These people aren't really "pro-life" -- they're merely anti-abortion.
The vast majority of them care about a "baby" only between conception
and birth. After that it's the mother's problem to deal with.
I doubt the Pro-Life movement, as it is called, is making a comeback, rather
apathy is starting to set in. Fewer Women are having abortions, and the younger
generations have come to expect that they'll have the same rights and liberties
as their parents did, in other words there's not a plight to fight for abortion
rights with younger generations. However, I think that if they understood the
implications of sitting by idly, there probably would be a much larger outcry.
The "Pro-Lifers" tend to be religious and ultra-right leaning. This
is not a trend with younger generations; in fact we've seen quite the opposite.
Younger folks tend to be more liberal and less religious than their
older/different generation counterparts. There are also a lot more birth
control options these days, including the morning after pill (as an example).
Fewer abortions are great, I agree, but why a Woman needs/wants one in the first
place is not the business of government, nor is it the business of anyone other
than the Woman and her doctor, PERIOD! No one should ever assume they know why
a Woman would seek one either.
Truthseeker, are you saying that all people that choose abortion are destitute?
As you so eloquently put it, Not! Regardless of income level, we
must still take responsibility for our actions. If a poor person gets a speeding
ticket are they excused from paying it because they are poor? No. If a poor
person commits any other crime are they held accountable? Yes.Becoming pregnant without a means to support the baby is irresponsible
behavior. There should be a penalty for irresponsible behavior. Yet you seem to
think that it should be rewarded. Not!
This article is still one-sided. There are women who have had abortions that
have never regretted their decision. The government should not be involved at
all. Get a load of this big picture all of you who walk around spewing opinions
while wearing blinders to the world. Money is the only reason the government
gets involved in anything and a pregnant women could eventually lose the child
to the state because she is unable to provide adequate care and housing for her
baby. If she seeks any assistance she is required to give up the name of the
father if she wants to become eligible to receive any assistance. If the mother
is suspected of using drugs during pregnancy she will be tested after she gives
birth. If the baby is positive the state intervenes and the baby is taken from
the mother as she is leaving the hospital. Money, money, money and more money
from federal to the state for every child in custody. If the child is adopted or
aborted the government gets nothing.
As an adult woman it should be my choice whether or not I want to bring a life
into this world. It is my body, my decision, my responsibility. If men were the
ones trying to have abortions you can bet we would not be having this argument.
Who thinks I'm right?
@Truthseeker - Thanks for the added info, much appreciated. @TJ -
Not sure if you believe LDS are Christian or not, but I am LDS and my faith is
actually pro-choice. Despite what a lot of my fellow members mistakenly
believe, in certain instances we are admonished to prayerfully consider whether
an abortion is the proper course (see our website to learn more). Indeed, if
LDS held the belief that God viewed abortion as murder, there would be no need
to prayerfully consider the act. Unless, of course, you want to make the case
that a woman being raped justifies her murdering the child. To be sure, the
fact that we allow abortion, at any level, indicates that the LDS church does
not consider a fetus to be a child/human. Rather, our counsel focuses on the
"potential" of the fetus, which is why we hold it to be a very serious
KM | 10:21 a.m. May 1, 2011 Cedar Hills, UT We, as a society can
make laws and call it whatever we want, but in the end, its taking a life of an
innocent unborn human. Have we become so calous that we are no different than
the terrorists we so despise? Have we become death worshippers also? ---We, as a nation, spend more money on death and destruction than
the rest of the world combined. So, in answer to your question - have we become
death worshippers, I have to say that, yes we have.Are you pro-war?
If so, you are not pro-life.Several others have commented that
lifelong pro-life equates to pro-life. Anything else is simply hypocrisy.
Joggle;"Thou shalt not commit Murder" is in the bible. Other
than that I said nothing about the bible. I said God is against murder. So says
every Christian church. So says commons sense, so says modern day scripture and
so says a living Prophet of God.To selfishly have a sexual
relationship, then refuse to be responsible and choose to kill an unborn child
is murder. The arguemant that the fetus is nothing more than a group of
undefined cells is another uninspired arguement by the irresponsible. Truth seeker;I do belive that in rare circumstance, when the life of the
mother is in peril, where incest is involved or if the pregnancy is the result
of rape, the mother should have the choice of abortion. Many women
in this country have children to be eligible for free rent, food and other forms
of welfare simply because they are too lazy to work. I have seen this many times
personally. The government has enabled them to live their entire life living off
of government handouts. Take children away from these people if they are
capable of work but refuse to do so. Let them dig ditches by hand.
re: TJ According to your view, that abortion is murder, exceptions for rape,
incest and life/health issues shouldn't be permitted.re: I Choose
FreedomSo, your'e going to fine destitute people? Right, that'll
work to decrease the abortion rate.(not)
try electing a governor that will enforce state law, thomas jeffersn once said
about a supreme court ruling,[i forget the chief justice name] he ruled on it so
let him enforce it.
