaming. They wouldn’t compare young and desperate pregnant women considering abortion to dumb birds – let alone to murderers.

If anti-abortion movements wanted to show that they are actually PRO-life, they wouldn’t allow politicians that defund programs that feed poor families to represent them. They wouldn’t allow politicians to defund programs that assist poor pregnant women or children in getting necessary, regular medical treatment, let alone side with them over so-called pro-life legislative measures, trapping the poor in further and deeper cycles of poverty.

This is how you are pro-life. By being for all of life. Not by saying you are fervently for all life before you inject your 500th inmate with lethal poison.

But here is how I explain how I’m pro-choice though I’m also pro-life. It’s pretty simple, really. Because I live in the US. And though I personally don’t feel that abortion is right due to my religious feelings, I recognize that not everyone shares the same views, nor the same male privileges I do. I recognize that abortion is almost always a difficult decision and that I am not God – I cannot judge a decision I can’t begin to comprehend. And I don’t want to. I want to leave those choices open, trusting that an informed woman and her doctor know more about her own body and what she can handle than I do.

That only seems to be loving and trusting. You know, a Christian thing to do.

jasdye

When he’s not riding both his city’s public transit system and evil mayor, Jasdye teaches at a community college and writes about the intersection of equality and faith - with an occasional focus on Chicago - at the Left Cheek blog and on the Left Cheek: the Blog Facebook page. Check out more from Jasdye in his archives as well!

Comments

Facebook comments

  • cynthiasomething

    You eloquently took the words right out of my mind. It is hard to explain that you are personally pro-life, yet don’t like these morons having any control over women’s health, bodies or personal, legal choices.

    • Charlotte Eden Orth

      I am pro life but hate to be put in the same category as those who would not allow birth control. I am pro life, pro poor, pro women, pro animal rights, pro veteran rights.

      • Johnny Fifles

        so am i

  • Robin

    The argument is all wrong. We should be debating sex education and family planning, not abortion. Do these misogynist ‘men’ ever stop to consider that this legislation affects women, women’s lives, women’s bodies, not men’s. The rest is secondary. They want to effectively kill thousands of young women, sentence them to an early death, and what for? They will argue that she shouldn’t have an abortion but look where that argument got us pre Roe v Wade. If you don’t want them getting pregnant then give them adequate sex education in schools and effective free or cheap birth control as soon as they become fertile. That is what the law should be doing, prevention, not killing teenage girls and women because of some misguided belief in some mythical God and a nonsensical idea that an embryo has some form of sanctity.

    • Pro lifer

      I agree, we need to educate young women on sex, give them birth control, teach them to value their bodies, but I think we need teach them to value life too. We also need to educate them about abortion, and all its gory details, before they are in a situation were they feel they have to make such an important choice.

      • Kimberly Daugherty

        That’s the issue. We should not just educate young girls and women but young boys and men. They need to understand just as much or more than young women. Education should come from all angles, home, school and society but it is lacking everywhere. Then government is at fault when you have an ultraconservative in office who only wants to abstinence. This solves nothing. Everyone has to be on the same page but this won’t happen because religious/ultra conservatives say sex is bad and wrong but it only applies to anyone who isn’t in their demographic. So, we have an impasse. Oh well, time to go back to the drawing board.

      • JamieHaman

        It’s time to go to the voting booth, not the drawing board, and love the rest of your comment.

      • Kimberly Daugherty

        That is true. We need to get the votes out.

      • Austin Gag

        Why does abstinence solve nothing? I haven’t heard of any virgins getting pregnant recently.

      • Kimberly Daugherty

        Abstinence is good but what teen or grown person is really going to go against what is natural. Not saying don’t practice but let’s be realistic. Giving the option of knowing everything, its up to the individual to do what they want but to tell someone don’t is all the more reason to do. Ha ha on the virgin thing.

      • JamieHaman

        You forgot to mention the other half of the equation, the men.

    • Charlotte Eden Orth

      agree with the beginning of your post, not the end.

    • Kelly S

      prevention is un-amurrikan! we don’t do anything till after a disaster! ;p

      • Klapton

        Not true. We pre-emptively invade countries that never attacked us.

        We are all spied on and our electronic communications are all being stored in case they might need to disappear us to “prevent terrorism.”

        The FBI finds angry, STUPID people and preventively plants terroristic plots in their heads, pretends to supply them with the bombs, and then busts them so they can say the “prevented a terrorist attack.”

        We allow the 4th amendment to be violated with DUI checkpoints and border patrol checkpoints (paperssss pleassssse!) where citizens are detained and harassed with no probable cause or warrant.

        We crap all over the Bill of Rights in the name of “prevention.”

    • Baaly

      What was that comment again?…”If men could get pregnant, there would be a 24 hour abortion clinic on every street corner”.

      All of this misogynistic nonsense going on in Texas comes hot on the heals of Perry vetoing the Lilly Ledbetter act.

    • Austin Gag

      “No”: Both free and effective.

