Stanek wkend question: What is the goal of the anti-abortion movement?
This is a follow-up to last weekend’s question, which was, “Is abortion the problem?”
This weekend’s question is: What is the goal of the anti-abortion movement? What should be our goal?
(I singled out “anti-abortion” from “pro-life,” since the problems and goals of the movement at large are broader.)
Our Quote of the Day today adds real insight:
In every society, there are two critical lists: acceptable conditions for having a baby, and acceptable conditions for having sex. From time immemorial, the one thing that almost every society had in common was that their two lists matched up.
It was only with the widespread acceptance of contraception in the middle of the 20th century, creating an upheaval in the public psyche in which sex and babies no longer went hand-in-hand, that the two lists began to diverge. And now, in 21st-century America, they look something like this:
Conditions under which it is acceptable to have sex:
Conditions under which it is acceptable to have a baby:
As long as those two lists do not match, we will live in a culture where abortion is common and where women are at war with their own bodies.
Thoughts?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I’m going to shock everyone who I argue with on here, lol, and say that I basically agree that people should think a little harder about the second list, even if they meet all the requirements on the first list, before they have sex. I’m not anti-contraception, and I don’t really have any moral issue with people deciding to have sex before marriage, or other sexual choices that don’t involve life long monogamy… but I do think that if people thought a little bit more about the possible fall out of their sexual choices and realized that with all the precautions in the world they might end up with an unplanned pregnancy or something much worse (especially in a world where abortion is illegal and not a “fix” after the fact), that they might think a little harder before getting freaky.
But policing sex lives isn’t our goal, it might be a secondary effect of our main goal, but I don’t think it should be the focus. All the cautionary tales about how sleeping around might have some unfortunate results doesn’t mean anything if people don’t accept the humanity of the unborn first. And honestly I don’t care if everyone in the world has multiple sex partners as long as they realize that babies aren’t disposable and are prepared to care for any babies that result from any encounters. I think people tend to focus too much on the sexual morals when it’s really not the important part.
A guaranteed annual income combined with a family allowance system would go a long way toward helping people be economically able to have a baby or another baby.
I think people tend to not focus enough on the sexual morals part. Immorality like pornography and infidelity lead to a higher risk of divorce. Higher rates of divorce lead to single parent homes. Single parent homes have a higher risk of raising children who will engage in non-marital sex at earlier ages which will in turn lead to more abortions.
We’ve messed up big time.
“ What is the goal of the anti-abortion movement? What should be our goal?”
The ultimate goal is to bring about an end to abortion through legislative means and by creating a change of heart in the public that would effect such a legislative accomplishment in a representative democracy.
All the rest is sequential tactical short-term objectives.
In that light, “anti-abortion” can not, and will never exist on its own apart from the broader “Pro-life, pro-family” moral perspective as articulated by the Catholic Church. While I love my fellow Christians in the movement and honor their vibrant faith, their devotion to the scriptures, we will not be able to effect a Culture of Life with a contraceptive mentality. This is especially so when one considers the frightful rise of abortion in the demographic of older married women whose contraceptive methods have failed them.
The pill and IUD’s are abortifacient in nature; so is Ella, which is marketed as a contraceptive. These are the most efficacious contraceptives. If one eschews these abortifacient methods for the less effective methods with higher failure rates, then there is the greater probability of abortion, as we see in older married women.
“Anti-abortion” sounds cramped, punitive and restrictive because it is. It is devoid of a positive, love-filled alternative lifestyle, one that precludes the perceived need for abortion in the first place. The intermediate objectives and strategies must be pro-life, or we’ll be having this same conversation 20 years from now.
I think another way of putting it is that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. Period. If humans didn’t need sex to reproduce, we would not have the organs needed to have sex. I think we, as a culture, have spent too much time separating sex from reproduction.
And I’m not pushing an anti-contraceptive agenda here, just a biological fact. I really don’t care whether people take preventative measures, so long as they understand at a fundamental level what they are doing and why.
If women yearn for babies, they are unlikely to perversely abort.
Your goal should be ensuring that the ladies yearning for babies are the ladies getting pregnant.
Which is true?
(1) If people viewed sex differently, there would be no one seeking abortion.
(2) If people viewed the humanity of preborn babies differently, there would be no one seeking abortion.
At first thought, I would say both are true – either one would do. But then what about health problems of the baby? People who had an appropriate approach to sex would still need to value all human life. And what about (2) without (1)? This seems to entail children being born, but is not without its problems. Just a quick thought on thinking it through. Gotta fly for now.