All life is precious, until it is born. -- The right wing of
In the Roe v Wade decision, the justices made it clear that if we ever defined a
life as starting at conception, then Roe v Wade would be overturned.Biologically, life indeed starts at conception. The female seed in itself has
no continuance. The male seed in itself has no continuance. But once the two
join, they for a new single cell that will multiply, grow, and if nourished,
will eventually become an adult human being.If we ever stop
politicizing the start of life, and recognize it for what it really is, Roe v
Wade will go away. Do we, as a people, have the courage to speak the truth
rather than coddle politicized alterations to the truth?
@TJGod NEVER said abortion is murder! Prove where it is mentioned
anywhere in the Bible that the God of the Bible says abortion is murder. If
anything, abortion is biblical. We cannot simply accept what some religious
leaders proclaim as being God's word on a given subject without carefully
reading the full text of the book and taking into consideration the entire
context. Indeed, I could claim that the Bible supports ending a pregnancy in the
face of a life without quality. And, if I wanted to be bold, I could claim that
the interpretation of some scripture is in fact a biblical mandate to support
the use of abortion as a way to improve our quality of life. In fact, I will
stop short of making the claim that the Bible condemns or supports abortion at
all. It does neither. The condemning and supporting comes not from the words of
the Bible but from leaders within religious cultures who use verses out of
context. It is time to stop preaching that the "God" contains an
undeniable doctrine against abortion. Besides....your "God" only
applies to YOU and is no reason to deny women abortion. It's NOT_murder!
I am pro choice. I believe everyone has the choice to have sex. However, once
that choice has been acted upon and pregnancy results then the right to choose
becomes restricted. Then the choice is to either keep the child or make it
available for adoption. And if the couple cannot care for the child without
taxpayer support then the child should be put up for adoption and the couple
fined. I believe in choice. And I believe in accountability for choices. As a
taxpayer, I am not responsible for your bad choices!
God says Abortion is Murder. I am on his side. You can make all the arguments
you want and say anything you want about science or choice. It does not change a
thing. It is still Murder.
Random thoughts. First, some birth control measures have a much higher
effectiveness rate than others (pill better, condoms worse). I would also point
out that the predominant religion (Catholic) in the U.S. considers
abstinence/rhythm the only approved birth control measure. re:
Stalwart Sentinel In Kansas there are 3 Planned Parenthood clinics, only 1
performs abortions. 87% of counties in the U.S. have no abortion provider. Dr.
Tiller was the only provider who did late-term abortions. On the surface the
idea of a late-term abortion (terminiaton of pregnancy) is repugnant, and it
would be, if the only reason for a late-term abortion were convenience. But I
know of women who discovered, late in pregnancy, their babies had severe
deformaties which were incompatible with life and the emotional burden of
carrying the pregnancy to conclusion was more than they could bear. I think
these types of decisions should not be imposed from outside forces, but left to
the woman and her Dr. There are also other reasons a woman might seek an
abortion--such as severe diabetes and compromised kidney function. There are
many, many others.
Abortion isn't about choice, it's about un-choosing a bad choice. When one
considers an abortion, a choice has already been made. The
unfortunate thing for women is that it took two people to make that choice, but
she get's the brunt of the consequences and shame. My personal
feelings are that when a pregnancy is conceived out of wedlock, and the woman is
unable to care for the child. She should have the right to place that child up
for adoption without consent of the father. Adoption should be just as easy,
legally, as abortion. Maybe this will get men to take more responsibility in
this matter. Thoughts??
Interesting. The protagonist in this article, Melinda Oberhelman, had her
abortion performed in Shawnee, Kansas. I may be mistaken, but I believe that
option is not currently available to the inhabitants of Shawnee, Kansas right
now b/c a "pro-lifer" murdered the only doctor willing to withstand
the death threats, attempted murders, etc... enacted by this
"pro-life" crowd. Threatening the lives of doctors who provide a
legal, constitutionally protected right. The Lord must be so proud of this
It is a woman's right to her life that gives her the right to terminate her
pregnancy. Nor should abortion-rights advocates keep hiding behind the phrase
"a woman's right to choose." Does she have the right to choose murder?
That's what abortion would be, if the fetus were a person. The status of the
embryo in the first trimester (when most abortions occur) is the basic issue
that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical
notions of religious dogma and emotionalism treat this clump of cells as
constituting a fully developed conscious person. We must not confuse
potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can,
granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is
during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that
exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it
might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is
something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant
I don't have a problem with a woman's right to abortion in the first tri for
rape, incest or saving the mothers life......But I am strictly opposed to the
government funding it! If your old enough to afford a condom, you're old enough
to pay for your own abortion!