  • Socialmedic

    “Pro-Life” is only supported by the Christian Right because it succeeds in getting votes for politicians the Christian Right wants in power. If it didn’t get the votes they would not care about it. They would exploit some other issue. This is about the bastardization of politics with religion and visa versa, the very form of blasphemy, the corrupting of politics and religion and visa versa, the founders of this nation found unacceptable. This is about Greedy, power hungry men (and their women) who will exploit everything and anything to squander wealth and abuse power. Confounding politics and religion is the most cowardly form of political control; bullies are cowards.

    • cynthiasomething

      The very conservative Barry Goldwater, a GOP favorite in the 60’s and 70’s, wrote in one of his books (and I paraphrase) ” The preachers are trying to take control of the Republican party. God help us if they do.” Well, they have.

    • That is to say that there are (small “d”) democrats and there are theocrats, right?

    • elvis

      “They would exploit some other issue. This is about the bastardization of politics with religion and visa versa, the very form of blasphemy, the corrupting of politics and religion and visa versa, the founders of this nation found unacceptable. This is about Greedy, power hungry men (and their women) who will exploit everything and anything to squander wealth and abuse power. Confounding politics and religion is the most cowardly form of political control; bullies are cowards.”

      I’m glad to see you are willing to bring up he Socialistic Democrats and their “TYRANNICAL” rise to power.

      Personally, i didn’t think you had the guts to do so.

  • ayungclas

    There is a lot of money to be made being “pro life”. Look at the salaries of the presidents, executive directors etc. of these lobbying groups, they aren’t volunteers.

    • Pro lifer

      Look at the president of the US, being backed by Planned parenthood…. there are all sorts of money trails out there, not on the “pro life” side. Look at how much money planned parenthood makes every year, not from mammograms…

      • Kelly S

        what are they making money from? please provide your numbers and source.

    • Klapton

      ALL lobbysists are parasites, not just the pro-life ones.

  • Pro lifer

    these comments blow me away… Pro lifers and religious people just want power, pro life is about greed…. Really, all this time I thought being pro-life meant I thought the baby’s life was just as valuable as the womans. I am dumbfounded that in this day and age, there are still people that think that being in pro-life is merely a religious issue… You don’t have to be religious to see that a fetus/unborn baby is just a child that hasn’t been expelled from the uterus. You don’t have to be religious to understand that there is scientific evidence that shows these babies being aborted after 20 weeks feel pain. You don’t have to be religious to understand that a baby born at 24 weeks is no different than a baby in the uterus at 24 weeks. Should one breath really be how we define whether a human being is worthy of rights or not?
    I think the people that are saying this is a merely religious issue are running out of real reasons that abortion should be acceptable… if all else fails, blame it in religion.
    Abortion is violent, Abortion is Anti-poor (what if a baby is going to be born into a poor family it should die instead, that is absurd) Lets just let all moms on welfare kill their children so they don’t have to be poor anymore. Abortion is Anti-women in so many ways….but lets just blame it all on religion.

    • And here we get to the heart of the matter. Deflecting blame on those who choose to abort, rather than seeking change that would benefit them.

      • Canadian mom

        Exactly right. Why do women feel that they need an abortion? What institutions prevent them from feeling that they can care for a baby? Is it lack of health care? Lack of maternity leave? Lack of help for families? Don’t blame the woman… blame society… in my feeling.

    • LMB

      The problem with “pro-lifers” is that they assume pro-choicers believe all women faced with a pregnancy in a difficult situation should automatically abort, that we WANT them to “get rid of it” because that’s the easy answer. This couldn’t be further from the truth. No one WANTS anyone to have to make the decision, no one WANTS anyone to run out and abort their pregnancy and no one believes it’s an easy choice to make. The difference about being pro-choice is that we live in reality. In reality people face extreme circumstances, people suffer difficult situations and in reality some women NEED to have an abortion to survive. When we have a society free of starvation, free of domestic violence and rape and a society where all classes of people can earn a real living and survive without struggle, THEN we can talk about ending abortion, but until then we need to allow WOMEN to do what THEY deem necessary to take care of themselves.

    • Cathy

      The biggest difference is that the Pro-Lifers care nothing about the child after it is born….they only care about those that aren’t born yet…..think about it if you say had a severely handicapped child, whose quality of life is next to nothing. do you really think it is better off? or the child who suffers abuse at the hands of its parents who did want the child to begin with?
      I agree that “men” should have no say in what a “woman” does with HER body……she should have every right to decide what she does with her body. Woman don’t tell men they have to have vasectomies, or worse have their testicles removed.

      • Pro lifer

        Who says pro lifers don’t care about baby’s after they are born. … that is just absurd, maybe you should do your homework on some of the groups that help support these young women.
        Also, not all unplanned pregnancies end in unwanted children, or abused children. Many children that were planned and wanted, end up abused.
        If it were just a womans body we were talking about, I could agree with you. But science shows us, that we are talking about a body within a body, we must consider both human beings.

      • Prove that you care about the child (and the mother) after it is born. Seek justice. Then maybe you can come back here and share what you’ve learned. For now, all you’re doing is posturing and lecturing.

      • Pro lifer

        your the one lecturing, you have no idea what I have done or haven’t done, assume much. Attacking me doesn’t make your arguments stronger.