Yuri Nesterenko believes we need to de-emphasize both romance and sexuality because they put passions over intellect. What separates humans from other animals is our intellect.
Oriana Fallaci said, “Sex is an activity for porters. It gets the blood circulating in the legs. We intellectuals need it circulating in the brain.”
Can we put the emphasis on what is between our ears rather than our legs?
@ Gerard: The term “pro-life” is misleading. You favor abortion criminalization. That’s a perfectly defensible position. No one is against life.
I also never use “pro-choice.” A millions choices have no controversy.
The issue of abortion legality or criminality has NO automatic logical connection with ANY other so-called “life” issue be it contraception, the death penalty, euthanasia, assisted suicide, gun control, treatment of non-human animals, military, or whatever.
I saw an ad once for the Honda Odyssey, which I owned at the time. It said: Don’t have a family without one. Apparently, you shouldn’t consider children until you can own an Odyssey, or a certain set of material accoutrements. I would have never been born under such a system. Nor would most of you, I’ll bet.
Your goal isn’t mysterious.
It is decreasing abortions.
“@ Gerard: The term “pro-life” is misleading. You favor abortion criminalization. That’s a perfectly defensible position. No one is against life.
I also never use “pro-choice.” A millions choices have no controversy.The issue of abortion legality or criminality has NO automatic logical connection with ANY other so-called “life” issue be it contraception, the death penalty, euthanasia, assisted suicide, gun control, treatment of non-human animals, military, or whatever. ”
I actually agree with this.
And the idea that nobody was promiscuous and unwanted children were never killed until they invented that darned hormonal birth control is frankly laughable. This is a problem that has been going on ever since humankind found out it was physically pleasurable to rub together our bits and pieces, and will no doubt continue on in one way or another until the human race ceases to live upon the planet. I am chiefly concerned with criminalizing the killing of human children in utero, because it should be illegal for a parent or guardian to shirk their obligations to their children at the cost of the child’s life, and making it illegal should decrease the incidence thereof. Currently, children post-birth have this sort of legal protection, and it should exist for children pre-birth, as well.
I really, truly, wholeheartedly could not care LESS what adult humans choose to do with each other privately in a sexual manner, as long as no one definitively loses their life as an intentional consequence of an action relating to sexual congress. Once abortion is illegal, I can’t wait to jump off this little parade float, honestly.
Here’s another observation you might like, x: the abortion criminalization movement is peculiarly INSULATED from the charge of “hypocrisy.” It is the only massive political movement the members of which don’t benefit from the policy advocated. They are already born. They are trying to protect those who are not. They can’t be motivated by self-interest.
The goal of this anti-abortion advocate is to persuade as many people as possible that abortion is a barbaric atrocity which should be rejected and banned. As one with personal experience with this so-called “choice”, I urge Americans to reject abortion. It harmed me; it’s harmed my family and it’s divided our Nation. We cannot call ourselves civilized when we allow doctors or other medical professionals to tear apart children who happen to be in their mothers’ wombs. And we cannot call ourselves civilized when one of the leading causes of maternal deaths is homicide, although we don’t talk about that anymore.
Haven’t chimed in on this one because, as usual, Jack and X have said what I feel needs to be said. But I will say that this is a pretty big case of the answer’s in the question. This is especially true when one chooses to separate anti-abortion from pro-life. The goal of the anti-abortion movement pretty by definition is to oppose abortion, big bucket of duh.
And we cannot call ourselves civilized when one of the leading causes of maternal deaths is homicide, although we don’t talk about that anymore.
Because abortion has helped to make things the way they are, and nobody controlling the media would like their agenda to be tarnished by people connecting the dots.
If a father sees his own child’s life as an acceptable cost of his sexual habits, how little can he think of the woman connected to that child who he has devalued to nothing more than a receptacle for his sperm? That is/was HIS OWN CHILD. The child’s mother shares less of a connection to him than his child does.
What really bothers me about abortion is this whole “woman’s right to choose” thing. The last time I looked, it took two to tango. If a woman goes out and has sex with someone and gets pregnant, after the baby is born, she can go find the father of the child and sue him for child support. I know here in Texas, the courts will hold him liable for child support until said child is 18. However, if the same woman decides to have an abortion, the father has no say in this matter. It just blows my mind that family law holds the father accountable for child support and gives him the rights to custody after the birth of the child but the father has no say in an abortion.
