crisis pregnancy centers as portrayed on Full Frontal

[SparklyUnicorn]

Oh, sure it's a life.  

Come on.  Own it.

 

I think the solution would be that we develop the ability to "grow" the life outside of the womb.  But if it cannot survive outside of the womb and relies on the host body (sorry to refer to it in that way..) then yeah the host kinda has the bigger argument there.  This is not to say the details are nice.  They aren't. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

But my point is that by saying, oh, I understand that abortion is truly awful and I'm very much personally against it, etc. etc., it's implying that there is a real moral problem with abortion. What I'm saying is that I have no moral issues with early term abortions whatsoever. I think there's not a medical justification for there to be a deep moral debate.

 

I don't disagree.  I guess I wish there was another way, but there isn't.  I don't believe in forcing people to carry a pregnancy to term.  That to me is a slippery slope. 

[SKL]

I think the solution would be that we develop the ability to "grow" the life outside of the womb.  But if it cannot survive outside of the womb and relies on the host body (sorry to refer to it in that way..) then yeah the host kinda has the bigger argument there.  This is not to say the details are nice.  They aren't. 

 

The embryo/early stage fetus generally requires nothing other than to be left alone though.  It doesn't require someone to go get some formula or change its diapers or anything.  Maybe what people really mean to say is that it's not a life unless/until it requires outside effort to keep it alive?

 

ETA yes, I know some pregnancies are hard, but my point is that the definition of life as "when it can survive without someone taking care of it" is bass ackwards.  Most kids require a lot more effort after they reach what people consider "viability."

 

Seems a lot of rationalizing is going on.

Edited May 11, 2016 by SKL

[EmseB]

I love how these people -- who have nothing financial to gain, and are giving of their time and money to save lives and we must do an expose` on their evil lies. And emotional manipulation so that women think there might be something to their pregnancy other than a clump of cells. Maybe a human being. These were the people back in the day who would have done a hit piece on people who told lies to get slaves through the underground railroad. Lying is immoral don't you know? Meanwhile, killing tiny humans is a multi-million dollar industry.

 

But, we live in a society where people will riot in the street for the right to kill their own offspring (not just that but the state must be made to finance it!) so nothing really surprises me anymore, even if it is sickening.

Edited May 11, 2016 by JodiSue

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I love how these people -- who have nothing financial to gain, and are giving of their time and money to save lives and we must do an expose` on their evil lies. And emotional manipulation so that women think there might be something to their pregnancy other than a clump of cells. Maybe a human being. These were the people back in the day who would have done a hit piece on people who told lies to get slaves through the underground railroad. Lying is immoral don't you know? Meanwhile, killing tiny humans is a multi-million dollar industry.

 

But, we live in a society where people will riot in the street for the right to kill their own offspring (not just that but the state must be made to finance it!) so nothing really surprises me anymore, even if it is sickening.

 

The bolded only has a passing acquaintance with reality.

 

Quick quiz: how many federal dollars are spent on abortions each year that are not due to incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother?

 

[Ausmumof3]

So you think I'm a liar? Then why in the world would you want to dialogue? Really, this is pretty insulting. But anyway, here is one from a quick google search.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/after-birth-abortion-can-they-be-serious/2012/03/03/gIQADgiOsR_blog.html

It sounds like this was a thought experiment by a bunch of ethicists not in anyway a group actually advocating this as a real suggestion.

[poppy]

I

I love how these people -- who have nothing financial to gain, and are giving of their time and money to save lives and we must do an expose` on their evil lies. And emotional manipulation so that women think there might be something to their pregnancy other than a clump of cells. Maybe a human being. These were the people back in the day who would have done a hit piece on people who told lies to get slaves through the underground railroad. Lying is immoral don't you know? Meanwhile, killing tiny humans is a multi-million dollar industry.

But, we live in a society where people will riot in the street for the right to kill their own offspring (not just that but the state must be made to finance it!) so nothing really surprises me anymore, even if it is sickening.

 

What on earth?  No.

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

The fetus/baby requires nothing other than to be left alone though.  It doesn't require someone to go get some formula or change its diapers or anything.  Maybe what people really mean to say is that it's not a life unless/until it requires outside effort to keep it alive?

 

Seems a lot of rationalizing is going on.

 

 

Have you ever been pregnant?

 

If not, then you have nothing to say about what it's like.  I was sick every single day of my pregnancies.  I had to leave my job early and be put on bed rest for months.  They put me on medication to stop early contractions that made me feel like tearing my skin off.

 

It certainly was a lot more than "nothing".

[Ausmumof3]

Except that it's not a life until it can live on its own. Should we force a woman to continue a pregnancy that will harm her mental or physical health? That was the result of rape? That she just doesn't want?