      • “your the one lecturing”

        All the lolz. You came here. You started a fight. You started out slut-shaming. Go home, take your ball with you if you don’t wanna play.

      • Pro lifer

        ohhh, classy… attacking me again.

      • LMB

        The “body” (which is actually a mass of cells) within the woman can NOT SURVIVE without the woman until at least 22-24 weeks which is why it is illegal to preform an abortion past a certain point. I also heard a portion of a study that found babies born before 24-25 weeks do not have a conscious, that part of their brain has not developed, but the woman does have a conscious, she does have feelings and life experiences. IDK if you’ve been pregnant before, but I have twice. It overtakes your body and your life. Can you imagine how painful it would be for some women to endure an unwanted pregnancy? Having constant attention brought to it by the way her body looks and feels, when strangers ask her what she’s having, if she’s excited, or touch her belly? Yes, some women can handle that and go through it, but others can’t and it’s not fair to put a conscious woman through mental and emotional torture over an unconscious mass of cells.

      • Pro lifer

        it’s actually not illegal for abortions after 24-25 weeks, except in a handle full of states now passing laws to prevent them after that point. You can actually have an abortion legally in many states right up until birth, for many reasons.

        I have teenagers that drive me crazy, cost me so much money, embarrass me, and make me really uncomfortable… does that give me the right to end their life?
        At what point do you give an unborn baby rights? only after it’s taken a breath? Calling it a mass of cells, is a lie prochoicers tell themselves, because saying what it really is, would make abortion murder.
        Consider this, if a mother killed her newborn baby(lets say it was born at 24 weeks gestation) the same way an abortion is performed it would be murder, if she had it done in the womb it would be legal… same baby, same gestational age, same ball of cells.

        It’s so hard to give both the woman and unborn baby equal rights, with their lives so intertwined. I care about both womens rights and the rights of the unborn, but you can’t hardly support one without compromising the rights of the other…it is so uniquely complicated. I am personally hoping more laws are passed banning abortions past 20 weeks, at least then the laws would be more balanced, considering both the rights of both the women and unborn child. 20 weeks seems like more than enough time for a woman to make her legal choice.

      • LMB

        I don’t agree with late term abortions, but until the fetus becomes a baby and can survive on its own outside of the womb, it IS a part of the woman’s body and she has the right to decide what she wants to do. And murdering your teenagers and having an abortion are glaringly different. As stated before, people have physical and emotional feelings and life experiences, a fetus does not. It IS rapidly growing cells that will TURN INTO a human.

        Honestly it doesn’t matter what I or any pro choice person were to say to you, you are unwilling to try and look at it through another perspective and consider that even though abortion is a traumatic event, a painful circumstance and that even as a woman experiencing she doesn’t want to and feels the emotional pain of it, felt like it was a decision she had to make and something she had to do to survive and to live her life.

      • Pro lifer

        I have looked at if from a different perspective, I have faced an unplanned pregnancy, I have had my own health in jeopardy from that pregnancy…you have no idea what I have been through.
        My point with the teenager thing, is you are trying to justify abortion with things that are frustrating yes, but do they justify ending a life??
        I could use the same arguments you use on me right back at you… unless you are willing to look at an unborn baby for what it is, you won’t see abortion for what it is.
        a newborn baby cannot survive with out constant care, and someone sustaining it…yet if someone kills it we consider it murder. Lack of viability is not a reason to kill another human being, neither is location.

      • I’m sorry about what has happened to you. But here’s the deal: You decided to carry through. That was YOUR decision. You can’t force that on others.

      • Pro lifer

        We make many laws in this country to protect those who can’t protect themselves, it’s not about forcing someone to something they don’t want to do, it’s about protecting the unborn. Aside from rape, no one forces a woman to make choices they make that lead to pregnancy. (pregnancy is a natural result of having sex) We live in a country, time, when no one wants to take responsibility for their own lives. You are standing up for the right to be irresponsible, and the right to kill your own child… Your right, I think that is wrong… And I will continually fight for the rights of the unborn. I knew I would be a lone ranger on this site geared only towards those that see abortion as choice, not for the cruel, murderous act it is. You can argue over what a baby is called, you can argue over what to do with all the unwanted children, You can start insulting me, instead of making real arguments. It won’t change the facts… abortion is still the deliberate elimination of human life.

      • You realize you’re calling women who choose to and need to abort “murderers”, right?

      • Shelley Caster Ross

        It’s good that you stand up for what you believe in. But youdo not have the right to force your personal opinion on anyone else. You did what you did because you were given the right to choose. Who are you to take that choice away from someone else. You don’t know any other woman’s personal situation therefore you can not say what it the right choice for anyone butyourself. How dare you think you know every situation well enough to call someone you don’t even know a murderer. You can’t possibly imagine the agony any other woman goes through when faced with that decision. You like all that callthemselves prolifers have no right to judge anyone but yourselves.

      • Pro lifer

        Excuse me, I haven’t judged anyone, only condemned
        the act of abortion. We as a society
        hold each other accountable for everything. We work together to make laws to
        protect the equal rights for all, I don’t see this any differently. I
        have just as much right to come to the table with my opinions as you do.

