Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DainBramaged

(39,191 posts)
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 09:45 AM Apr 2013

“Pro-Life” Is A Lie, Here Are 10 More Accurate Descriptions They Won’t Like

There’s a lot of terms floating around that people use to describe themselves when they want to make their position sound more appealing, even if those terms are a completely (and very deliberately) misleading. One such lie term is “pro-life.”

John Fugelsang said it best: “Only in America can you be pro-death penalty, pro-war, pro-unmanned drone bombs, pro-nuclear weapons, pro-guns, pro-torture, pro-land mines, and still call yourself ‘pro-life.’” Indeed, the term “pro-life” has come to represent a group of people whose values have nothing to do with protecting life, and living people, and more to do with protecting unborn fetuses to the exclusion of all other considerations.

The only way to effectively kill a misnomer, such as “pro-life,” is to replace it with a more accurate description. I would encourage everyone to pick one of these terms, and start using it in place of the words “pro-life,” when discussing abortion

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/04/21/pro-life-lie/


A good read

54 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
“Pro-Life” Is A Lie, Here Are 10 More Accurate Descriptions They Won’t Like (Original Post) DainBramaged Apr 2013 OP
Euphemisms can make us feel all warm and fuzzy. Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #1
Excellent!!! gopiscrap Apr 2013 #2
I generally use anti-choice, but I like the "pro-fetus" label a lot. BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #3
I'm pro abortion: safe legal abortion saves lives BlancheSplanchnik Apr 2013 #33
I'm pro-choice but I'm against abortion for myself since I believe we have more than adequate access BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #34
Abortion is not traumatizing. Not my opinion; multiple studies have shown this REP Apr 2013 #38
It would have been nice had you at least provided a link BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #45
Here are actual studies (and Koop was published in the 80s) REP Apr 2013 #46
I was living in Holland during the 1980's and pregnant with my first child in 1980. BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #48
I'm sorry your doctor was a lying piece of shit. REP Apr 2013 #50
I prefer "Fetus worshipper" n2doc Apr 2013 #4
Forced birth. Shrike47 Apr 2013 #5
^^^This^^^ ljm2002 Apr 2013 #17
+1 SunSeeker Apr 2013 #21
It's "Anti-choice". PeaceNikki Apr 2013 #6
I'm convinced that the "pro-life" crowd isn't actually concerned about fetuses, either. Marr Apr 2013 #7
Bingo. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #9
it's only punishment for women who have sex. No scrutiny of men and their sex lives. BlancheSplanchnik Apr 2013 #44
Pro-life till it hits atmosphere. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #8
^ In a nutshell loyalsister Apr 2013 #12
not even ...... they only care until the 3rd trimester when klyon Apr 2013 #53
Pro-Preggers or Pro-Punishment Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2013 #10
Anti-woman BrotherIvan Apr 2013 #11
They think the pro-life amuse bouche Apr 2013 #13
Oh the ignorance! AlbertCat Apr 2013 #14
Changed mostly in the 60's. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #15
Changed mostly in the 60's. AlbertCat Apr 2013 #20
Did you write Rand Paul's speech for Howard University? nt SunSeeker Apr 2013 #22
Did you write Rand Paul's speech for Howard University? AlbertCat Apr 2013 #25
Why, was Rand's speech historically accurate? AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #30
Add- disobeying God azureblue Apr 2013 #16
+1 crim son Apr 2013 #26
The Exodus quote flies in the face of what these people are trying to do BrotherIvan Apr 2013 #31
Forced-pregnancy zealots MsPithy Apr 2013 #18
I have been echoing this for years liberal N proud Apr 2013 #19
I had an aunt that was part of Operation Rescue. After a carafe of wine she bragged that the alfredo Apr 2013 #28
K&R SunSeeker Apr 2013 #23
Fetus fascist. alfredo Apr 2013 #24
Not Pro at all SamKnause Apr 2013 #27
The article is accurate for many people who call themselves pro-life - Ms. Toad Apr 2013 #29
I disagree. Those very good works do not balance or obliterate the injustice of the anti-choice.. Small Accumulates Apr 2013 #35
The question isn't whether you agree with their choices Ms. Toad Apr 2013 #36
Savita Halappanavar and her grieving husband might disagree Small Accumulates Apr 2013 #41
The title to the OP was "Pro-life" is a lie. Ms. Toad Apr 2013 #42
I agree with you. Denying women autonomy can never be justified, no matter how prettified REP Apr 2013 #39
Nothing wrong with that belief. Ms. Toad Apr 2013 #43
I prefer rock Apr 2013 #32
I'va always been partial to "forced birthers". 11 Bravo Apr 2013 #37
A very good read ismnotwasm Apr 2013 #40
I like - Anti choice. That nails it. MellowYellow Apr 2013 #47
This is the issue that brought me to politics back in 2004, Roe. Raffi Ella Apr 2013 #49
They are anti-child because once it stops being a fetus they walk away DainBramaged Apr 2013 #51
the phrase "pro-life" was originally coined to refer to people in favor of life in prison klyon Apr 2013 #52
My favorite isn't there: "Forced-Birth." n/t Ian David Apr 2013 #54