OldCougar, I describe myself as pro-choice, but I personally oppose abortion and
would do anything to convince my wife, children or friends to choose life.
However, I believe that we are all given free agency and that it is not my role
to decide whether a woman should be allowed to make this decision. It is not my
role to judge them either.I also oppose the death penalty, mostly
because it is ineffective as a preventative measure and is too costly to make
sure that an adequate series of safeguards is in place to ensure that no
innocent person is executed. We could save millions of dollars and free up the
court system dramatically by converting all death senteences to life without
possibility of parole. That way, the bad guys stay behind bars and no innocent
person is killed by a potentially biased court system (note, I didn't say the
court system is biased, but that the possibility exists).So, where
is the hypocrisy?
So let me see if I can get the gist of the pro abortionists position here. It
seems it is that we either need to allow women to have their babies killed or
else we need to pay for all of those babies they don't kill through higher
taxes, government handouts and other social programs.Sounds like
extortion to me and a really disgusting brand of extortion at that.Howzabout we just insist everyone be responsible for their own actions. Yes I
understand everyone won't be responsible and in those cases adoptions should be
made quick and easy. There should never be a case where a woman that would
consider killing her child should then be deciding to keep that child anyway.
Once you have considered killing another person there probably isn't alot of
love for that person anyway so allowing someone else to adopt, and love, that
child should be the alternative. And don't tell me that there aren't
more people waiting to adopt than babies available because we wouldn't have
people going to other countries to adopt if that were really the case.
I echo the statements of several on this board, namely there are huge areas we
can agree on such as the need to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies,
and to stop perpetuating the double standard where men's role in creating the
problem is not addressed. I hear little about in vitro fertilization which
results in many embryos being destroyed. We can look at states such as Texas
which has the highest rate of teenaged girls with 2 or more children and know
whatever they're doing or not doing has been a big failure. Women who have
higher levels of education have lower rates of unplanned pregnancy (here Texas
fails too). Defunding Planned Parenthood clinics is NOT a step in the right
direction. We also don't want to put women who have a legitimate and critical
reason for getting an abortion under undue duress. I applaud the woman opposed
to abortion who takes it upon herself to care for pregnant unwed mothers.
Actions have consequences.If we overeat, we're going to destroy OUR
body.If we smoke, we're going to destroy OUR body.If we
drink, or take drugs we're going to destroy OUR body.If a man and
woman have sex and that action leads to pregnancy and they choose to end that
pregnancy via an abortion, they're not destroying themselves, they've chosen to
destroy another person, the innocent victim of their actions, the person who
would become a human being, living, breathing, laughing, just like them.Something is rotten when two people can act together and then decide to
destroy the person who is the result of their action.Who speaks for
the innocent victim?Who chooses to let him live?
"If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell
other people not to kill each other?...Any country that accepts abortion is not
teaching its people to love but to use any violence to get what they
want.""Many people are very, very concerned with children
in India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so
on. Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country
of the United States. "These concerns are very good. But often
these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by
the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest
destroyer of peace today - abortion, which brings people to such
blindness."These words were spoken by Mother Teresa at a
National Prayer Breakfast in Washington when Clinton was President. Her words
sting to those who support this immoral act.To add to the comparison
between abortion and capital punishment, here's a major difference: those on
death row likely commited a horrible crime to get themselves there. Unborn
babies have done NOTHING wrong!
Old cougar makes a great point...we need to immediately remove the tax deduction
for charitable contributions which will both cut the deficit AND let the truly
charitable "take care of the helpless". That is what you were
I don't pretend to understand all sides of this issue. Yes, I too have my own
desire to see abortion gone. However, I don't understand why I NEVER read about
adoption being an option? Do you have any idea how many families are waiting for
a miracle to call their own? I am very thankful for our adopted miracle and for
his birth mother and birth father who not only gave him life, but gave us the
ability to become a family and in return they were each given their lives back
to make better choices going forward. Thank you birth families we will love and
support you forever.
This goes far beyond decisions made about pregnancy. The more
"choices" taken away from the American people, the more freedom is
lost. It will be a sad day for democracy and the reason America was founded in
the first place.
Two comments. GWB, I happily describe my position on this issue as
anti-abortion, rather than the euphemistic "pro-life." Will you then
describe your position as pro-abortion, rather than the euphemistic
"pro-choice?"For an anti-abortionist to favor capital
punishment is no more hypricritical than for one against the death penalty to be
pro-abortion. Either position seems contradictory. As for people who
oppose legislators who work to cut this or that favorite program: How do you
feel about those who are trying to balance our budget and not spend money we
don't have. How do you feel about those who are trying, in as fair a way as
possible, to enable our children and grandchildren to live in a world that is
not dominated by high taxes and impossible federal debt? How would you feel
about the private sector, you and I and our charitable organizations, taking
responsibility to help the helpless -- rather than continuing policies of tax
and spend and more debt so we can rely on Uncle Sam to take care of us?
