- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,853
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
-
Features
The Problem With Anti-Abortion People
- Thread starter ZiprHead
- Start date
I disagree. It's not so much about persecuting women as making non-reproductive sex dangerous. The persecution is a means to an end, not the objective.
Or maybe anti-abortion people really view abortion as murder. Argue about rights and viability all you like, but an abortion ends a human life. No need to ascribe a malicious intent to people who see it that way. Anyway, yeah, more contraception is probably the better way to go in reducing the abortion rate.
James Brown
Suspended by Member Request
I wonder about the "We just want to save lives" argument when pro-life advocates excuse abortions in case of rape and incest.
laughing dog
Contributor
The malicious intent is not evident in the view that abortion is murder. The malicious intent is OBVIOUS in the manners by which many anti-abortionists wish to achieve the reductions in abortion - as the cartoon clearly depicts. And, by the way, as you seem to get with your last sentence of
.
So what prompted your straw man?
1) If their motivation was truly because they saw it as murder then they should be in favor of contraception. It's proven to reduce unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions.
2) The vast majority of so-called "pro-life" people are not. The means of conception has nothing to do with the nature of the fetus, anyone who makes exceptions for rape or incest does not actually view it as murder.
3) In my experience virtually all "pro-life" people will slip up if questioned enough and admit that punishment of irresponsible sex is a factor.
credoconsolans
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 2,900
- Location
- Texas
- Basic Beliefs
- neopagan leaning toward moral relativism
It's about control of women.
Most anti-choicers want abortion outlawed (in most cases). They also do NOT want widely available contraceptives for everyone nor do they want sex education in schools. They want sex to be only available to those who are married.
When asked what single people are supposed to do or if single people never find anyone to marry, they remain strangely tight-lipped.
Know why? Because there is no way to politely or persuasively say "Single people should never have sex." Which is what their beliefs are when it comes to the brass tacks.
Most anti-choicers want abortion outlawed (in most cases). They also do NOT want widely available contraceptives for everyone nor do they want sex education in schools. They want sex to be only available to those who are married.
When asked what single people are supposed to do or if single people never find anyone to marry, they remain strangely tight-lipped.
Know why? Because there is no way to politely or persuasively say "Single people should never have sex." Which is what their beliefs are when it comes to the brass tacks.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
A lot of more fanatic pro-life Christians now equate birth control with abortion. This will be a hard fought issue over the next four years.
It's about an even mix of both. It's the same persecution we see in the bathrooms and transgender laws. The persecution is not just a means to an end, it is and end in itself. It validates the power over other people's life, a way to say, "You may not agree with us, but we can make you act as if you do."
The rape and abortion exclusion was a pragmatic concession made to middle class conservatives, in order to gain their support for anti-abortion laws. It helps to remember that the main reason for abortion is economic and the middle class is ruled by economic issues. A high school or college student who gets pregnant faces a dilemma. She can't take off the time to have a baby and not fall behind in school. This could mean a loss of a semester's study, or worse loss of a semester's tuition. These are real factors in the decision to have an abortion.
The problem of leaving in the R&I exclusion is that no one is going to actually force any woman to prove she was raped, or had sex with her father, so abortion remains elective, for anyone who can afford it. This meant the pro-lifers could only work to prohibit public funds for abortions.
In the past two decades, the pro-lifers have finally faced facts and realized the R&I exclusion was crippling their cause. This is why we've seen so much talk about the rarity of a pregnancy from abortion, even to the point of claiming it's not even possible.
Huh? Nobody's going to force it??
No police report at the time = not rape, no abortion.
Besides, showing that it's a concession to the middle class conservatives does nothing about showing that most pro-lifers think it's murder. If they have to make the concession it's to get pro-punishment people into their camp.
J842P
Veteran Member
Out and out pro-lifers are rare in the circles I run in. However, most people I know who claim to be pro-life are pretty consistent about it, and don't agree on exceptions to rape and incest, and probably the only exception that is common is mortal danger to the mother.
If you know of any case where an abortion was denied because rape or incest was not proved, trot it out for us to see. I don't know of any jurisdiction which has an abortion commission which issues abortion permits.
You're going to have to go back to before Roe vs Wade.
I don't think you will find one, even then. If you recall the novel and later movie, Peyton Place", one of the main characters was given an abortion by the kindly old town Doctor, because she had been raped by her stepfather. That's a twofer.
As I said before, even though the R&I exclusion is given lip service and even written into law, no one has ever used it to create an abortion permitting process. It's not that it can't be done, it's never been done. The people who would have to do this kind of thing, recognize the impossibility of administering such a program with any efficiency.
Imagine what our current generation of falserapeaphobes would do if every woman who wanted an abortion needed to claim she had been raped.
arkirk
Veteran Member
There's another factor and much of it (not all) is still economic. Think of it as the childhood denial factor. For both the mother and the child. That's why reproductive rights belong to women in a sane society not run by religious bigots.
If you had the money and contacts there were lots of places to get a safe abortion.
If you have money and contacts, you can do a lot of things, but that's not relevant at this point in the discussion.
Showing that someone got an abortion doesn't prove there wasn't an issue.
Malintent
Veteran Member
.. but those people you are claiming are innocently trying to defend the rights of these cellular clusters called fetuses have no intent, have shown no effort at all, to improve pregnant women's health for the purpose of ensuring the best health for the fetus.
We are not seeing anti-abortion groups:
funding free prenatal care for those who do not otherwise have access
lobbying to make seatbelts in cars safer for pregnant people.
lobbying to make it illegal to drink alcohol while pregnant.
lobbying to make it illegal to smoke while pregnant.
lobbying to make it illegal to get pregnant if you can't afford to provide healthcare for it.
Why not?