        But here are the facts, not just my
        opinion. 1. an unborn baby is a human being, 2. An elective abortion is an act
        that ends a life (Definition of abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after,
        accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or
        fetus: taken from the Merriam Webster dictionary) 3. Abortion affects 2 lives not one.

        Not one person here has been able to
        dispute that abortion ends a life. I have called me names, people have made
        grand assumptions about me and my life, accusations, and all sorts of
        judgments…And yet no one knows me either. They have given me all sorts of
        reasons why it’s ok to kill your unborn baby, but not one reason other than the
        obvious medical reasons is even close to a valid reason.

        No one can answer the question, What makes a child less valuable in the womb,
        then when is expelled from a woman’s body….?

        I feel for these women that are in these situations, but even sad, horrible
        situations don’t give you the right to kill an innocent child. Who are you or
        any other woman to say a child is better off dead, than to be born? What gives
        you or anyone else that kind of authority? You can’t possibly know what kind of
        life a child could potentially have. That sounds like the harshest kind of judgment
        to me.

        As a woman, as a mother, I amazed at the fact that we as human beings can
        create, and carry another life. I think that ability should be respected… But
        that ability to create life, shouldn’t give you the right to end it.

        It’s no longer 1973 and we know much more about fetal development than we used
        to, it’s time to change our laws…and Thankfully, they are starting to change.

      • Guest

        viability is only questionable when the baby is removed from the uterus, left in the womb, it will reach viability.

      • jk

        …and so the value of a life, to a society, gets to be decided by whom?? Germans believed they were the superior intelligence and the “stupid” Jews had no right to life…Then there is the Chinese government and parents who value males over females…A woman does have the right to decide what she “does with HER body”; she just doesn’t have that right over the body growing inside her. She has a right to give it up, but not to take it’s life…

      • Baaly

        One could argue that, by definition, a fetus is a parasite. It grows within and obtains nutriment from a host body (which is the definition of a parasite..look it up). IF we take that perspective, then surely you have to admit that killing say…borealis is also wrong. Right?

    • Kelly S

      see, that’s the point. to these politicians? the woman’s life means nothing. you may be different. but the misogynists in government, and the misogynists who vote for them, are very well described here.

    • Kelly S

      so those poor kids…you do support welfare, then, yes?

      • Pro lifer

        You assume all abortions are performed on poor people, and by people that can’t afford to have another child, false. Secondly you are essentially saying because some one is poor, they have the right to kill their unborn baby. Why stop there, how many people have a child, then realize how expensive it is, why not get rid of them after they were born? Should someone really be denied life because of their station in the world, their money status? Should their life’s worth be dependent on their parents finances. …. The Nazi’s thought so.

      • Kelly S

        ahhh, the true colors come out. when all else fails, play godwin’s law. you’re the one who brought up kids born to poor people, and called abortion “anti-poor.” stay on topic. if you want them to be born, what happens when their parent(s) struggle to support them? what should happen then? you failed to address the question. chuck your strawman and false outrage aside, and pay attention to what i’m actually asking.

      • Pro lifer

        I didn’t answer the question, because its ridicules, it’s doesn’t matter whether I do support welfare or not, it doesn’t change the argument that someone has the right to be born regardless of their parents financial means. rich or poor.
        The “what do we do with all the unwanted, poor and abused children” is the strawman. It’s an argument designed to take away from the real issue…

      • Pro lifer

        that it is a baby! a human being, worthy of the same rights and protections as anyone else.

      • It is *your* perspective that it is a human being. It is most likely a religiously-informed decision. Nobody has to agree with you.

      • Pro lifer

        It’s not an opinion, science agrees with me, not religion!
        prove to me it’s not!

      • Pro lifer

        at what magical point does a zygote, fetus, unborn baby become a human being worthy of rights and protections, when it takes a breath? that sounds like a religious opinion to me. There is no physical difference between a 30 week old fetus/baby in the womb, than a newborn baby born at 30 weeks gestation, except location.

      • jk

        Right on Pro lifer, and might i add to your argument that many a person who has killed a pregnant woman has been charged with both murder of mother and BABY. TWO separate charges. If the law sees it as a life in that case, well. you can’t have it both ways.

      • Then you probably know that in the bible, that wasn’t the case. If you struck a pregnant woman and she miscarried, the penalty would be far less severe than killing a woman, child or man.

      • You’re talking about a 30-week old. Which isn’t a very good argument anyway. But most of the debate around abortion has to do with 24 weeks or before.

        However, the point is, it’s not up to you to tell others what you *believe* is appropriate for them. Societies have very different ideas on what age to confer personhood status to a child, and within those societies, there is difference of ideas. And within Evangelicalism (until about thirty years ago), there has been drastic differences of opinion on when that point was.