 

Being pregnant is hard. It can make you feel miserable between the nausea, the sciatica, the heartburn, the joint pain and those are just the lighter symptoms. What if it exacerbates a heart condition? Puts too much stress on your kidneys? What if you have other kids and you might become incapable of taking care of them? Can we force a woman to do this?

 

This is why there have always been abortions. They are not going away. They will just be illegal and dangerous.

most babies can't survive without help even after birth. If it's not a life till it can live on its own it's probably not a life till well after birth. In some times of history newborns were dispensed with by simply being left out on the mountains.

 

If you mean it's not a life till it can survive outside the womb that's a more useful line as it provides and actual point in time - 34 weeks or so I guess.

 

I don't think either definition is scientific though.

[SparklyUnicorn]

And I planned and wanted to be pregnant!  Imagine if not.

 

 

[LucyStoner]

Oh, sure it's a life.

Come on. Own it.

If it's a life on the same level as a child who has been born and life is so sacred, why then do 1/5-1/4 of lives get taken by miscarriage?

 

I would not have an abortion. At times I thought I might but I was wrong. I could not do it.

 

I have two children. I've had *many* more pregnancies, none of which ended on abortion. I miscarried almost every year (and sometimes 2x a year) from age 24-32 and after a three year break, miscarried again at 35. Nothing, not one thing, can compellingly prove to me that I have more than 2 children or that my nearly 13 year old son and 7 year old son are not more validly considered life than all the pregnancies I have, as a young and healthy woman, lost.

 

Politically I remain prochoice because I get to decide for exactly one body: my own. I have no way of knowing if it is in the best interest of a woman or a family to have a child or of determining what I would do if pregnant and knew the baby couldn't live past birth.

Edited May 11, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Ausmumof3]

There is a difference between dealing with someone who is pregnant and looking forward to the birth of a child versus dealing with someone who is at the early stage of a pregnancy who is trying to make a decision.

Yes I agree, I'm just pointing out that this kind of neutral scientific language is only used in certain situations where it suits a purpose. It doesn't mean it's wrong to use that language but it does mean that whichever set of language is being used is loaded. If one terminology was used for all early pregnancy situations then the language would not be loaded or manipulative.

[justasque]

 

 

 

The fetus/baby requires nothing other than to be left alone though.  It doesn't require someone to go get some formula or change its diapers or anything.  Maybe what people really mean to say is that it's not a life unless/until it requires outside effort to keep it alive?

 

Seems a lot of rationalizing is going on.

 

SKL, have you ever been pregnant?  I can assure you that although some people may have relative easy pregnancies, saying that "the fetus/baby requires nothing other than to be left alone" is shockingly naive and nowhere near the truth.  This trivializes the real physical, mental, spiritual, and emotional work that people do while pregnant.  It also trivializes the support that pregnant people need - the medical support, the emotional support, the on-the-job accommodations. Ideally every pregnant woman will have someone (or a group of someones) to help make sure they have healthy food and the rest they need.  Pregnancy is hard work.  Don't trivialize it.  

Edited May 11, 2016 by justasque

[Ausmumof3]

It suits the purpose of holding a space open for a woman as she navigates her choices. Is that an agenda ? If you want to call a foundational counselling skill an agenda, sure.

I don't know. I'm all for accurate information in medical situations. If id previously aborted a fetus at 12 weeks because I believed it was a bundle of cells and then with a later child I'd seen on an ultrasound what a 12 week old looked like it might give me pause. I think I think choices should be available but they should be fully informed choices. Theoretically every kid has seen baby development and school and seen this stuff I guess but I don't know. I didn't know what to expect when I went in for my 12 week scan.

[SKL]

I haven't noticed any frothing or unhinged behavior in this thread other than the link in the OP and some of the anger associated with it.  Again, the linked video was a tasteless joke - not a documentary.

[LucyStoner]

The fetus/baby requires nothing other than to be left alone though. It doesn't require someone to go get some formula or change its diapers or anything. Maybe what people really mean to say is that it's not a life unless/until it requires outside effort to keep it alive?

 

Seems a lot of rationalizing is going on.

 

What?

 

I vomited several or more times a day from week 5 to week 35 while pregnant with my younger son. I worked more than FT, and in constant pain until 2 days prior to his 35 week arrival. I was hospitalized more than once so they could get me hydrated again because I couldn't keep down plain water and odds were even I couldn't keep down the only fluid that sometimes stayed down (which was, of all things, diluted vitamin water). The dehydration led to a severe kidney infection. Before the advent of IV fluids and such women sometimes DIED from pregnancies like this. Abortion was actually one of the treatments they used to use as the only cure for it is to deliver the placenta. I was extremely malnourished when my son was born. My pregnancy had to be followed extra closely so besides the ER visits and in patient treatment, I was at the midwife on the regular.

