This is rather disingenuous if you're referring to the practice of making sure one's children are healthy by murdering the unhealthy ones before birth. If, on the other hand, you refer to the coexistence of pro-life positions with being unwilling to allocate money to healthcare... Yeah, that's unfortunate, although not inherently contradictory (in my experience, both frequently co-occur with a strong emphasis on private charity rather that government services).
I hear a lot about how we shouldn't have abortions, but I worry more about all the kids and babies in foster care that aren't getting the love and attention they deserve. Another hugely underfunded system that is notorious for abuse.
I've got nothing against people being for life, and having kids. I'd suggest they go adopt a few kids rather than having them though. It's probably what Jesus would want you to do.
But I can't and won't prescribe for everyone or even me before I'd have to make such a choice. Life is strange, and complicated in so many ways. Ways so crazy people couldn't invent them if they tried. I personally don't think we need to make it harder on anyone.
Think about the trolley problem. In one case you passively kill 4 people and in the other case you actively kill 1. Pro life people would probably choose to passively kill 4 while pro choice would probably choose to actively kill 1.
Sometimes what the majority wants, is wrong.
Basically same thing with other property rights. Can't vote a person out of their belongings.
The "pro-life" label is silly. I don't believe people should have more children (I don't have any). Avoiding unwanted pregancies i.e. contraception is a solved problem. Contraception should be freely available as a matter of public health, just as vaccines are.
Hate to burst your bubble, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_me...
I'm sorry man, but I just lived for 5 years in one of the worst ghettos in the country, ranked top 3% in the country in the nation for crime, and it is ungodly to witness on a daily basis what small children are subject to in places of extreme violence, crime, poverty, where the nearest grocery store is 10 miles away, much less anything else. I also live in the far north, and these children suffer in the winter.
Oh and while I'm ranting on about how horrible it is for the children, I'll just throw in the mostly irrelevant existence of the women in these areas, and the emotional, oral and physical violence I have witnessed them be subject to and thats in public. I get chills thinking what these women are subject to in private.
I've seen heroine addicts with their children dumpster diving for food in the back of my alley way on a Saturday morning as a routine, even trained their older children age 7/8 to dumpster dive for food, in America...
I've seen a mother, in a place where uber/lyft arent allowed, wait 45min for a $40 cab with melting frozen chicken nuggets she got on welfare, and sat with her and her 6 yr old son at 10pm at night, so she could not have to walk him through the worst part of the ghetto after the public transportation stopped running, because her shift ran late and it took an hour to ride the bus to pick up her son from her mothers house where he was being watched after school.
If at any time a mother or a potential mother, particularly one living in poverty and an area of high crime with no childcare situation, think they are not fit to have kids, we are doing ourselves as a society, the women, and these children, particularly one with a history of drug problems, or an in and out heroine addict, or a woman living in a violent home deems herself unfit to have children or raise them,regardless of how healthy they are in the womb a disservice to force them into existence, unless of course you would like to sit in the back of my alleyway and hand out food, coats, anti-voilence and rape education and other things that require raising "healthy" children.
The only thing violent and cruel in my opinion is for you, as a third party, to decide above a mother who is willing to admit shes unfit as a parent, that she will have kids and that your unnamed private charity will somehow rear this child a healthy unbringing.
I'm afraid you are just wrong about what encompasses having and raising healthy children,
If you look at this from the perspective of the potential mothers, the potential children, or pure economics, we are dooming ourselves as a society.
The only thing left standing as a pillar in the face of progress of enabling our society to help itself out of a viscious cycle of poverty and crime, is the emotional blackmail upon the masses guised under the idea that there is a morality based on either political, or religious, or other philosophical reference points formed by people who are not potential mothers, and CLEARLY not subjects of extreme poverty, that can be placed absolutely on all situations, where in all situations, the mother is left raising a child in poverty stricken hell with no resources because your local white suburban church and Fox news told you this is all a conspiracy, and anyways she was being irresponsible.
nonsense.
For anyone who has the opinion that mothers should be forced to have babies and if they didnt solve the problem "in time" its their own fault/ responsibility from that point on AND/OR that the private charity your local church is giving to is making a difference, I strongly recommend you go live in a real ghetto/poverty stricken area for atleast 6 months and walk the streets on a daily basis, and come out of your ignorance and then talk to me about all the things you think poverty stricken mothers should and should not do, and what they should be responsible for.
I'd honestly love to hear it....
I am tired of hearing the pro life argument from stay at home moms in suburbia who need to pass a law to scare their preteens into not getting into trouble and doing their homework instead, because of their inadequate parenting to be frank, and 50 + yr old white men who have never truly suffered in their life. Why are they so concerned with the suffering of unborn lives and not the suffering the millions of people producing these potentially born lives, in neighborhoods and areas they have never lived in?
it is always really interesting to see what few and far between things peak the interest of republican suburban white people enough for them to form an opinion, regarding entire demographics they will never interact with while driving their mini van to the local grocery store down the traffic circle. It is always over things that have nothing to do with them, do not limit their personal ability to live out their lives the way they think is "right" and is almost always because something someone else theyve never met in a situation theyve never been in is making a decision that is offensive to their way of life which again, they could continue to live out in complete isolated ignorance in the comfort of suburbia if they chose, but they choose to embarass our country by suddenly caring about what poor people are and are not entitled to.