One of the mistakes the pro-life side makes is falsely assuming that pro-choice
is pro-abortion. As stated in this article....when we talk about fetal life,
let's not talk simply about abortion. Let's talk about the total ramifications.
Let's talk about reducing abortion without eliminating choice. Unfortunately,
the pro-life side often wants to stop discussion about the total ramifications
and simply force women to abide by their personal religion based moral compass
of it being simply wrong without ever trying to understand all the issues
surrounding it, such as the fact that making abortion illegal will not stop
abortion. The trouble is that the U.S. government cannot acknowledge the
existence of an immortal soul implanted at conception without taking on a
specific, theological definition of personhood which often disagree with each
other.One of the best-kept secrets of the pro-life and pro-choice
movements is that the two movements ultimately overlap to the extent that they
share the goal of reducing the number of abortions. They differ only with
respect to degree and methodology. Reducing unplanned pregnancies can be a goal
of both sides. Better birth control will eventually make_abortion_obsolete.
It is stunning to read the comments above that essentially say that a lack of
funding for women's and children's programs (which both parties are guilty of
cutting) is justification for abortion. Simply stunning...The
contortions into which abortion advocates will stretch in an effort to justify
an unjustifiable (rape, incest, and mother's life excluded) act are laughable...
Who is affected by outlawing all abortions after 21 weeks? Is it those who
believe abortion is an accepted form of birth control- a convenient way to
terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Or is most likely to apply in a situation where
rape, incest or the life of the mother is at stake?
We, as a society can make laws and call it whatever we want, but in the end, its
taking a life of an innocent unborn human. Have we become so calous that we are
no different than the terrorists we so despise? Have we become death
Editor: When we write a post that breaks one of your rules, please allow us to
fix it, rather than have it disappear.
I agree with all the comments. I am incredibly pro-life. Incredibly. BUT---there
is no point in "saving" lives---if the same people on either side of
the isle do not fund help to those who "save" such lives. I am
especially disgusted by those on the right and the left who EITHER justify life
giving assistance as just "medical" processes (left)--and am
especially disgusted by those on the right end who feel they have a right to
judge those whom have children out of wed-lock, refuse health coverage to those
who choose to have a child no matter what (i.e. they choose to have a baby with
a disability--yet the "right" refuse to fund medical care, services,
education, and so forth to that family). Both sides are immensely
hypocritical!!! I am very pro-life--but recognize that life begins at
conception--it does not stop needing support until the true "end"Oh--and I'm also annoyed that none of this discussion included the
FATHERS--nor the insane idiocy of supposed law-makers trying to outlaw
appropriate medical care and choices to women who NEED such care and choices
I'm puzzled by the headline "Pro-life movement making a comeback"Was the "pro-life" movement in decline? When did
they lose support? When did they lose the ardent political
supporters doing their bidding?If they were not in decline, then
they couldn't be making a comeback.The only thing that should be in
decline is the use of the term "pro-life". The majority of
"pro-life" people I know (with the exception of most Catholics)
support the death penalty. That means they support life only for fetuses and not
for anyone who is already sentient and can breath on their own without assitance
from their mother. They only oppose taking life through abortion - plain and
simple.Please call them by what they actually stand for -
There is no pro life movement in the works. If anything there is a pro choice
movement as society expands its mind and becomes more educated. Take the time to
think for yourself. Free your mind and do not run on automatic.
This is a good and informative article. I like the focus on two sides trying to
have some real discussion. This is truly a very difficult and emotional and
politically charged issue.
It's funny that so many of the "pro-lifers" out there are usually the
ones who want to cut aid to mothers, cut school budgets, and make birth control
more difficult to get. If they cared about babies after they were born instead
of before, maybe I'd take them more seriously.
What would really be cool is if the "movement" stopped limiting their
concern for new life from conception until delivery and took responsibility for
the new life they saved with programs to support the new mothers, affordable
daycare, after school programs for the kids to help them grow up to become
responsible (and tax paying) members of society). The current nine
month focus has become just another partisan divide in our community. You would
think that "respect for life" would mean "lifelong respect for
life", but alas no. Sad.
I am opposed to abortion. Unfortunately there is a hypocrisy in the right to
life movement. The same conservatives who oppose abortion fight health care
reform, sex education in public schools, and any other programs that would
discourage unwanted pregnancies and improve the life of children. The far left
is just as bad. They see an abortion as nothing more than a routine medical
procedure with no long term consequences. What a sad situation we are in when
we let political extremist's on both sides control politics in this country.
Pro-life. Anti-choice. I am reluctant to fight for the
'rights' of a life... when they are in a womans uterus.