 

Live through a rough pregnancy before you try to make such asinine claims as "the fetus requires nothing other than to be left alone." Or just for funsies try to live off of sips of diluted vitamin water and small amounts of dry cereal and then take an emetic several times a day. Not easy. Not by any measure.

Edited May 11, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Ananda]

I don't understand why discussions about abortion always become so inflammatory.  Why talk about "murdering tiny children" or calling people "anti-choice"?  Honestly, I am extremely pro-life myself, but I fail to understand why people think it is either ethical or effective to lie, to alienate the other side with shocking language/picture whatever, or to dehumanize the pregnant women.  

 

IMO the best way, both in terms of valuing human life & in terms of likely efficacy would be to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible in the first place.  I advocate for quality sexual education and affordable & available contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy.    I think people who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant should not feel pushed into abortions by their families or their personal circumstances.  Provide quality prenatal care for all women.  Provide services to people who need them.   I think there are many ideas that would make a better world for both sides of the debate.  

 

 

[Ausmumof3]

I don't understand why discussions about abortion always become so inflammatory. Why talk about "murdering tiny children" or calling people "anti-choice"? Honestly, I am extremely pro-life myself, but I fail to understand why people think it is either ethical or effective to lie, to alienate the other side with shocking language/picture whatever, or to dehumanize the pregnant women.

 

IMO the best way, both in terms of valuing human life & in terms of likely efficacy would be to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible in the first place. I advocate for quality sexual education and affordable & available contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy. I think people who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant should not feel pushed into abortions by their families or their personal circumstances. Provide quality prenatal care for all women. Provide services to people who need them. I think there are many ideas that would make a better world for both sides of the debate.

Yep and provide way better ongoing support for those who do have babies in difficult circumstances.

[zoobie]

The fetus/baby requires nothing other than to be left alone though. It doesn't require someone to go get some formula or change its diapers or anything. Maybe what people really mean to say is that it's not a life unless/until it requires outside effort to keep it alive?

 

Seems a lot of rationalizing is going on.

 

Says someone who has never been pregnant.

 

Pregnancy is hard. I've had four babies. I had HG during three pregnancies, requiring hospitalization with one. I had significant medical issues during one pregnancy that I couldn't treat until after delivery. I have had four (medically necessary) caesarean surgeries, one of which was medically harrowing for me. Buying formula and diapers is easier and not life-threatening or altering for the mother. Equating it to such is utterly ridiculous.

[SKL]

Have you ever been pregnant?

 

If not, then you have nothing to say about what it's like.  I was sick every single day of my pregnancies.  I had to leave my job early and be put on bed rest for months.  They put me on medication to stop early contractions that made me feel like tearing my skin off.

 

It certainly was a lot more than "nothing".

 

Yes, I know some pregnancies are hard, but my point is that the definition of life as "when it can survive without someone taking care of it" is bass ackwards.  Most kids require a lot more effort after they reach what people consider "viability."

 

I edited my post to reflect the above.

[Ausmumof3]

I use 'anti-choice' because it's an accurate descriptor. People who are anti-abortion often ( but not always) wish to deny a pregnant woman access to terminations. They don't wish her to have a choice. Hence, they are anti-choice. Not using their preferred descriptor - pro-life - is a deliberate rejection of the way that term obscures the anti-choice agenda.

 

It's not used out of hate. I don't hate any posters in this thread who are passionately anti-choice - I do loathe their rhetoric and their defence of deception, but I don't hate them. (And I have reason to, having been spat on by their kind, and called a 'baby-murderer' here on these forums. But I don't.)

I don't know how useful terminology is though as I think it's a fairly nuanced topic. I think there's a position that's both pro choice and pro life.

[SKL]

I use 'anti-choice' because it's an accurate descriptor. People who are anti-abortion often ( but not always) wish to deny a pregnant woman access to terminations. They don't wish her to have a choice. Hence, they are anti-choice. Not using their preferred descriptor - pro-life - is a deliberate rejection of the way that term obscures the anti-choice agenda.

 

It's not used out of hate. I don't hate any posters in this thread who are passionately anti-choice - I do loathe their rhetoric and their defence of deception, but I don't hate them. (And I have reason to, having been spat on by their kind, and called a 'baby-murderer' here on these forums. But I don't.) 

 

Anti abortion makes more sense because that is usually the only choice they oppose.  They (usually) do not oppose many other choices that result in a woman not parenting a child.