They need a law to point to and say "see? I am right, those people are wrong, they are sluts, they are irresponsible and they are not trying hard enough, and actually I am being humane and doing the right thing by telling those women I've never met what to do with their bodies. Obviously a bunch of white 50 yr old men in congress agree with me so now I can say aha, my way of life is superior."
So, yeah, please stop projecting the entire sphere of simple-minded conservatism on the pro-life cause. The anti-abortion posse has supporters all over the political spectrum, not just in the republican party. If you want the democratic party to win an election, you should figure this one out.
Nevertheless -- regardless of the many shortcomings of its members -- the Church is still probably the single largest non-political entity behind a single payer universal health care system in the country.
that definitely contradicts the Church's own teachings and declarations, and it doesn't work in the civil law space too - the courts stroke down that argument when the Church tried to use it in order to shield the assets from the child molestation lawsuits.
I have a hard time taking men who have engaged in sexual child abuse as valid leaders of pro life or pro choice movement. I don't think they should have a say in anything sex related at all.
They are the last group of people on the planet right now who should be taking a moral stand on sexual rights.
When sex education was taught to me, sexual preference wasn't assumed or implied. The parts worked the way they anatomically do. STDs have no gender preference.
In contrast, the Church is against abortion in all cases, period, and doesn't think that children are a 'consequence' to be dealt with, but rather a life to be preserved.
According to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-life_movemen...), a 2008 study (the Munson study) found that, of all pro-life activists, 66% were Catholic, a substantial majority.
- 3rd-trimester / late term abortion without physical-health reasons.
- The selling of body parts instead of freely giving it away for research. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_unde... (later said to only be the cost of transportation)
- The idea of post-birth termination. See: http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261
I think the term "pro-life" is being abused to put labels on people who are just against the points I mentioned. These people are not necessarily "anti-abortion".
It's an imperfect choice in an imperfect world, where a lot can happen. I wouldn't say anyone is "pro-abortion", but a lot of people are pro-choice, knowing that a blanket ban puts people at risk.
> I think the term "pro-life" is being abused to put labels on people who are just against the points I mentioned. These people are not necessarily "anti-abortion".
So what you're saying is someone who thinks it's okay to get a first trimester abortion for any reason is pro-life? That seems absurd.
What I wanted to say is that there are not just 2 sides:
pro-choice: agreeing with any form of abortion (note: I am not saying people want it)
pro-life: against any form of abortion
If someone is pro-war, does that imply that the people that are part of the war are liking it?
"Pro-abortion" implies (especially when compared to "pro-life") that abortion is to be promoted above other options or abortion is something good or something to strive for. The correct term is "pro-choice" because its not about promoting abortion, its about promoting an individual's choice of how to handle a pregnancy and making every option safely and readily available to them.
"Pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" are not synonyms of each other and calling the pro-choice movement "pro-abortion" is not correct.
Here is something I would like to see some statistics into: the demographic of women who wish to have abortions during their third trimester or after for non related health reasons. I am not sure this is the case, but I would be willing to bet its not women in their 30s/white suburban housewives planning a family, and this is almost entirely skewed towards a poverty stricken demographic who usually is unable to afford a pregnancy test, and furthemore, live in neighborhoods/areas where there is a constant onslaught of domestic violent and sexual abuse, leaving women vulnerable, much less with $60 to walk to rite aid to grab a pregnancy test and plan B pill.
Alot of poor women do not know they are pregnant until multiple months in, even in the United States. This may sound bizarre and only possible out of sheer neglect, but I have friends who work for and at Planned Parenthood.
Excessive stress, physical abuse, weight gain or loss due to poor diet (welfare food/doritoes or not having access to food at all), mostly extreme stress (rape/abuse) can lead to missing periods.
If I lose 5 ibs in a month I miss my period. It could be very difficult for women with little to no resources and erratic lifestyles to actually know until a few months in if their only affordable resources are whether they are having a period or not. Not all women are regular in the first place, and a number of factors much more commonly occurring can, and often do, contribute to missing periods.
Of course, the pro-life is not going to look into that or advertise women in these situations as victims in desperate need of help but rather careless neglectful sluts who want to murder babies at their convenience.
Regardless, childcare, childbirth, safe sex, or any retroactive actions to safely and quickly remedy a potential pregnancy into a ...not pregnancy is expensive, with the minimum threshold of a plan B pill being $50, which was expensive for me in college, and simply unrealistic for women on poverty miles away from one.
Republicans thought making this expensive would deter pregnancy. Precisely the opposite, it simply delineates who can afford healthcare related to safe sex, family planning and raising children in a healthy environment, and who cannot, and places all the burdens of societies in ability to provide these things to humans at a minimum level of decency onto the shame/reputations and sluttiness/morality/choices of the mother. The vicous cycle does a great job of perpetuating poverty where poor women in non ideal situations are left with decreasing cycles of access to education, safe and respectful environments and access to knowledge/healthcare.