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
3. I generally use anti-choice, but I like the "pro-fetus" label a lot.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:48 AM
Apr 2013

I never refer to these misogynists as "pro-life" and I steer away from labeling them "anti-abortion" because that gives them too much credit and it may be seen as positive by the dim-witted group. To be honest, who isn't anti-abortion?

BlancheSplanchnik

(20,219 posts)
33. I'm pro abortion: safe legal abortion saves lives
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 02:00 PM
Apr 2013

Reduces suffering on many different ways. It improves quality of life for women, their familoes and friends and the community.

Safe abortion is a blessing. Romanticized visions of Gerber babies should not drive policy.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
34. I'm pro-choice but I'm against abortion for myself since I believe we have more than adequate access
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 02:13 PM
Apr 2013

to BC. Abortion should be rare by now. It's frustrating to see we haven't reached that point just yet. I'm saying this from the p.o.v. of the woman/girl who finds herself having to undergo the procedure. An abortion is very invasive and can be mentally very traumatizing - even for those who have no problem with it. The key to minimizing the chances for an abortion is to educate our girls and boys from a young age, as I did with my two sons and my one daughter. My three children are over 21 and they are extremely careful, yet they too believe abortion must remain safe and legal for those who didn't have the access of information they got from me.

That's why I remain pro-choice.

Abortion should always be safe and legal for all women and for any reason. My personal views on the subject should not affect anyone other than my children {up until they're adults and can do as they please}. I also believe abortion should be covered under all health care policies, but thanks to the Hyde Amendment, no Federal dollars are allowed to be spent on something as life-saving and vital as this very invasive but still very necessary procedure. In California, all clinics offer free exams and free contraceptives, just as it should be across the nation.

REP

(21,691 posts)
38. Abortion is not traumatizing. Not my opinion; multiple studies have shown this
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 02:50 PM
Apr 2013

Including Koop. You know, anti-abortion Koop - even he had the integrity to admit that there was no trauma involved with abortion.

Nor is it very invasive; no incisions are made and it is usually performed under a local anesthesia.

Please don't spread disinformation.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
45. It would have been nice had you at least provided a link
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 08:29 PM
Apr 2013

to support your {correct} argument instead of admonishing this DUer. It would have been much more helpful for those who look in.

Abortion Doesn't Increase Mental Health Issues, But Having A Baby Does:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/26/abortion-mental-health_n_814582.html

LOS ANGELES — Having an abortion does not increase the risk of mental health problems, but having a baby does, one of the largest studies to compare the aftermath of both decisions suggests.

The research by Danish scientists further debunks the notion that terminating a pregnancy can trigger mental illness and shows postpartum depression to be much more of a factor.

Abortion in Denmark has been legal since 1973 – the same year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade, which established a right to abortion.

The Danish study included 365,550 teenagers and women who had an abortion or first-time delivery between 1995 and 2007. None had a history of psychiatric problems that required hospitalization. Through various national registries, researchers were able to track mental health counseling at a hospital or outpatient facility before and after an abortion or delivery.


Since I had all three of mine before 1992, I was not up to the latest findings. Thank you for pointing the above out.

REP

(21,691 posts)
46. Here are actual studies (and Koop was published in the 80s)
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:21 PM
Apr 2013

Long answer:

Abortion doesn't affect well-being, study says

New York Times (as printed in the San Jose Mercury 2/12/97)

Abortion does not trigger lasting emotional trauma in young women who
are psychologically healthy before they become pregnant, an eight-year
study of nearly 5,300 women has shown. Women who are in poor shape
emotionally after an abortion are likely to have been feeling bad about
their lives before terminating their pregnancies, the researchers said.