[LucyStoner]

Yes, I know some pregnancies are hard, but my point is that the definition of life as "when it can survive without someone taking care of it" is bass ackwards. Most kids require a lot more effort after they reach what people consider "viability."

 

I edited my post to reflect the above.

Even my easy full term pregnancy with my oldest was more work than you claimed.

 

And I can get help once the baby is born with the work. No one can sip fluids slowly all through the day or run to the bathroom to vomit 3 minutes before a work event or take over the work of the pregnancy for me so I could have 1 vomit free afternoon.

 

You do not know of what you speak.

[justasque]

Yes, I know some pregnancies are hard, but my point is that the definition of life as "when it can survive without someone taking care of it" is bass ackwards.  Most kids require a lot more effort after they reach what people consider "viability."

 

I edited my post to reflect the above.

 

I think you're misunderstanding.  "When it can survive without someone taking care of it" is not how it's usually stated.  It is more usually framed as "When it can survive by being taken care of by someone other than the mother, who until that point is necessary for survival".  

[SKL]

Even my easy full term pregnancy with my oldest was more work than you claimed.

 

And I can get help once the baby is born with the work. No one can sip fluids slowly all through the day or run to the bathroom to vomit 3 minutes before a work event or take over the work of the pregnancy for me so I could have 1 vomit free afternoon.

 

You do not know of what you speak.

 

But if having to help the kid stay alive is the logic for being free to terminate, then that would mean they are free game after they are born, especially if they're colicky or pukey or take a long time to potty train.

 

The logic for defining life that way doesn't work, is what I'm saying.

 

[SKL]

I think you're misunderstanding.  "When it can survive without someone taking care of it" is not how it's usually stated.  It is more usually framed as "When it can survive by being taken care of by someone other than the mother, who until that point is necessary for survival".  

 

Well ... depends on how you define mother.  There are implanted embryos that survive.

 

[justasque]

But if having to help the kid stay alive is the logic for being free to terminate, then that would mean they are free game after they are born, especially if they're colicky or pukey or take a long time to potty train.

 

The logic for defining life that way doesn't work, is what I'm saying.

 

 

Nonsense.  At that point, they can be taken care of by others.  Good grief.  

 

"Free game after they are born"?  No one here - or anywhere else outside of theoretical "devil's advocate" discussions in college ethics classes - is advocating anything of the sort.  

[Ananda]

I use 'anti-choice' because it's an accurate descriptor. People who are anti-abortion often ( but not always) wish to deny a pregnant woman access to terminations. They don't wish her to have a choice. Hence, they are anti-choice. Not using their preferred descriptor - pro-life - is a deliberate rejection of the way that term obscures the anti-choice agenda.

 

It's not used out of hate. I don't hate any posters in this thread who are passionately anti-choice - I do loathe their rhetoric and their defence of deception, but I don't hate them. (And I have reason to, having been spat on by their kind, and called a 'baby-murderer' here on these forums. But I don't.) 

 

Anti-choice is neither accurate (for me, maybe for some), nor charitable.    In ideal magical fantasy land . . . everyone would enter in to loving, responsible sexual relationships their chosen method of contraception never fails.  There would be no infertility or miscarriage or still birth.  Pregnancies and births would all be healthy & joyous.  All children would be born into perfect little happy families where everything is rainbows & unicorns.  And yes in my ideal world there would be no abortion.  Our world is far from that world.

 

I do want women to have choices.  I want them to be able to chose the circumstances under which they have sex.  I want them to be able to  chose whether or not to get pregnant.  I want them to be free to choose to raise their child is that is what they would like to do.  On the issue of abortion in the real world, yes, I am against it.  

 

I don't understand what you me by "deny a pregnant woman access to terminations."  I thought medical providers terminated pregnancies.  Isn't that what abortions are, terminating pregnancies?   As far as I know, abortions are available.  Perhaps they are not as accessible or affordable as the pro-choice would prefer?  I don't know. . . 

 

I understand why you are calling me anti-choice.  I don't think it furthers the dialogue.  I use your preferred descriptor instead of "anti-life".   But I will certainly let that side debate go.  It isn't horribly offensive or anything.  I'm sorry that you loathe my rhetoric.  Anything specific that would be helpful to you?  I am okay with using fetus instead of baby for example.  I certainly do not defend deception.  (And I did call out the "baby murderer" rhetoric as well).  

[Ausmumof3]

Sure. But the clinics under discussion are not pro choice and pro life. And those defending them are not pro choice and pro life.

 

Are there individuals around who are pro life ( especially for themselves ) and pro choice (especially for others ) ? Obviously. Some of them have posted on this thread. That's definitely a position I can respect. Ironically, because people with that approach aren't wasting their time on deceiving pregnant women and picketing clinics etc, I think they tend to do the most in terms of actually supporting women, before - but more importantly, after - birth. Hence being more effective in supporting women to continue with pregnancies.