      • Dean E James

        The main point is, that like intravenous drug users, there will always be some unfortunate situations where abortion rears its ugly head. The only real question is whether you believe this should be done as safely as possible in clean conditions, or whether you think it should be driven underground and take place in unsanitary conditions – with a ton of moral condemnation heaped upon the person who does it by those who would set themselves up as ‘better’ or ‘morally superior’. The argument that women will use it indiscriminately as a form of birth control seems a type of psychological projection, and is about as sensible as saying that if doctors were allowed to prescribe diamorphine and clean needles that the entire country would become smack-shooting junkies within a generation. MOST people would look at a needle full of heroin and think ‘Fuck that!’ – you already have to be in quite a mess before you’d even go there. It does also betray the mindset of the people who need social and medical issues like these to be made illegal. Why? It is usually those to can impose no restraint on themselves that shriek most loudly for prohibition – and I rather fear abortion may prove to be another case in point.

      • Science doesn’t agree with you. It doesn’t and can’t confer “personhood.” That’s a metaphysical destination. And you don’t have the right to confer what you believe onto society or onto other women.

      • Pro lifer

        what species are you? what science class did you take? … because an unborn baby is the same species as its mother, un unborn human is still a human, an unborn cat is still a cat, an unborn dog, is still a dog…

      • “Species”? Do you even know the meaning of the words you use?

      • jk

        “Oh, I’m going to my Fetus Shower!”, said no woman ever.

      • Because “baby shower” implies that the shower is in anticipation of a baby. Not a fetus.

        At least learn to tell a joke if it’s going to be nonsensical.

      • Pro lifer

        It doesn’t matter what you call that human life – abortion is still the deliberate elimination of human life.

      • Klapton

        Ask a BIOLOGIST when the life cycle of an organism begins. Then ask them if this also applies to species Homo Sapiens.

        Religion is NOT the only reason people are opposed to abortion. Some of us are opposed to it based on SCIENCE, not superstition.

      • hiatt111

        What the hell is it Jasdye? a frickin alien? What a goof!

      • Baaly

        “Should their life’s worth be dependent on their parents finances. …. The Nazi’s thought so.”

        Really? Can you point me to a document which supports this as I’d just love to see it.

        Nice strawman though. Keep building them up and people will keep trying to tear them down…right?

      • Baaly

        With regards to the comment awaiting moderation from Pro Lifer…..

        Point 1 – Wiki answers is NOT is reliable source.

        Point 2 – It says “victims of WARFARE”. Sheesh, learn to read!

      • Pro lifer

        your right I misread it… oh well, that wasn’t my real point, the point was millions of babies are being killed in this country, for many reasons, … the point is, who are you, or anyone else to decide that a child shouldn’t be born because of poverty, disease, gender, etc…. What gives you that right? What gives you or anyone else that kind of authority? You can’t possibly know what kind of life a child could potentially have. Besides not all unplanned pregnancies end in unwanted or abused, or poor, or ill, or diseased children.

      • Baaly

        No, that was MY point, which you could not evidence for.

        Keep ranting though.

    • Baaly

      “Pro lifers and religious people just want power, pro life is about greed”.

      You are 100% correct. It is about greed. In Texas, part of this bill is to only provide abortions in specific medical centers which are inherently run as businesses and often by religious organizations (see the masses of methodist, saint so-and-so and other religiously connotative hospital systems). PP, on the other hand, is a democratically leading organization. It’s as much a war on women as it is a war on democratic organizations.

      • Pro lifer

        no it’s a war on the unborn, and they are loosing.

      • Baaly

        Strawman! Please stick to the point of my post.

      • Pro lifer

        no one will address your point because it is absurd.

      • Baaly

        Keep on trollin’!

        Keep building up those straw men to distract others. It doesn’t work with me. Sorry!

      • Pro lifer

        did you even read the original post… your agreeing with someone who wasn’t saying what you think they were saying.

      • Baaly

        I did read the original post. The quote I used from that was used as a jumping off point which opened an additional line of debate.

        Does 2+2 always = 4? Lets start on that one next, shall we?:D

    • JK

      Wonderful logic, at last!!

  • R Joseph Owles

    I’ve been saying all this for years. Glad someone with some clout — or at least and audience — is saying it too.

    • Ha! Don’t have much clout. But briefly enjoying the recognitions of “Yeah, that’s what I’ve been thinking!”

      Thank you!

  • jeczaja

    I am pro-life, pro-choice, pro-women and pro-poor. I am pro-human beings. Ironically, this makes me an outcast to almost everyone.

    • bobb41210

      Not to me

  • John_St_John

    The G.O.P. is not pro life, they are Pro Indentured Servant and they have to keep their corporate masters happy don’t cha’ know. Just sayin’.

    • JK

      And the Democrats are not pro-choice; they are all about shirking responsibility, and keeping minorities and poor in their place; without abortion, these white democrats might be outnumbered…

      • That made no sense…

  • Susan Satterfield

    These men are the good ole boys that want life to go back to them grunting a nd a women runing to get them what they want. It is as simple as that. They want to go to church and brag about themselves and their power. They cannot have a good ole boy club if there are gays and womne around. This is true in business as well as government. If we hold strong and vote well, this to shall pass.

  • cloverndaff

    When in hell are we ever going to recognize that MEN and BOYS are just as responsible for making a baby? All this talk about teaching girls to value themselves, what about the boys? Why are they not taught to value girls and themselves and held responsible for their actions as well? And then they grow up and have the audacity to force women to ”do as they say”. Sickening really.

