Quantcast
Utah

Pro-life movement making a comeback

Comments

Return To Article
  • Furry1993 Somewhere in Utah, UT
    May 5, 2011 12:19 p.m.

    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.

  • So-CalAggie Anaheim, CA
    May 2, 2011 3:31 p.m.

    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.

  • I Choose Freedom Atlanta, GA
    May 2, 2011 2:00 p.m.

    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!

  • ignoranceisbliss Salt Lake City, UT
    May 2, 2011 1:52 p.m.

    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.

  • ignoranceisbliss Salt Lake City, UT
    May 2, 2011 12:53 p.m.

    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?

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    May 2, 2011 9:42 a.m.

    @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 decision.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 2, 2011 8:48 a.m.

    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.

  • TJ Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 2, 2011 8:15 a.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 1, 2011 8:39 p.m.

    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 Freedom
    So, your'e going to fine destitute people?
    Right, that'll work to decrease the abortion rate.
    (not)

  • jdg fruitland, utah
    May 1, 2011 8:23 p.m.

    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.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    May 1, 2011 7:50 p.m.

    All life is precious, until it is born.

    -- The right wing of American politics

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    May 1, 2011 7:41 p.m.

    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?

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    May 1, 2011 6:57 p.m.

    @TJ

    God 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 Choose Freedom Atlanta, GA
    May 1, 2011 6:38 p.m.

    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!

  • TJ Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 1, 2011 6:09 p.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 1, 2011 4:46 p.m.

    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.

  • El Chango Supremo Rexburg, ID
    May 1, 2011 4:21 p.m.

    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??

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    May 1, 2011 4:04 p.m.

    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 "comeback."

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    May 1, 2011 3:42 p.m.

    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 is ludicrous.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    May 1, 2011 3:18 p.m.

    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!

  • GWB West Jordan, UT
    May 1, 2011 3:13 p.m.

    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?

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    May 1, 2011 3:10 p.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 1, 2011 3:09 p.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 1, 2011 3:06 p.m.

    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?

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, Utah
    May 1, 2011 2:47 p.m.

    "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!

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    May 1, 2011 2:19 p.m.

    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 proposing, right?

  • LAL South Jordan, UT
    May 1, 2011 1:16 p.m.

    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.

  • ignoranceisbliss Salt Lake City, UT
    May 1, 2011 11:58 a.m.

    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.

  • oldcougar Orem, UT
    May 1, 2011 11:13 a.m.

    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?

  • Joggle Clearfield, UT
    May 1, 2011 10:57 a.m.

    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.

  • runwasatch Ogden, UT
    May 1, 2011 10:49 a.m.

    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...

  • FDRfan Sugar City, ID
    May 1, 2011 10:33 a.m.

    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?

  • KM Cedar Hills, UT
    May 1, 2011 10:21 a.m.

    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?

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    May 1, 2011 10:08 a.m.

    Editor: When we write a post that breaks one of your rules, please allow us to fix it, rather than have it disappear.

  • formerUT Osawatomie, KS
    May 1, 2011 9:57 a.m.

    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.e. miscarriage).

  • GWB West Jordan, UT
    May 1, 2011 9:19 a.m.

    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 - "anti-abortion".

  • TheAtheist slc, u
    May 1, 2011 9:09 a.m.

    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.

  • conservative scientist Lindon, UT
    May 1, 2011 8:19 a.m.

    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.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    May 1, 2011 6:41 a.m.

    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.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    May 1, 2011 6:30 a.m.

    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.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    May 1, 2011 6:04 a.m.

    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.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    May 1, 2011 12:34 a.m.

    Pro-life.

    Anti-choice.

    I am reluctant to fight for the 'rights' of a life...

    when they are in a womans uterus.