Yep agreed.

 

Do clinics like this exist in Australia? I thought it was more of an American thing.

[ktgrok]

Btdt.

 

Terminating the pregnancy to an abusive partner when I was 19 was the best life decision I ever made. I experienced those eight weeks as a nightmare of seeing how my life would play out for the subsequent 18 years, shackled to this man. No rosy joy for me. 

 

People frothing at the mouth on this issue would honestly be better off pouring all that passion into making sure that young people know how to avoid pregnancy, have access to birth control, and understand how to avoid abusive partners. That would 'save babies' by making sure conception didn't occur, or it occured in a context where keeping the baby was a viable option as much as is humanly possible. 

 

I agree totally with this. I find myself in some nowhere zone where I think abortion is a tragedy, and a killing of a life, but I also think that sometimes it is the best option. And that rather than spending billions of dollars trying to make it illegal we should do what it takes to help women be able to carry their pregnancy. I'm fairly certain that universal healthcare, paid maternity leave, quality affordable daycare, etc would do a heck of a lot more to prevent abortions than protesters carrying signs. 

 

I'm sorry you were in that situation, and that you had to make that choice in the first place. I have zero animosity towards you and feel I have no right to judge any woman in such a situation. 

[justasque]

... Honestly, I am extremely pro-life myself, ...

 

IMO the best way, both in terms of valuing human life & in terms of likely efficacy would be to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible in the first place.  

I advocate for quality sexual education and affordable & available contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy.  

 I think people who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant should not feel pushed into abortions by their families or their personal circumstances.  

Provide quality prenatal care for all women.  

Provide services to people who need them.  ...

 

 

...

 

I do want women to have choices.  

I want them to be able to chose the circumstances under which they have sex.  

I want them to be able to  chose whether or not to get pregnant.  

I want them to be free to choose to raise their child is that is what they would like to do.  

 

 

On the issue of abortion in the real world, yes, I am against it.  

I don't understand what you me by "deny a pregnant woman access to terminations."  I thought medical providers terminated pregnancies.  Isn't that what abortions are, terminating pregnancies?   As far as I know, abortions are available.  Perhaps they are not as accessible or affordable as the pro-choice would prefer?  I don't know. . . 

 

...I am okay with using fetus instead of baby for example.  I certainly do not defend deception.  (And I did call out the "baby murderer" rhetoric as well).  

 

Your position, then, assuming you are not pro-making-abortion-illegal, and that you are for giving people the support they need to prevent unwanted pregnancies* and, if they do fall pregnant, to keep their babies should they so choose, you are in the "safe, legal, and rare" crowd, would most accurately be described as "pro-choice".  In the US anyway, "pro-choice" is a position on the legality of abortion services, not on the morality of abortions.  It is altogether possible - in fact I'd argue that it is the prevailing position -to want to minimize abortions while still feeling each pregnant person should make the choice for themselves. 

 

*(Some abortions, of course, are of very much wanted babies; that would part of the "rare" category.)

Edited May 11, 2016 by justasque

[Ausmumof3]

They sure do. I walk to a friend\s house past a private abortion provider. Right next to it is 1. people seeking to intimidate women trying to enter and 2. a 'pregnancy crisis center' that does much of what is described in the original article. This is in central Sydney. It's a model that's been imported from the US.

I live under a rock obviously ...

[LucyStoner]

I agree totally with this. I find myself in some nowhere zone where I think abortion is a tragedy, and a killing of a life, but I also think that sometimes it is the best option. And that rather than spending billions of dollars trying to make it illegal we should do what it takes to help women be able to carry their pregnancy. I'm fairly certain that universal healthcare, paid maternity leave, quality affordable daycare, etc would do a heck of a lot more to prevent abortions than protesters carrying signs.

 

I'm sorry you were in that situation, and that you had to make that choice in the first place. I have zero animosity towards you and feel I have no right to judge any woman in such a situation.

All the services and healthcare and daycare and paid leave don't really solve the issue of being legally tied to an abuser for the rest of your life. DV batterers get shared custody all the time, often for the sole purpose of hurting the mother. In some places the abusers consent is required for an adoption. Some even get full custody. Heck, courts have awarded visitation or joint custody to convicted rapists. There is no way to make giving birth the best option for all women.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Anti-choice is neither accurate (for me, maybe for some), nor charitable.    In ideal magical fantasy land . . . everyone would enter in to loving, responsible sexual relationships their chosen method of contraception never fails.  There would be no infertility or miscarriage or still birth.  Pregnancies and births would all be healthy & joyous.  All children would be born into perfect little happy families where everything is rainbows & unicorns.  And yes in my ideal world there would be no abortion.  Our world is far from that world.