The findings, the researchers say, challenge the validity of laws
that have been proposed in many states, and passed in several, mandating
that women seeking abortions be informed of mental health risks.

The researchers, Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo, a psychologist at Arizona
State University in Tempe, and Dr. Amy Dabul Marin, a psychologist at
Phoenix College, examined the effects of race and religion on the
well-being of 773 women who reported on sealed questionnaires that
they had undergone abortions, and they compared the results with the
emotional status of women who did not report abortions.

The women, initially 14 to 24 years old, completed questionnaires and
were interviewed each year for eight years, starting in 1979. In 1980
and in 1987, the interview also included a standardized test that
measures overall well-being, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

"Given the persistent assertion that abortion is associated with
negative outcomes, the lack of any results in the context of such a
large sample is noteworthy," the researchers wrote. The study took
into account many factors that can influence a woman's emotional
well-being, including education, employment, income, the presence of
a spouse and the number of children.

Higher self-esteem was associated with being employed, having a
higher income, having more years of education and bearing fewer children,
but having had an abortion "did not make a difference," the researchers
reported. And the women's religious affiliations and degree of involvement
with religion did not have an independent effect on their long-term
reaction to abortion. Rather, the women's psychological well-being before
having abortions accounted for their mental state in the years after the
abortion, the researchers said..

In considering the influence of race, the researchers again found
that the women's level of self-esteem before having abortions was the
strongest predictor of their well-being after an abortion.

"Although highly religious Catholic women were slightly more likely
to exhibit post-abortion psychological distress than other women, this
fact is explained by lower pre-existing self-esteem," the researchers
wrote in the current issue of Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

Overall, Catholic women who attended church one or more times a week,
even those who had not had abortions, had generally lower self-esteem
than other women, although within the normal range, so it was hardly
surprising that they also had lower self-esteem after abortions, the
researchers said in interviews.

Gail Quinn, executive director of anti-abortion activities for the
United States Catholic Conference, said the findings belied the
experience of post-abortion counselors. She said, "While many women
express `relief' following an abortion, the relief is transitory."
In the long term, the experience prompts "hurting people to seek the
help of post-abortion healing services," she said.

The president of the National Right to Life Committee, Dr. Wanda
Franz, who earned her doctorate in developmental psychology, challenged
the researchers' conclusions. She said their assessment of self-esteem
"does not measure if a woman is mentally healthy," adding, "This requires
a specialist who performs certain tests, not a self-assessment of how
the woman feels about herself."

The Relationship of Abortion to Well-being: Do Race and Religion Make a Difference?
Nancy Felipe Russo and Amy J. Dabul
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 1997, Vol. 28, No , 23-31

Relationships of abortion and childbearing to well-being were examined for 1,189 Black and 3,147 White women. Education, income, and having a work role were positively and independently related to well-being for all women. Abortion did not have an independent relationship to well-being, regardless of race or religion, when well-being before becoming pregnant was controlled. These findings suggest professional psychologists should explore the origins of women's mental health problems in experiences predating their experience of abortion, and they can assist psychologists in working to ensure that mandated scripts from 'informed consent' legislation do not misrepresent scientific findings.


RUSSO, NANCY FELIPE
ZIERK, K.
Abortion, Childbearing, and Women's Well-Being
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice 23 (1992): 269-280. Also, http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_resea...
Cohort(s): NLSY79
ID Number: 4029
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)

This study is based on a secondary analysis of NLSY interview data from 5,295 women who were interviewed annually from 1979 to 1987. Among this group 773 women were identified in 1987 as having at least one abortion, with 233 of them reporting repeat abortions. Well-being was assessed in 1980 and 1987 by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The researchers used analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple regression to examine the combined and separate contributions of preabortion self-esteem, contextual variables (education, employment, income, and marital status), childbearing (being a parent, numbers of wanted and unwanted children) and abortion (having one abortion, having repeat abortions, number of abortions, time since last abortion) to women's post abortion self-esteem.