    • Baaly

      But men can shirk their responsibilities and go “on the lamb” after the baby is created. Trust me, I speak from experience.

      • Sadly true. I think we need to cover all bases. Teach men to be responsible for their actions but empower women simultaneously. Birth control is important for this reason, for example. It gives the power back to the one who will most need it, who will ultimately be holding the bag.

      • Baaly

        Jasdye, I could not agree with you more.

      • Baaly

        It’s that old adage really Jasdye, a woman has sex and gets pregnant, and people label her a ‘slut’. A man has sex, gets a girl pregnant and he’s a ‘stud’.

        To go off the point some, you can look at the Magdalene movement in Ireland, which only ended in 96. Women were punished for their ‘sins’ of illegitimate pregnancies, while the men were able to run free, without responsibility, and ‘stud’ again. (I’m minimizing the impact and whole organization here).

        The point is that men, then and now, have very little need to act responsibly when it comes to their roles as fathers, IF they don’t want to take responsibility. Women on the other hand…yes, we’re literally left “holding the baby”.

    • Thom Cameron

      I was in a class with many younger 20s/30s males and the disparage of their attitudes about women and child birth from my more traditional yet quite liberal views was astounding. 2 or 3 “baby mammas” was a sort of badge worn proudly. That is what any girl is facing today. And, then throw the Love word at them and we have an epidemic like the one happening right now.

      We can not keep looking the other way. It will not go away. If we force those children upon society (and yes those boy’s, girls and their families are part of society) without facing the reality that they will require more support and aid than the average family unit!!! It’s reality not a fairy tale we tell ourselves to make it seem different.

      • mmmmikkimac

        we need to educate girls and make sure they understand what real love is, trust, respect, supportive, and make sure they have self esteem and have a sense of self worth

  • hiatt111

    “Without life there is no liberty, there is no pursuit of happiness. The ability to take life is the ultimate power and the ultimate deprivation of our God-given rights.” Ted Cruz…………………………..enough said

    • Ted Cruz, of course…

    • Shelley Caster Ross

      And how many times has Ted been pregnant and had to make the decision of whether it was right for him or not? Enough said.

      • hiatt111

        You have an excellent point there Shelley. I keep forgetting that where I am from most consenting adults know what the result of unprotected sex can be. If they make the decision or the CHOICE to gamble with procreation, that was their CHOICE and choices have consequences, that is unless you are liberal and just kill the baby YOU and your significant other CHOSE to procreate.

      • Pro lifer

        yeah, because men should just sit back and watch, as their children get aborted, and not have an opinion… sounds fair.

  • Matt

    Would pro choicer’s oppose full term abortions? Meaning, if they had their way with the law, would they allow abortions up to 9 months?

    • Cemetery Girl

      I think very few would have that opinion. If there is an issue with the mother’s health premature delivery is possible. Unfortunately the view that women’s only purpose is to play living incubator for fetuses has reached a point that women that deliver early are criticized for failing their duty to fail to allow the baby to “finish baking”. And yes, unfortunately, this mentality is out there in our world.

      • Matt

        So you would say that if a woman changes her mind based on her circumstances (say the father leaves her and now she decides she doesn’t want to raise this child alone) that it would be morally and ethically wrong to abort at 8-9 months? Or would it still be her choice to terminate in third trimester?

      • Rhonda Painter

        Viability is a game changer. This nonsense that pro-choice people are in favor of allowing abortion right up to 5 minutes before birth is bogus. Most states don’t allow or severely restrict abortion after the point of viability and most pro-choice people are fine with that. Allowing restrictions on late-term abortion is right there in Roe v. Wade.

      • Matt

        So it is safe to say that at some point – you say viability, it is morally wrong to terminate? Ok I agree. So then it is safe to be able to tell a woman what she can and cannot do at say 30 weeks of her pregnancy? Shouldn’t we be concerned with finding where this “viability” is? Or trying to evaluate it? I’d like to think we should be protecting those viable babies from abortion. it might help the debate.

      • Rhonda Painter

        Okay. I’m beginning to think that this point of order is a big driver of the idea that pro-choice people like me are fine with infanticide. It’s not true. In fact, you might be interested to know that I spent my career as a pediatric physical therapist who worked with disabled children for 30 years, many of whom had been born quite early.
        Viability is generally considered by the medical community to be at 24 weeks. A baby born at that point has about a 50% chance of survival, and about a 66% chance of being moderately or severely disabled, mostly by brain injury, which causes cerebral palsy and mental retardation.
        There are rare instances of survival before that point, nearly all of whom will be disabled to some degree.
        Most states ban or restrict abortion past the point of viability, usually defined as 24 weeks, with exceptions allowed for saving the life or preventing permanent injury to the mother. Of course, at viability, simply inducing labor to save the mother and attempting to save the baby is an option, which is why abortions after that time are almost always performed in cases of severe fetal anomaly.

      • Guest

        viability is only questioned when removed from the womb, viability changes given time… It is not logical to deny someone life that will given enough time become viable… We don’t unplug someone’s life saving equipment, knowing that given time, they will become stable again.