 

I do want women to have choices.  I want them to be able to chose the circumstances under which they have sex.  I want them to be able to  chose whether or not to get pregnant.  I want them to be free to choose to raise their child is that is what they would like to do.  On the issue of abortion in the real world, yes, I am against it.  

 

I don't understand what you me by "deny a pregnant woman access to terminations."  I thought medical providers terminated pregnancies.  Isn't that what abortions are, terminating pregnancies?   As far as I know, abortions are available.  Perhaps they are not as accessible or affordable as the pro-choice would prefer?  I don't know. . . 

 

I understand why you are calling me anti-choice.  I don't think it furthers the dialogue.  I use your preferred descriptor instead of "anti-life".   But I will certainly let that side debate go.  It isn't horribly offensive or anything.  I'm sorry that you loathe my rhetoric.  Anything specific that would be helpful to you?  I am okay with using fetus instead of baby for example.  I certainly do not defend deception.  (And I did call out the "baby murderer" rhetoric as well).  

 

It is accurate if you advocate removing the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

 

Regarding the bolded, surely you are aware that there are groups who would like deny women the right to terminate pregnancies, right?

[SKL]

This post and its comments aren't about the legality of abortions though.  It's about whether it's horrible to talk to a pregnant woman about other options.  And then we get into whether certain words (like "baby") are nasty and manipulative in that context.  And whether the word "choice" is a moral or purely legal concept in the abortion context.

 

It's kind of like the discussion of spanking.  Spanking is legal in the USA and most other countries.  Some people think it's morally wrong.  They accept that it's legal, but still wish people wouldn't do it.  They don't think it's terrible to tell parents that maybe spanking isn't the best option.  To educate parents in other options they consider better.  To use words that reflect their feelings about it.

[Ananda]

Ananda, you'll have to excuse me for not being charitable towards women who seek to deny other women access to safe, legal terminations. 

 

I wasn't referring to your rhetoric. I was referring to the defence of lying and deceiving women 'for a greater cause'. 

 

You may need to do some more research if you think women aren't being prevented from accessing these services. From use of the courts to do so, to intimidation of women trying to get in the front door, to threatening and killing medical staff who provide abortions, some people are prepared to do anything to stop a woman having a termination. And they have a lot of political support.

 

 

I understand that people picket in front of abortion clinics & harass people choosing to use their services.  I don't support that behavior for two reasons:

1.  I don't think it helps prevent abortions.  I think it just hurts pregnant women & angers pro-choices people.

2.  It is wrong to mistreat people, especially those who are already vulnerable.  

 

As far as killing medical providers.  That is illegal, immoral & not condoned by most society or most pro-life people.  It isn't fair to paint an entire movement by their most extreme members.  If people in their zeal to save fetuses, are devaluing the lives of people such as women or medical providers, this is both against my pro-life morals and stupid.

 

I don't think it is reasonable to expect me as a pro-life person to argue for greater access to services that are antithetical to my values.  I think that is an appropriate role for the pro-choice movement. 

[ktgrok]

All the services and healthcare and daycare and paid leave don't really solve the issue of being legally tied to an abuser for the rest of your life. DV batterers get shared custody all the time, often for the sole purpose of hurting the mother. In some places the abusers consent is required for an adoption. Some even get full custody. Heck, courts have awarded visitation or joint custody to convicted rapists. There is no way to make giving birth the best option for all women.

 

I never said it would eliminate all abortions. I said it would do more than protesters carrying signs. 

[zoobie]

The embryo/early stage fetus generally requires nothing other than to be left alone though.  It doesn't require someone to go get some formula or change its diapers or anything.  Maybe what people really mean to say is that it's not a life unless/until it requires outside effort to keep it alive?

 

ETA yes, I know some pregnancies are hard, but my point is that the definition of life as "when it can survive without someone taking care of it" is bass ackwards.  Most kids require a lot more effort after they reach what people consider "viability."

 

Seems a lot of rationalizing is going on.

 

Even the edited version is bad.

 

This is so mind-bogglingly disrespectful and dissociative of the women who risked their emotional and physical health to bear the children you ultimately adopted. Maybe those women did it with full consent and knowledge. Hopefully. In many countries, they have zero choice. Could be zero choice in the conception, carrying, and giving away of the children. Even if the women who birthed the children were 100% informed and consenting at every step of the journey, they have lasting physical and emotional effects from the pregnancies. Pregnancy is nowhere in the same ballpark as running to the store, and it requires much more of a person than just being an unfeeling, unharmed host to a benign parasite. 