People who can afford healthcare will get it, even if they have to drive to another state to do so, not everyone can take their husbands landrover and use their health insurance to seek out a doctor highly regarded for safe abortions.
It's just a system that favours the rich.
Also, as a last note, I'm really tired of watching disgusting 50 + yr old politicians have an opinion about what women do with their bodies. It's none of their business. It would be inappropriate in person and it's inappropriate in the context of politics as well.
You seem to be viewing all these problems through a political and government lens. I feel it's a leap in logic to say "if someone doesn't support progressive policies then they don't care about mothers, families, and born lives".
One example, there are too many to list exhaustively, is in the recent refugee crisis. An evangelical charity supported by lots of red-staters was in there doing what it could (1).
On a personal level, the churches I've been part of do attack poverty and justice issues on many fronts. There are women's shelters, several programs for the homeless, food banks, free health care clinics, job placement programs, financial education programs, sponsorship of impoverished third-world children, sponsorship of impoverished third-world villages, and so on. There is also a fund for helping church members (some of whom come from local shelters or are otherwise poor) pay bills as needed. And there are innumerable education, mentoring, and counseling programs offered to help families be emotionally and spiritually healthy, partly to avoid the need for programs for people with broken homes and so on.
I am not afraid that I don't care about mothers just because Planned Parenthood is not on the list. Modulo big mistakes in the implementation (1), I am fine with SNAP, WIC, etc. when they're used to help poor families. I don't know any pro-life people who feel a burning need to cut these things.
And, as a side note, it's really a bad idea to keep bringing up Planned Parenthood as being pro-mother. From time to time we have friends with money problems that need pregnancy care. We contacted the local Planned Parenthood asking about their offerings, only to find that they offer none, really. Not even referrals. They more or less said they do abortions and birth control and do not offer programs for women who are planning an actual pregnancy. A local pro-life pregnancy center also did not offer anything in house, but did refer us to some pro-life shelters and programs that would help out with prenatal care.
1) https://www.samaritanspurse.org/disaster/refugee-crisis-in-e...
2) I'd rather just move to minimum income, set it to a healthy level, and stop conflicting over funding levels of each of the multitude of entitlement programs. Poor people are hurt (or at least helped a lot less) by doing indirect charity through price fixing, corporate charity, etc. For example, do you know what might help with the homeless problem? Cheaper homes. But we insist on propping up housing prices, subsidizing sprawling McMansion-ridden suburbs, setting up people in unaffordable homes saying it's an investment, etc.
> I don't know any pro-life people who feel a burning need to cut these things. (SNAP, WIC)
I definitely am looking at it through the political/government lens. And while it's possible for someone to be pro-life and support progressive policies, I'm not sure who they would vote for that could represent them. There's a huge political fault line over many hot-button topics. People that are voting for pro-life conservative representation are usually the same representatives trying to reduce healthcare and are against social welfare programs. It could be said that many people were voting against their own healthcare interests, which we're soon to find out.
I'm all about people standing by their principals, and doing what they can, but I feel like this is government's problem, and charity while good isn't nearly enough to cover the scope of the issues, and certainly can't fix them at the source. I agree with your (2) as well. The 'charity' and price fixing of prescription drugs has been really interesting, because the drug companies quote the "reduced" price, but then if you hear the actual price charged to an insurance company, you'd faint. The "it might only cost you $10" on TV commercials is totally a way to play to people's ideas that prescriptions are affordable for everyone. It'd be much better for everyone to just have a reasonable price than try to be "charitable" (at least to some, and then rip off whoever has money).
We have to agree to disagree about planned parenthood though. Birth control, abortions, and other women's health care (that isn't related to pregnancy) is still important care, even if you disagree with them on religious terms. I wouldn't say that it's pro or con mother (and I don't think I ever did), but I would say it is pro-woman and definitely pro-choice.
I think the only place that would be against mothers is when you're going to a place and they try to convince you to do something you don't want to do, which I've heard happens at some of these centers.
http://www.salon.com/2016/09/15/support-shams-anti-abortion-...
Sure, who can be against children? They're young, cute (as long as you aren't changing their diapers at the time), and innocent of any possible wrong doing. Anything bad they do is just reflected on poor parenting, if that's the case or not.
But yet the same pro-life people who want to save every child's life don't seem nearly so sympathetic to mothers, even mothers that want to have healthy children. The calls for de-funding planned parenthood and bad maternity leave policies are at odds with having healthy babies and families. And healthy families are exactly what insurance companies, the government, and families can agree on. (It's cheaper for insurance, more citizens to be tax payers, and families love kids)
Yet in the political sphere, we're trying to take away programs like SNAP and WIC (which provide assistance to families and mothers). It's a lot cheaper to feed a baby at home and keep them healthy than it is to feed them in a hospital. Don't even get me started on childhood education.
I do think we have the technology to do much better, but we lack funding, education, and political will. And it's all become entangled in the welfare/abortion debate, which in America seems evergreen for political abuse.