      • Rhonda Painter

        Well, you’re closing in on the crux of the matter. Is it logical to use women as life saving equipment? Very well, shall we require all adults who are able to donate blood and to sign up as bone marrow and kidney donors? After all, if it is the responsibility of one person to use their body as a life-support system, why would it not be the responsibility of everyone else to do whatever they’re able to do to save a sick person’s life. Is a sick or injured person worth less than a fetus or embryo?

  • Lee Johnson

    Did this rant ease your conscience? My guess is no. Because you know abortion is the intentionally taking of a human life. You can’t not know. Thus, this ad hominem projection onto the pro-life movement. Conscience is an active force, though, and you will not find peace-of-mind attacking pro-lifers or defending abortion. You will only feel more and more compelled to justify yourself and attack the pro-lifers bravely carrying the truth.

    • How do you assume it’s a “human life”? Because you say so? Because your religious view makes it so? That’s not universally true – not until recently, actually.

      • Lee Johnson

        The fact that it’s a human life isn’t open for debate. Of course it’s a human life; it can’t be anything else. The question has nothing to do with religion and religion is not necessary to establish the fetus’ humanity. The question is this: Is that human life a legal person?

        And once you start saying a human life isn’t a legal person and can be intentionally killed, you’ve got a problem. That’s what the slaveholders tried to argue.

        Same ole Democratic Party, just new lies.

      • Oh, the old “fetuses are JUST LIKE slaves” argument…

        You do realize that that is a hurtful designation, don’t you? That once again the Religious Right is infanticizing Black people?

    • Shelley Caster Ross

      So you think that as long as they agree with you they’re right. You aren’t bravely carrying the truth. You are trying to force people you don’t even know to give up their rights. Until you walk in their shoes all you are doing is judging. You have the right to choose so why do you think everyone else doesn’t unless they agree with you? It’s fine for you to stand up for your right to choose but it makes you a hypocrite when you try and take the right to choose away from everyone that disagrees with you. You should worry more about your own life and butt out of those you don’t know and will never meet.

      • Lee Johnson

        I try to stop people who seek to deny someone’s humanity and then kill them.

  • Baaly

    Can we stick to the point of the post here, for just one second and not hang all out laurels on the ‘pro-life’/anti-choice abortion stance.

    The point of this article is to point out the hypocrisy of the ‘moral majority’ in their so called “pro-life” stance. The point to address is why, when the right claim to be for life, they are pro-war, pro-execution, anti-women’s rights, anti-poor..etc.

    To be FULLY pro life would mean that you would adopt a stance of being for everything which benefits all humanity, not just a select few; and against things which are detrimentally harmful to humankind and life.

    If you take the general right view that you are ‘pro-life’ in the sense of the abortion debate, yet for wars, executions and against benefits for the needy and the rights of women, then you are just anti-abortion. Period.

    Lets just start calling it what it is. Anti choice/anti abortion and NOT pro-life.

  • Robin Bass

    I have been in the abortion rights fight since abortions were illegal..and I have always believed that we ‘lost’ the moral battle the minute we allowed the pro-fetus, anti abortion movement to call themselves ‘pro-life’ because that means those who are not anti=abortion, automatically are ‘anti-life’… which couldn’t be further from the truth. Becoming ‘pro-choice’ just doesn’t have the same impact…and I truly believe we have been on the defensive ever since…trying to somehow defend our belief in the right to abortions. When that became ‘anti-life’… we lost the moral ground that, when faced with unplanned, unwanted pregnancies pregnancies from rape, pregnancies with severely deformed fetuses, abortion is often the most difficult, moral decision a mother can make. The anti-abortion anti-life position is becoming more and more evident, as this article so eloquently points out..thank you

    • It’s high-time to take back the vernacular. You are right, Robin.

    • Eldermusician

      “He who defines the argument, wins the argument.”

      • Robin Bass

        so true…and I know we lost the argument the moment we allowed them to be ‘pro-life’ and we were no even for abortion rights…we were ‘pro-choice,’ which of course allowed them the argument that ‘a fetus is a baby not a choice’…we played right into their hands…and have been digging our way out of that hole ever since