 

Do you really want the United States to be a place where it's okay for religious zealots to hoodwink women on the off chance that some nice family wants to adopt their baby? Do we want to be a country like others where the woman has zero choice in what happens to her body even when the fetus is not viable? It's okay, honey, just lie there for 9 months and leave it alone. I need to walk away from the computer.

[LucyStoner]

I never said it would eliminate all abortions. I said it would do more than protesters carrying signs.

I get that Katie. I was commenting because the most common argument pepole make about reducing abortions tends to be along these lines. I make it myself. Pro-life people who are against policies and services that you mentioned make me scratch my head. Still, having seen the tragedy of DV related custody issues and sexual assault, I don't see how anything could humanely allow for re-criminalizing abortion.

[Ananda]

Your position, then, assuming you are not pro-making-abortion-illegal, and that you are for giving people the support they need to prevent unwanted pregnancies* and, if they do fall pregnant, to keep their babies should they so choose, you are in the "safe, legal, and rare" crowd, would most accurately be described as "pro-choice".  In the US anyway, "pro-choice" is a position on the legality of abortion services, not on the morality of abortions.  It is altogether possible - in fact I'd argue that it is the prevailing position -to want to minimize abortions while still feeling each pregnant person should make the choice for themselves. 

 

*(Some abortions, of course, are of very much wanted babies; that would part of the "rare" category.)

 

DUDE . . . I am sooo not pro-choice.  I am morally against abortions.  However, I feel the best way to prevent them is to: decrease unwanted pregnancy, and increase resources for pregnant women & new mothers who choose to raise their babies.  However I am not advocating that women choose abortion.  My focus is on my ethical responsibility to all human life, born & unborn.

 

I don't have a position on the legality of abortion services.  I'm undecided.  I think it is unlikely for them to be made illegal.  I understand many pro-life people chose to work in the direction.  I neither agree nor disagree with them, as long as they aren't also marginalizing women.   

 

I also regularly in these discussions hear pro-life people say they are pro-choice as a flip way of appropriating the title of the other side.  I am pro-keeping your legs shut, nonsense.  I wanted to be respectful of pro-choice people.

[Ananda]

I don't know. you. I have zero expectations of you in terms of arguing for greater access to services. 

 

I think the most ethical thing a pro-lifer can do is cease actively trying to prevent access to safe and legal termination, and put that energy into support for mothers and children after birth till at least the age of 3.  For one thing, I think it's a more effective use of energy in terms of meeting your goal ie fewer abortions. 

 

IMO support for mothers and children after birth till age 3 involves making decisions in the political realm as well. It's not just about providing diapers. 

 

I agree with you.

[Ausmumof3]

I don't know. you. I have zero expectations of you in terms of arguing for greater access to services.

 

I think the most ethical thing a pro-lifer can do is cease actively trying to prevent access to safe and legal termination, and put that energy into support for mothers and children after birth till at least the age of 3. For one thing, I think it's a more effective use of energy in terms of meeting your goal ie fewer abortions.

 

IMO support for mothers and children after birth till age 3 involves making decisions in the political realm as well. It's not just about providing diapers.

Absolutely.

[hornblower]

 

Do you really want the United States to be a place where it's okay for religious zealots to hoodwink women on the off chance that some nice family wants to adopt their baby?

 

Hello Handmaid's Tale. I think some people think that's a book about utopia. 

[MercyA]

I understand that people picket in front of abortion clinics & harass people choosing to use their services.  I don't support that behavior for two reasons:

1.  I don't think it helps prevent abortions.  I think it just hurts pregnant women & angers pro-choices people.

2.  It is wrong to mistreat people, especially those who are already vulnerable.  

 

As to point #1, I can happily assure you that you are wrong. I have personally seen women change their minds about their abortions after receiving information from pro-life picketers and counselors. I worked for several years as a pro-life activist, researcher, and speaker. During that time, I kept tabs on three independent pro-life ministries [ETA: in four locations], all of which focused their activity outside of abortion clinics rather than in CPC's. Through the work of those small, local ministries, in that short window of time, hundreds of babies were saved, sometimes through something as simple as a woman receiving a pamphlet or seeing a message on a sign. It is NOT true that all women are educated about fetal development, and many have no idea of all the help available to them.

 

As to point #2, you are absolutely right. It is wrong to mistreat (and kill) any innocent human being, most especially those who are vulnerable, weak, and helpless, and that is why no nuanced discussion is needed. Killing innocents is always wrong, and I'm not ashamed to say it.