Most Women Do Not Feel Distress, Regret After Undergoing Abortion, Study Says



The majority of women who choose to have legal abortions do not experience regret or long-term negative emotional effects from their decision to undergo the procedure, according to a study published in the June issue of the journal Social Science & Medicine, NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest reports. Dr. A. Kero and colleagues in the Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology at University Hospital in Umea, Sweden, interviewed 58 women at periods of four months and 12 months after the women's abortions. The women also answered a questionnaire prior to their abortions that asked about their living conditions, decision-making processes and general attitudes toward the pregnancy and the abortion. According to the study, most women "did not experience any emotional distress post-abortion"; however, 12 of the women said they experienced severe distress immediately after the procedure. Almost all of the women said they felt little distress at the one-year follow-up interview. The women who said they experienced no post-abortion distress had indicated prior to the procedure that they opted not to give birth because they "prioritized work, studies, and/or existing children," according to the study. According to the researchers, "almost all" of the women said the abortion was a "relief or a form of taking responsibility," and more than half of the women said they experienced positive emotional experiences after the abortion such as "mental growth and maturity of the abortion process" (NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest, 7/12).

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports...

The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion--denied and completed

PK Dagg
Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont., Canada.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the available literature on the psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion, addressing both the issue of the effects of the abortion on the woman involved and the effects on the woman and on the child born when abortion is denied. METHOD: Papers reviewed were initially selected by using a Medline search. This procedure resulted in 225 papers being reviewed, which were further selected by limiting the papers to those reporting original research. Finally, studies were assessed as to whether or not they used control groups or objective, validated symptom measures. RESULTS: Adverse sequelae occur in a minority of women, and when such symptoms occur, they usually seem to be the continuation of symptoms that appeared before the abortion and are on the wane immediately after the abortion. Many women denied abortion show ongoing resentment that may last for years, while children born when the abortion is denied have numerous, broadly based difficulties in social, interpersonal, and occupational functions that last at least into early adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: With increasing pressure on access to abortion services in North America, nonpsychiatrist physicians and mental health professionals need to keep in mind the effects of both performing and denying therapeutic abortion. Increased research into these areas, focusing in particular on why some women are adversely affected by the procedure and clarifying the relationship issues involved, continues to be important.
Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148:578-585
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/conten...


Psychological sequelae of medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation.

Ashok PW, Hamoda H, Flett GM, Kidd A, Fitzmaurice A, Templeton A.

From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.

Background. Although not much research comparing the emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion is available, few studies have compared psychological sequelae following both methods of abortion early in the first trimester of pregnancy. The aim of this review was to assess the psychological sequelae and emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation. Methods. Partially randomized patient preference trial in a Scottish Teaching Hospital was conducted. The hospital anxiety and depression scales were used to assess emotional distress. Anxiety levels were also assessed using visual analog scales while semantic differential rating scales were used to measure self-esteem. A total of 368 women were randomized, while 77 entered the preference cohort. Results. There were no significant differences in hospital anxiety and depression scales scores for anxiety or depression between the groups. Visual analog scales showed higher anxiety levels in women randomized to surgery prior to abortion (P < 0.0001), while women randomized to surgical treatment were less anxious after abortion (P < 0.0001). Semantic differential rating scores showed a fall in self-esteem in the randomized medical group compared to those undergoing surgery (P = 0.02). Conclusions. Medical abortion at 10-13 weeks is effective and does not increase psychological morbidity compared to surgical vacuum aspiration and hence should be made available to all women undergoing abortion at these gestations.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005 Aug;84(8) 61-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...


Post abortion syndrome: myth or reality?

Koop CE.

What are the health effects upon a woman who has had an abortion? In his letter to President Reagan, dated January 9, 1989, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop wrote that in order to find an answer to this question the Public Health Service would need from 10 to 100 million dollars for a comprehensive study.

PIP: At a 1987 briefing for Right to Life leaders, the author--US Surgeon General C Everett Koop--was requested to prepare a comprehensive report on the health effects (mental and physical) of induced abortion. To prepare for this task, the author met with 27 groups with philosophical, social, medical, or other professional interests in the abortion issue; interviewed women who had undergone this procedure; and conducted a review of the more than 250 studies in the literature pertaining to the psychological impact of abortion. Every effort was made to eliminate the bias that surrounds this controversial issue. It was not possible, however, to reach any conclusions about the health effects of abortion. In general, the studies on the psychological sequelae of abortion indicate a low incidence of adverse mental health effects. On the other hand, the evidence tends to consist of case studies and the few nonanecdotal reports that exist contain serious methodological flaws. In terms of the physical effects, abortion has been associated with subsequent infertility, a damaged cervix, miscarriage, premature birth, and low birthweight. Again, there are methodological problems. 1st, these events are difficult to quantify since most abortions are performed in free-standing clinics where longterm outcome is not recorded. 2nd, it is impossible to casually link these adverse outcomes to the abortion per se. Resolution of this question requires a prospective study of a cohort of women of childbearing age in reference to the variable outcomes of mating--failure to conceive, miscarriage, abortion, and delivery. Ideally, such a study would be conducted over a 5-year period and would cost approximately US$100 million
Health Matrix. 1989 Summer;7(2):42-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...