  • JoyceK

    Where to even begin commenting on this twisted faux logic? First, of all, READ the Bible before commenting and flinging out quotes. Here are a few suggestions: Genesis 1-3; which tells how Adam and Eve were created in the likeness of God, and how they were influenced by the devil in the form of a snake. It is when they turned away from God, that they thought they could find a better truth than God, that they were turned from the garden of Eden, and began roaming the earth. While one might never prevail in preventing a woman from getting an abortion, one can still speak the truth, and try to persuade her not to listen to the devil. After man defied God is when he had knowledge of good and evil, and when he was subject by God to die. Of course, passion is often the start of evil; when we do not control our own selfish urges, is when we are most vulnerable to the devil; to going against what is God, what is right. Justifying abortion as a woman’s choice makes as much sense as saying she can kill her abusive husband as long as she does it while having sex, and he is inside her. on the subject of the Catholic Church i hardly think you will find any organization that contributes more money and personal service to the poor, including women and children. Quite contrary to what you state, Catholics and most Christians are pro-poor and anti-war, and are anti death penalty. I know, because i am Catholic. Planned Parenthood was conceived on the notion of eliminating the poor and minority segments of society. Advocate for abortion if you like, but don’t try to sell it as good or godly. It is the pro-abortion advocates, like you, who could be making bigger contributions to the culture of life, as you put it; after all you have to save a life before you can begin to support it in any way. I have a dear friend whose birth mother bore 5 babies that she gave away each time, shortly after birth, some were adopted, some were fostered for life; none of them is sorry she gave birth before she walked away from them. So, as the saying goes, every pro-abortion advocate had a mother who chose life. With the technology and strides made in sex education, IF abortion is to remain legal, it must be rigidly restricted to the first tri-mester at the latest. The morning after pill should be made available w/o prescription. That covers rape and incest, and a woman having sex of her own choice knows the possible outcomes of sexual relations. I posit that the rabid pro-choice forces spend their dollars teaching young women the options they have, teaching them morality, teaching them respect for themselves, and how to constrain their passions, how to develop discipline over self, and how to make a better life for themselves before bringing anyone else into the picture. When abortion is the fix; liberals can keep their pockets full, and their eyes closed to the needs that Mother Teresa devoted her life to fixing. SHE was pro-life, and despite all the misery she saw, she stayed staunchly pro-life. If you want to be pro”choice” then please don’t call yourself, or pretend to speak for, Catholics or Christians. Don’t try to argue a wrong into a right. Being moral means standing up for what you believe. Do i have friends who have had abortions? Yes, i do. I understand why they did it. Do i judge them? No, i don’t. If asked, would i tell them i think it is right? No. Do I wish they had had different options? Yes. Do i put my money where my mouth is? Yes. Funding Abortion rights takes money away from funding other choices. No matter how bad a person’s crimes are, another person is never justified in taking that life, and that right to life extends to the unborn as well. In the 60’s there may have been doubt as to when life begins, but not these days.

    • How about you read the article before you rant?

      Thanks.

    • Shelley Caster Ross

      Out of all that rhetoric the only thing you said that wasn’t you forcing your personal opinion on everyone else was “Being moral means standing up for what you believe.”. Everyone has the right to choose and your personal opinion is just your personal opinion. You can’t know anyone else’s situation so you can’t throw your “I right and you’re wrong” blanket over everyone. Every woman has the right to choose what’s right for herself regardless of anyone else’s personal opinion. PERIOD.

  • Kentucky_atty

    100% agree, especially with that last paragraph.

  • mmmmikkimac

    We need to vote these heretics out of office and vote in people who are not so ignorant of how a woman’s reproductive organs work. A vaginal swab is not put into the uterus and thus causing a possible abortion.

  • Nelson T.

    The anti-abortion movement, be it in the various religious denominations or not, has never been about preserving life. It’s about controlling women. Controlling women’s reproductive rights is essentially controlling women to be chattel. Nothing more. The foetus pictures and the clinic bombings and the ridiculous self-serving shouting at family health centres who provide abortion services are but confused prattle of weak-minded willful idiots who traded their critical thinking skills for a shot at being part of a community of hate engaged in double-speak.

  • sazi

    Lets take the term pro-life away from them. Just call them anti-choice, because that’s what they really are. Who in the world is pro-abortion? That’s like being pro-heart surgery, I dont think anyone actively wants heart surgery, but if you should need it, its life saving to have access. I am Pro-Life AND Pro-Choice!

  • Shelley Caster Ross

    I agree. You can’t be partly pro life. Either stand up for all life or leave the discussion. And until you’ve walked in everyone’s shoes, which is impossible, you have no right to tell someone else what’s right. Thank the heavens the majority agrees with you. I can’t imagine what life must have been like for women when the religious right ruled.

    • I’m afraid we’ll find out soon…

  • Shelley Caster Ross

    I agree. You can’t be partly pro life. Either stand up for all life or leave the discussion. And until you’ve walked in everyone’s shoes, which is impossible, you have no right to tell someone else what’s right. Thank the heavens the majority agrees with you. I can’t imagine what life must have been like for women when the religious right ruled.

  • Bob Severs

    Some green face paint and viola…the Grinch! Well, his heart is three sizes too small.

  • NicoleminCT

    If there were not 4.5 million homeless Americans, 2.4 million imprisoned Americans, 50 million food insecure Americans, more than 2 million American children yearly shuffled through the foster care system with no right wingers lining up to care for them, millions of Americans addicted to drugs with no access to treatment, 1:4 Americans who rely on some sort of government subsidy just to make ends meet, 32 million (at least) Americans lacking access to health insurance, and of course millions more abroad murdered through tax funded wars, I would BELIEVE right winger voters who claim to ‘value life’.
    American policies clearly show this is a fabrication. Yes, I personally believe abortion is murder, Yes, I believe abortion is wrong. However, I accept the responsibility that I am not in these women’s shoes and subject to the never ending poor shaming and bashing that comes along with having children one cannot afford.
    I believe if we are truly pro life, we will respect all life, especially the walking, talking, breathing, suffering among us. Judging others is much easier than trying to make a difference and foster an environment where everyone’s basic human rights are met. Shelter, Food, Access to healthcare and education. Anything less is nothing more than LIP SERVICE.