I think the next step we need to take in the anti-abortion is to move from “woman’s right to choose” to “parents’ right to choose.” If we can move the focus away from “it’s my body” to “it’s our baby,” it’s only a short step down to “it’s a baby and therefore should not be terminated.” It would also make it harder for Planned Parenthood to prey on poor scared girls because they have to get the father’s consent. I know this would make things very complicated (especially in cases where “I don’t know who the father is”) but in something like this that affects a human life, I think the more complicated the better. Might save a few lives.
Lol JDC, I think 50% of your comments are you stating that you agree with me and/or X. I like it. :)
Joy I actually don’t think that’s a good idea. I don’t like the thought of an adult having control over their spouse’s medical decisions (even though we know abortion isn’t a “medical” decision), I think it sets a terrible precedent. What if he was a jerk and insisted on termination when she wanted to carry? Would they go to court over that? I think that if we get to the point where we legally acknowledge that it’s a human baby, there would be no need for those laws anyway, at that point I think abortion could easily be made illegal on it’s own.
“I think the next step we need to take in the anti-abortion is to move from “woman’s right to choose” to “parents’ right to choose.” If we can move the focus away from “it’s my body” to “it’s our baby,” it’s only a short step down to “it’s a baby and therefore should not be terminated.”
If some determine the humanity of the preborn based on their “wantedness,” then they better apply their creepy standard consistently to the desires of both parents. And then to grandparents. And to me too for that matter.
It is a tough call in “compromising” our principles, in a sense, to gain some strategic ground. But I also wonder sometimes if that is what it might take. As in sales/marketing, when you get someone to take a small step … But this is not sales, and it works both ways, so … ??
People are so afraid to impinge on “women’s rights” – one of the many reasons it’s such a shame women have been mistreated. The backlash is disgusting. Women can do better.
“What is the goal of the anti-abortion movement?” – to impose their beliefs and way of life onto others.
“What should be our goal?” – to have your beliefs and live your desired way of life and leave others to theirs.
“I think another way of putting it is that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. Period. If humans didn’t need sex to reproduce, we would not have the organs needed to have sex” – if that was so then why do women also have a clitoris, experience orgasm and sometimes even ejaculation? None of these factors are required for reproduction. And why do people, including women, have a desire for sex when they are not ‘prime’ for impregnation? Rather pointless isn’t it?
The goal is not mysterious. It is decreasing abortion. There are a multitude of ways this can be done. However, the goal is fairly simple and obvious.
If there’s no demand, supply is irrelevant. The sitcom “Married . . . with Children” had an episode pointing this out. Al Bundy set up a phoneline similar to the psychic and sex phone lines in which he would discuss shoe matters with callers. There was no question of legality. It is perfectly legal on both sides for someone to call up and pay X number of dollars per minute to discuss what kinds of shoes to buy.
But the shoe phoneline made no money because people didn’t want to spend their cash talking about what kind of shoes to buy.
The psychic lines and sex lines do a great business. That is the power of the market.
If there ever comes a time in which all pregnant women look forward to giving birth, the abortionists will go the way of Al Bundy’s fictional shoe phoneline. No business.
““What is the goal of the anti-abortion movement?” – to impose their beliefs and way of life onto others.
“What should be our goal?” – to have your beliefs and live your desired way of life and leave others to theirs.”
Pssh. This only applies if you don’t believe the fetus is a human (which it demonstrably biologically is, you just do not wish to extend it human rights or “personhood”). If the fetus is human, anti-abortionists wish to “impose their beliefs” in the same way anti-rape advocates wish to impose theirs’.
” “I think another way of putting it is that the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. Period. If humans didn’t need sex to reproduce, we would not have the organs needed to have sex” – if that was so then why do women also have a clitoris, experience orgasm and sometimes even ejaculation? None of these factors are required for reproduction. And why do people, including women, have a desire for sex when they are not ‘prime’ for impregnation? Rather pointless isn’t it?”
Of course, sex biologically exists for other purposes than reproduction, though reproduction is a main one. Bonding is a big one as well.
Bad analogy Jack. Rape is immoral and illegal, abortion isn’t.
“anti-abortionists wish to “impose their beliefs” in the same way anti-miscegenation advocates wish to impose theirs” – that’s better.
“Bonding is a big one as well” – personally I’m in strong agreement with you there Jack.
“Bad analogy Jack. Rape is immoral and illegal, abortion isn’t.”
You haven’t proven that abortion isn’t immoral, though it isn’t illegal you are right about that. You assert it, and we differ in that regard. I do think that ending a human’s life is immoral, whether they are in utero or not.
” “anti-abortionists wish to “impose their beliefs” in the same way anti-miscegenation advocates wish to impose theirs” – that’s better.”