Psychological sequelae of induced abortion.

Romans-Clarkson SE.

Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin, New Zealand.

This article reviews the scientific literature on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion. The methodology and results of studies carried out over the last twenty-two years are examined critically. The unanimous consensus is that abortion does not cause deleterious psychological effects. Women most likely to show subsequent problems are those who were pressured into the operation against their own wishes, either by relatives or because their pregnancy had medical or foetal contraindications. Legislation which restricts abortion causes problems for women with unwanted pregnancies and their doctors. It is also unjust, as it adversely most affects lower socio-economic class women.

PIP: A review of empirical studies on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion published since 1965 revealed no evidence of adverse effects. On the other hand, this review identified widespread methodological problems--improper sampling, lack of data on women's previous psychiatric history, a scarcity of prospective study designs, a lack of specified follow-up times or evaluation procedures, and a failure to distinguish between legal, illegal, and spontaneous abortions--that need to be addressed by psychiatric epidemiologists. Despite these methodological weaknesses, all 34 studies found significant improvement rather than deterioration in mental status after induced abortion. There was also a high degree of congruity in terms of predictors of adverse reactions after abortion--ambivalence about the procedure, a history of psychosocial instability, poor or absent family ties, psychiatric illness at the time of the pregnancy termination, and negative attitudes toward abortion in the broader society. As expected, criminal abortion is more likely than legal abortion to be associated with guilt, and women who have been denied therapeutic abortions report significantly greater psychosocial difficulties than those who have been granted abortion on the grounds of their precarious mental health. Overall, the research clearly attests that abortion carried out at a woman's request has no deleterious psychiatric consequences. Problems arise only when the woman undergoes pregnancy termination as a result of pressure from others. Legislation that undermines the ability of the pregnant woman to assess herself the impact of an unwanted pregnancy on her future impedes mental health and should be opposed by the psychiatric profession.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1989 Dec;23(4):555-65
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...

Psychological and social aspects of induced abortion.

Handy JA.

The literature concerning psychosocial aspects of induced abortion is reviewed. Key areas discussed are: the legal context of abortion in Britain, psychological characteristics of abortion-seekers, pre- and post-abortion contraceptive use, pre- and post-abortion counselling, the actual abortion and the effects of termination versus refused abortion. Women seeking termination are found to demonstrate more psychological disturbance than other women, however this is probably temporary and related to the short-term stresses of abortion. Inadequate contraception is frequent prior to abortion but improves afterwards. Few women find the decision to terminate easy and most welcome opportunities for non-judgemental counselling. Although some women experience adverse psychological sequelae after abortion the great majority do not. In contrast, refused abortion often results in psychological distress for the mother and an impoverished environment for the ensuing offspring.
Br J Clin Psychol. 1982 Feb;21 (Pt 1):29-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
48. I was living in Holland during the 1980's and pregnant with my first child in 1980.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 12:44 PM
Apr 2013
Abortion wasn't legalized in the Netherlands until 1984. My son was born in 1981.

Although I was seventeen when I was pregnant with my first child, I strongly believed that the choice to keep or terminate my pregnancy was still mine alone and I would have easily been helped should I have chosen to terminate my pregnancy - which was the preferred choice among friends, extended family, and direct family. They were even willing to pay for the procedure since our health insurance didn't cover it. The cost was around 3,000 guilders, I believe. Living in the Netherlands, that's the equivalent of $3,000 dollars - something I didn't have. Anyway, I guess they're pro-choice just as long as I chose their choices.

Despite my young age in 1980, I chose to keep it. These same people thought I was insane and they pressured me to have an abortion. But up until then, I had never heard any person who had an abortion say they didn't regret it, but the moment they found out I was pregnant and I told them I would see the pregnancy through, they began telling me that it's inconsequential, it's easy, it's painless, and I could go home within the hour. I didn't listen and my son is now 32 years old.