 

I told myself not to get sucked into this thread and find that I've done it anyway. Due to other things going on in my life at the moment, this will have to be should be my only post here. I hope the thread stays open.  :)

Edited May 12, 2016 by MercyA

[Liz CA]

I know this is going off on a tangent somewhat, but I imagine in some cases people need a lot more than free diapers and clothes . There is a lot more to it than that.  That's not REAL help IMO.

 

The center where I worked provided free clothes for up to 2 years and diapers. There was a man who came in frequently around the 20-22 of each month. He had five children, wife had run off, two youngest in diapers. It was REAL help to him. The simple things are not to be overlooked because to us they may seem simple.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

The center where I worked provided free clothes for up to 2 years and diapers. There was a man who came in frequently around the 20-22 of each month. He had five children, wife had run off, two youngest in diapers. It was REAL help to him. The simple things are not to be overlooked because to us they may seem simple.

 

Around here they go to age 4.

 

I think that the phrase for that physical help sometimes is, "It is necessary but not sufficient."

But the necessary is still valuable whether it is sufficient or not.

 

Recently a young woman with a tiny infant was kicked out of her brother's apartment because he couldn't stand the crying.  A bunch of people who heard her story pitched in to pay for a motel room, food, toiletries, and diapers for her for about two weeks.  At around the end of that time, a social worker found her a placement in a homeless program--which was hard because she was not abused, not a druggie, and not an alcoholic (ironically enough).  Did the two weeks help?  Yup.  It's probably why she and the baby were not separated.  Was it enough to keep her going indefinitely?  No, but short term help sometimes bridges to a more permanent solution. 

[Caroline]

As to point #1, I can happily assure you that you are wrong. I have personally seen women change their minds about their abortions after receiving information from pro-life picketers and counselors. I worked for several years as a pro-life activist, researcher, and speaker. During that time, I kept tabs on three independent pro-life ministries [ETA: in four locations], all of which focused their activity outside of abortion clinics rather than in CPC's. Through the work of those small, local ministries, in that short window of time, hundreds of babies were saved, sometimes through something as simple as a woman receiving a pamphlet or seeing a message on a sign. It is NOT true that all women are educated about fetal development, and many have no idea of all the help available to them.

 

As to point #2, you are absolutely right. It is wrong to mistreat (and kill) any innocent human being, most especially those who are vulnerable, weak, and helpless, and that is why no nuanced discussion is needed. Killing innocents is always wrong, and I'm not ashamed to say it.

 

I told myself not to get sucked into this thread and find that I've done it anyway. Due to other things going on in my life at the moment, this will have to be my only post here. I hope the thread stays open. :)

Where are those hundreds of kids now?

[EmseB]

 

Hello Handmaid's Tale. I think some people think that's a book about utopia.

I think it's funny that people think that pro-life folks are also going to somehow be the same crowd advocating for adultery and killing dissenters and hanging them in the town square. I mean, really? It's almost comical what people think the anti-abortion message actually is. To the point that they think the Handmaid's Tale is an accurate, logical conclusion to saving innocent human lives. That book in particular made me realize how much the pro-choice crowd does not actually understand the anti choice position at all. Not even a little bit. If they think forced adultery with a caste of childbearers is even remotely something pro-life people would advocate for.

[Spryte]

Where are those hundreds of kids now?

That reminded me of this:

 

Every baby born

unloved, unwanted, is a bill that will come

due in twenty years with interest, an anger

that must find a target, a pain that will

beget pain. A decade downstream a child

screams, a woman falls, a synagogue is torched,

a firing squad is summoned, a button

is pushed and the world burns.

 

Marge Piercy

 

 

 

Not saying that those hundreds of kids were unloved or unwanted. Though I'm sure they didn't have/haven't had easy lives, even with diapers and free clothes.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Spryte

[EmseB]

There are tons of organizations working beyond diapers and free clothes. The waiting list to adopt is miles long. An organization that does some things does not have to do all the things. That's a silly case to make. A soup kitchen does not also have to provide health care for its ministry to be worthwhile. A suicide hotline doesn't have to provide lifelong therapy for it to be a good thing to have in the community. A CPC does not have to be the place where a 13 year old goes to get help because his mom chose to have him. But, at the two I've worked at, follow ups were attempted for many months, years and years even, after initial contact, even if mom decided to end the pregnancy. We had some people come visit with their young elementary aged child on more than one occassion. The staff would bust their butts to get women the help that they needed, even if it meant showing them where to go and how to get what they needed from places that specialized in different types of care. There was no one there who stopped caring about the baby or the mom after birth. But this idea that because they advocated for life meaning they are now solely responsible? No other charity or our government organization is held to that standard.

 

But, even so, if the ideal alternative is to end the life before it begins because circumstances are less than ideal, or even bad...that is truly frightening.