Now that’s a bad analogy. Who was being hurt by mixed race marriages? No one, that’s why the opposition to them was ridiculous. You can’t say the same about abortion.
“You haven’t proven that abortion isn’t immoral, though it isn’t illegal you are right about that.” – and it hasn’t been proven that it is immoral.
“You assert it, and we differ in that regard” – indeed we do Jack.
“Who was being hurt by mixed race marriages? No one” – agreed, yet look at the bunfight that went on.
“You can’t say the same about abortion.” – I can and do Jack. As you say, we differ in that regard.
Okay Reality, can I ask you something? How do you feel about post-viability abortions? Can you make a logical argument that they are any different than killing a newborn?
I support womens right to choose up to the moment they choose to deliver Jack. That’s my personal position. It is women who get pregnant, it is women who carry the developing fetus. It is women who get to decide if a fetus is born.
If you ask how is that different to killing a newborn then I would suggest that some of the things said by some people here have actually led me to believe that perhaps self-awareness could be deemed the relevant cut-off point. But I hold back from that position because as I said, once a woman chooses to deliver, birth has taken place.
There is only one question that needs to be asked – ‘do you want a baby?’
“I support womens right to choose up to the moment they choose to deliver Jack. That’s my personal position. It is women who get pregnant, it is women who carry the developing fetus. It is women who get to decide if a fetus is born.”
But what I don’t get is that I have debated a LOT with pro-choicers, and you all say something to the effect of it’s her body, she shouldn’t have to carry a fetus if she doesn’t want to. Now after viability, I don’t see how that’s an arguable position, to actually abort the fetus rather than deliver it. There seems to be absolutely no rational reason to support this. If she doesn’t want to be pregnant, why go to the extent of killing a viable baby? Why not induce labor? That way she keeps her choice to not be pregnant and the baby doesn’t have to be killed. I don’t see why even pro-choicers can’t see that. I honestly can sometimes see where you all are coming from with early term abortions, even though I heartily disagree. It’s when you all justify late term abortions that your logic seriously breaks down, where it doesn’t seem like it’s about protecting bodily autonomy anymore, it’s about killing the fetus.
Most late-term abortions occur due to circumstances which may not have been apparent earlier in the pregnancy Jack.
Most late-term abortions occur due to circumstances which may not have been apparent earlier in the pregnancy Jack.
Yah, the late-term human fetus is starting to look more like a born human baby.
Abortion has always been about killing someone.
Something Praxedes, something.
Reality, a minor bit of research brings us to this:
In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[3]
71% Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn’t know timing is important
5% Woman didn’t know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other
Honestly.
Reality, do you consider yourself a “someone” or a “something”? And then I ask, why?
1987?
“And then I ask, why” – hm, I think you know the answer, you just don’t like it :-)
“Most late-term abortions occur due to circumstances which may not have been apparent earlier in the pregnancy Jack”
Okay, I completely disagree with aborting for medical reasons late term, but I do understand that one. I suppose a rational argument can be made from it, as immoral as I find it. But I am talking about women who do not have a medical reason to abort. I don’t see how it’s justifiable or logical to agree with post viability abortions.
Reality I agree with you about a ton of things as long as it’s not abortion, I am just hoping my charisma and charm will make you see the light someday ;) haha.
“Reality I agree with you about a ton of things” – we do Jack, and I like that.
“as long as it’s not abortion” – oh well, can’t have everything. I’m hardly going to change after all these decades.
“I am just hoping my charisma and charm will make you see the light someday haha” – as nice and good a person as you seem Jack, charisma and charm only works on those who either want it to, or are simple-minded.
“as nice and good a person as you seem Jack, charisma and charm only works on those who either want it to, or are simple-minded.”
But how can I start my vegetarian, anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, pro-social justice cult if I can only attract dumb people with my powers?!! :D lol.
Honestly, I don’t expect to change your mind on abortion, you’ve been on this blog at least for years, who knows how long you have been pro-choice. I am just hoping to find common ground (like maybe I can convince you to stop supporting late term abortions someday), and you can see a different aspect to the pro-life movement, since you sometimes act like it’s simply a religious viewpoint. Most of us are genuinely in it to protect babies, not to control women or anything like that.
“if I can only attract dumb people with my powers?!!” – its how the others do it. :-)
“who knows how long you have been pro-choice.” – from the moment I first considered the topic, nearly 40 years now.
“Most of us are genuinely in it to protect babies, not to control women or anything like that” – hm, not convinced about the ‘most’ part of that Jack, although I accept that you are.
“hm, not convinced about the ‘most’ part of that Jack, although I accept that you are.”