But when I found myself pregnant with my daughter in 1991, I was in dilemma. She wasn't planned and after having had my hands full on two difficult boys and a paraplegic father who lived with me, I really wasn't looking forward to a baby. I sat down with my GP and we talked. I was leaning toward terminating my eight-week pregnancy {again, same family, friends, and extended family were telling me to have an abortion - with different reasons}, and I asked the GP to set up the appointment. He was busy writing out a prescription for the clinic, and I asked him, "I heard it's painless". My very experienced General Practioner said, "Despite what you've heard, it's intrusive enough that you have to stay at the clinic for 24 hours. You will bleed. You may or may not suffer postpartum depression. Make your choice wisely." Despite my reservations, I didn't terminate my pregnancy, in part because my husband {father of all three of my children} wanted a daughter and this would be the last time I had that chance and in part because I had always been against abortion for myself.

My daughter was born and I couldn't be happier. She's now on her way to be a tax attorney, working for a highly respected attorney who's on retainer with giants like Walgreens, Chase, 7-11 Stores, 99cents Stores, and who has a 93% success rate. He and his wife have already told her that they want her to take over his firm in twenty years, and next year when she's 22, she will be the VP of New Relations that carries a yearly salary of $100-$125K.

Hindsight being 20/20, I am happy I made the right choice for me not to listen to people who were trying to guilt-trip me and pressure me into terminating either of my pregnancies.

As I've tried to explain in my previous post, I'm personally against abortions. But I am strongly pro-choice. I believe that making a decision for another woman/girl is outright wrong, either way. I hope that explained it for you.

REP

(21,691 posts)
50. I'm sorry your doctor was a lying piece of shit.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 02:15 PM
Apr 2013

You know what they call medical students who graduated last in their class? Doctor. He's a fine example. Then again, I wouldn't get gynecological advice from a General Practioner. As I hope the numerous studies I provided for you demonstrate, that doctor was wrong.

My first gynecologist was in practice when women were showing up in emergency rooms dead or dying from back-alley abortions. Then again, I am from the Mid-West, and I actually knew doctors like Dr Dale Clinton and Dr Malcom Knarr.

Everyone should make her own decision; no one should be lied to, either.

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
4. I prefer "Fetus worshipper"
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:48 AM
Apr 2013

Although even that doesn't quite capture their thinking, since they care not for the actual health of the fetus. But the holy fetus is an icon they worship.

Shrike47

(6,913 posts)
5. Forced birth.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 10:59 AM
Apr 2013

I sometimes think we should propose that the government test all people for tissue characteristics and force kidney donations to those in need. Don't want to give somebody else your kidney? Tough.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
17. ^^^This^^^
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:57 AM
Apr 2013

Forced-Birth is the single most accurate description of what these people are about. They don't care about "the sanctity of life"; if they did, they would be promoting social spending, school breakfasts and lunches, meals on wheels and the like. And they would be avidly anti-war. And they'd want a better quality of life for everyone.

Instead they are pro-war, anti-government spending (except for "defense&quot , and they hate their neighbors if they are of a different color or religion or political view.

ALL they care about is forcing women to give birth, regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy. Their souls are shriveled and they get off on being hateful and punitive.

Mind you, I do understand that some are brainwashed enough that they THINK they believe in the sanctity of life. But they have never examined their beliefs, so their fervor is more akin to team spirit than to actual spiritual belief.

 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
7. I'm convinced that the "pro-life" crowd isn't actually concerned about fetuses, either.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:05 AM
Apr 2013

Their *real* issue is what they consider illicit sex. Abortion rights are just a foot in the door for banning contraceptives.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
9. Bingo.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:10 AM
Apr 2013

They want to control behavior, and carrying to term is ABSOLUTELY intended as a punishment for 'doing the deed', rather than adapting to their artificial construct 'morality'.

Sex serves social purposes besides pro-creation. Not everyone who has sex needs or wants a baby. Not everyone can afford a child at all. Too many children can knock you directly into poverty.

People should choose when and how they want to become parents. Choosing to have sex is not choosing to become a parent.

BlancheSplanchnik

(20,219 posts)
44. it's only punishment for women who have sex. No scrutiny of men and their sex lives.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 07:36 PM
Apr 2013

Forcing women to give birth not only punishes them as gawd intended, but knocks them out of the job market, leaving work available for men, as gawd intended.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
8. Pro-life till it hits atmosphere.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:07 AM
Apr 2013

Then it better be ready to gnaw some bootstraps out of the sheet it's wrapped in and get a job, cause it's on it's own.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
12. ^ In a nutshell
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:38 AM
Apr 2013

I once had a conversation with a state rep who considered himself pro-life. He pointed out that the republicans "only care until their born."

