Comments on: [culture|politics] Pro-life

By: Thomas E

Thomas E — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:24:08 +0000

The UK has universal access to women’s health services, universally available contraception (including free contraception for the poor), free pre-natal care for all mothers, free maternity and paternity care for all children, early childhood education, and generally honest fact-based sex education (could be improved) and have enshrined laws that require equal pay regardless of sex (again, things are getting better, but enforcement could be improved).
We still have a lot of abortions despite universal contraception, and the morning after pill being freely available.
I’m afraid that although I agree that all the policies on the list are good ones, the one that matters most seems to be preventing poverty, and no one has that licked.

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:06:08 +0000

Jake, wondering what you think of this article, which makes many of the same points I was making but from inside the “pro-life” framework:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html

By: Jay

Jay — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:52:09 +0000

As you say, my friend, here we must agree to disagree on our fundamental worldviews, as I am just as unlikely to convince you as you are to convince me.

I will add in passing as someone whose spouse required a medically necessary abortion some years ago due a nonviable fetus (no heartbeat after 13 weeks) failing to spontaneously abort for over a month, the restrictions on access to DNC and the trouble our doctor had even getting surgery space for the procedure were very, very painful and difficult — entirely from pressure from pro-life groups who have succeeded in getting that procedure blanket banned at many facilities in Texas, where we lived at the time. So this is a *very* personal issue for me.

By: Jake Freivald

Jake Freivald — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:46:53 +0000

As you might suspect, Jay, we disagree.

If I thought that implementing that entire program would allow us to eliminate abortion on demand — if it would “reduce[ it] to an occasionally necessary medical procedure” — then I’d say it might even be worth it. But we know that progressives don’t make their arguments based on how many unborn children they save: Abortion on demand is a right, they say, because a woman has the right to control her own body, etc. Thus necessity has nothing to do with the abortion argument, except in a tiny percentage of cases of actual life-threatening pregnancies.

I believe that what would really happen if you implemented the agenda you outline is a further degradation of our economy and our freedom, which eventually leads to worse conditions and more despair, not less, which leads to more abortion, not less. I know that when you subsidize something you get more of it, which is why we have more unwed mothers and broken homes than ever. I believe that charity works best when it doesn’t come from a government program — and especially when the poor and the well-off can look each other in the eye.

I know we disagree, and I’m not going to convince you otherwise, but I felt like I needed to point out your blinders on this one. I’m not against your agenda because I’m not pro-life; it’s because I don’t believe that your agenda furthers the cause of life, and is especially detrimental to the cause of preventing abortions.

By: Jay

Jay — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:48:53 +0000

You’re kind of missing my point, Jake. That particular progressive agenda, if fully enacted, would go a long way to reducing unwanted pregnancies, possibly to the point of virtually eliminating them. At which point abortion is reduced to an occasionally necessary medical procedure. Yet that entire agenda is opposed by many if not most people who claim to want to eliminate abortion.

In other words, the progressive agenda is a profoundly pro-life position that keeps unborn children from being killed.

By: Jake Freivald

Jake Freivald — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 17:42:53 +0000

So if I don’t agree completely with your every idea about how society should be organized with respect to women and children, it’s unreasonable for me to want to keep unborn children from being killed.

Not really buying it.

By: Cora

Cora — Sat, 13 Oct 2012 00:17:55 +0000

What Mike said. You forgot the death penalty.

Personally, I have never understood how anybody could call themselves pro-life and yet support the death penalty.

By: Mike Brotherton

Mike Brotherton — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 19:19:04 +0000

Don’t forget the death penalty. There’s a correlation between death penalty supporters and the so-called pro-life. Supporting it is not “pro life” and even if you make exceptions for horrible criminals — the system has a non-negligible conviction rate for innocent people. The number of innocent people put to death to ensure “the justice” in the death penalty takes it out.

Agree with the other hypocrisies listed above.

By: Allyson

Allyson — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:05:18 +0000

*applause*