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
11. Anti-woman
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:27 AM
Apr 2013

Because not allowing a woman to make her own decisions for her health and life is hatred of women plain and simple.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
14. Oh the ignorance!
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:41 AM
Apr 2013

And South Bashing!
Like the comment on the site where someone brings in the "need for cheap labor" meme into the "every sperm is sacred" creed.... and of course we get:

"it’s no coincidence that gop is the party of the old confederacy…"



Hey "Airdrummer" .... the party of the old Confederacy was Democrat. Things have changed. Jesus!

Do they even teach American History any more?????

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
15. Changed mostly in the 60's.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:48 AM
Apr 2013

The Pre-64 Dixiecrats mostly jumped ship to the republican party after the 1964 CRA. The labels have stayed static (Since the Whigs) for the two main parties, but the content/character have flopped dramatically. On everything, even suffrage and equal treatment of gay people.

The Republican Party welcomed in the segregationists and whatnot, along with the evangelicals, so they carry some of that legacy forward with them, in the Republican Party itself, even if the official party platform was the opposite, back then.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
20. Changed mostly in the 60's.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 12:28 PM
Apr 2013

Indeed. I knew all that.

But South Bashing is ridiculous nowadays...

Yes the South has been the seat of organized prejudice throughout the 20th century. But y'know, AZ, WY, ND, SD, AK.... even TX are not the South (cowboys and longhorns are a Western thing)

It just seems to me that regional differences are just old fashioned moot points these days. Even blue states, once you get away from urban areas, are not all lovey dovey.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
25. Did you write Rand Paul's speech for Howard University?
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 12:48 PM
Apr 2013

No.

I am a gay democrat living in NC....

Did you think you knew who I was?.... and where oh so clever?

Did you miss the whole point while trying to be better than I?

azureblue

(2,145 posts)
16. Add- disobeying God
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 11:50 AM
Apr 2013

This one always gets their drawers in a twist: The church, for hundreds of years, used the Biblical definition of "Life begins at first breath"

After God formed man in Genesis 2:07, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.
Job 33:4, it states: “The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”

Ezekiel 37: 5&6, “Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.”

Exodus 21:22 if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he shall be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death. From this an aborted fetus is not considered a living human being.

According to the bible, destroying a living fetus does not equate to killing a living human being even though the fetus has the potential of becoming a human being. One can not kill something that has not been born and taken a breath.

So all you have to do when these anti abortionists get in your face is tell them they are going to hell for disobeying God, they are using the name of Christ for their own purposes, and the Bible says they are wrong. And, if the Bible says it, that settles it, (to quote one of their favorite rejoinders)

crim son

(27,464 posts)
26. +1
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 12:51 PM
Apr 2013

Anti-choicers usually claim religion as the foundation for their prejudice. Your post would prove them dead wrong... if they weren't absolutely capable of ignoring what doesn't serve their ignorance. I've tried to have this discussion before and there are always claims of lies or bad translations.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
31. The Exodus quote flies in the face of what these people are trying to do
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 01:51 PM
Apr 2013

As in the tragedy in Ireland, they allow the woman to die rather than aborting the fetus. Because the woman's life is not worth anything other than as a carrier for the fetus.

alfredo

(60,071 posts)
28. I had an aunt that was part of Operation Rescue. After a carafe of wine she bragged that the
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 12:57 PM
Apr 2013

ultimate goal of the "pro life" movement was to ban in vitro fertilization and birth control.

The last time I saw her she was standing by my father's casket, cigarette in hand, ashes dangerously close to falling in the casket. She was completely unaware that she was blocking the way for others who wanted to view the body, and that smoking in the funeral home was discouraged. She had a loud booming voice that could have waked the dead.


Ms. Toad

(33,999 posts)
29. The article is accurate for many people who call themselves pro-life -
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 12:59 PM
Apr 2013

But there are also people - fellow activists in the faith communities, particularly the traditional peace churches) who really are pro-life (i.e. oppose the death penalty, oppose war (including drone attacks, nuclear weapons, land mines), oppose torture and so on - and who are working to end poverty, homelessness, for universal access to health care, and to make every child a wanted child (via birth control and/or promotion of adoption - often open adoption so that the parent-child relationship isn't severed) and so on.

Please don't paint all people who oppose abortion as hypocrites. That population does include more than its share of hypocrites - but it also includes the most consistently and broadly pro-life people I know.

Small Accumulates

(149 posts)
35. I disagree. Those very good works do not balance or obliterate the injustice of the anti-choice..
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 02:24 PM
Apr 2013

...position. The anti-choice position and activism harms, and even kills, women. No volume of good works, and those you site are very good works indeed, mitigates the harm of denying women access to necessary reproductive care. I am particularly dismayed when people who see so clearly the injustices that others cause and commit are unable to see their own.

Ms. Toad

(33,999 posts)
36. The question isn't whether you agree with their choices
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 02:38 PM
Apr 2013

It is whether the label pro-life is an accurate description of their posture toward life. It is for the group of people I am thinking of - some of whom I know personally.

You may disagree with how their core beliefs play out in how they live their lives, but they are consistently pro-life - in many instances much more consistently pro-life than those who would criticize them for hypocrisy.

As to your unrelated point (whether being pro-life consistently across the board) makes one inherently bad because I disagree with their position on one issue. I would be very surprised if I agree with all of your political or social advocacy positions. Just because I disagree with some of what you believe and advocate does not make either one of us a bad person. I rarely find a single issue the deciding factor as to whether I find someone worthy of my approval.

Small Accumulates

(149 posts)
41. Savita Halappanavar and her grieving husband might disagree
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:18 PM
Apr 2013

And you might want to check your conclusions. I don't want or need to be in a position to judge people as good or bad, to award or deny my approval to them as human beings; your mileage may vary. I am, however, able to determine whether someone's actions have good or bad effect. And the anti-choice attitude and actions have bad effect on women and their families.

Ms. Toad

(33,999 posts)
42. The title to the OP was "Pro-life" is a lie.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 05:01 PM
Apr 2013

I was addressing that, and the article associated with it which asserted that people who call themselves pro-life are hypocrites or that the label is false (because of positions many people who call themselves pro-life take with regard to things like death penalty, war, justice issues, and so on which are blatantly inconsistent with a pro-life philosophy). What I was pointing out is that there is a subset of people who consistently take a pro-life position, across the board.

You did not respond to that. You compared all of the good works against a single aspect of a philosophy which is consistently pro-life with which you disagree. That has nothing to do with whether the group of people I am speaking of are hypocrites or whether the title is a lie when applied to them. It has everything to do with judging whether a single position is more important from your perspective than every other thing they do (or even position they take) from your perspective. The group of people I am speaking of really do believe - consistently - that it is not our right to choose to take the life of another human. Any life including, from their perspective, the life of an unborn child.

Those are two different questions. I addressed the former. If you want to judge people based on a single position they take, that is your business. I don't, as a general matter. But whether you approve of their consistent posture toward life - it is not a hypocritical position.

REP

(21,691 posts)
39. I agree with you. Denying women autonomy can never be justified, no matter how prettified
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 02:57 PM
Apr 2013

I don't care how piously or sanctimoniously their actions are meant; denying women their full humanity is loathsome, just as it when it done to anyone else.

Ms. Toad

(33,999 posts)
43. Nothing wrong with that belief.
Mon Apr 29, 2013, 05:04 PM
Apr 2013

What I was addressing was attaching the label hypocritical to pro-life when it is applied to this group of people who are consistently pro-life. Agree with them or not on the question of how that influences their position on abortion these people, who are some of the strongest allies in peace and social justice work, are not hypocritical.

Raffi Ella

(4,465 posts)
49. This is the issue that brought me to politics back in 2004, Roe.
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 01:21 PM
Apr 2013

I terminated a pregnancy when I was 19 and there were protestors there. The thought that if it was up to them? that I would be forced to be pregnant/have a baby!? omg.

Yeah, I've NEVER called them Pro-life. The abortion procedure and Our access to it is the law: It's Our right to choose.

Call them what they are: Anti Women's Rights activists.

DainBramaged

(39,191 posts)
51. They are anti-child because once it stops being a fetus they walk away
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 02:31 PM
Apr 2013

and could give a shit how it's raised or supported or even fed.

klyon

(1,697 posts)
52. the phrase "pro-life" was originally coined to refer to people in favor of life in prison
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 02:49 PM
Apr 2013

sentences and against the death penalty

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»“Pro-Life” Is A Lie, Here...