Well, I would guess that about 90-95% of people who claim to be pro-life do genuinely care about the babies, even if they hold other views that I don’t personally agree with about sex, contraception, etc. You can’t judge us all on the few bad people. I do try to give pro-choicers the benefit of the doubt, I don’t think you are all in it because you love killing fetuses and hurting women like Carla. I think you are a good person, I don’t lump you in with the creeps and stalkers that are nominally on your side.
That’s the last year Guttmacher provided numbers for the reasons. I guess they didn’t like the answers they were getting, either, so they stopped asking. If you can find more recent ones, Reality, be my guest to provide them.
As far as the “Why?”…humor me, please?
Gerard Nadal wrote:
In that light, “anti-abortion” can not, and will never exist on its own apart from the broader “Pro-life, pro-family” moral perspective as articulated by the Catholic Church….
“Anti-abortion” sounds cramped, punitive and restrictive because it is. It is devoid of a positive, love-filled alternative lifestyle, one that precludes the perceived need for abortion in the first place. The intermediate objectives and strategies must be pro-life, or we’ll be having this same conversation 20 years from now.
Ger, you’re right. And yet there is a new school of thought that “pro-life” is not descriptive enough.
We know many American’s now consider themselves “pro-life” but support abortion exceptions.
Many outright abortion proponents are also plundering the term, saying that since abortion saves women’s lives (not), this means they, too, are pro-life. Or because they oppose the death penalty they are pro-life. Etc.
“Anti-abortion” is simply more definitive. I think it works better in some conversations, not all.
That said, I’m still mulling this concept. I’ve opposed it for so many years, “anti-” being a negative term. Although there was the “anti-slavery” movement.
Thinking out loud, ha.
How about anti-feticide?
I’m not against being called “anti-abortion”, but I think it’s too narrow of a term. Anti-abortion doesn’t work for infanticide or destructive embryo research, both of which pro-lifers also put a great deal of emphasis on. It’s far from a perfect term, but I think “pro-life” is broad enough for our purposes and commonly understood to mean what we think it does (semantic trolls not withstanding).
“That’s the last year Guttmacher provided numbers for the reasons. I guess they didn’t like the answers they were getting, either, so they stopped asking.”
In their defense they’re busy with other priorities, like making up fake abortion statistics for countries where it’s illegal.
@ Jill Stanek: Do you have any position on the death penalty?
I know that many groups concerned with abortion don’t take a position on the death penalty because it is so divisive.
There was a study done awhile ago that I think is oddly relevant to this debate. People who said they supported the death penalty were given 3 hypothetical cases and asked if the murderer should receive the death penalty. The cases were chosen for being typical murder cases rather than especially sympathetic. IIRC one was a robber who had killed during a stick-up. Another was someone who had beaten a woman to death. The majority of those studied — all of whom said they supported the death penalty — said they would not have voted for it in any of the 3 instances.
The researchers postulated 2 possible explanations: 1) Many people who support the death penalty are thinking of worst case scenarios such as serial murderers; 2) Many people support the death penalty because they identify with conservatism in general but don’t really support it in real life terms.
There is a kind of resemblance here to the many people who believe abortion should be banned “except” in “hard cases” like rape or who believe it should be banned in theory but have them in their own lives or support female relatives who do.
Triage.
Anti-abortion or pro-life activities are a kind of triage: babies are dying before they have a chance to be born. First, we need to stop the killing. Because lives are at stake as we speak. Then, we need to stop the causes leading up to the killing. Because we need a long term plan. In the short term, we can all agree to stop the killing, to do what ever we can to intercept pregnant mothers (sidewalk counseling), to vote our conscience, to support pregnancy care centers and to support individual women we know in our lives. BUT: Any single tactic isn’t enough to solve the problem of abortion. The tactics must be used together as part of a greater overall strategy.
What is the goal of the anti-abortion movement? To stop the killing of pre-born human beings. But do most pro-lifers have a greater goal in mind, a further endgame? Yes, I think so. I think most of us also want to end euthanasia, any kind of suicide or homicide, and any kind of murder that couches itself in soft-sell terms like “assisted suicide.” I don’t know the statistics, but most of us are probably against the death penalty as well.
Teach girls and boys that they can avoid unwanted pregnancy 100% of the time if they don’t have sex 100% of the time. And that’s just the beginning.
Janetforlife says:
December 10, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Teach girls and boys that they can avoid unwanted pregnancy 100% of the time if they don’t have sex 100% of the time. And that’s just the beginning.
(Denise) How can we make it popular for teen girls to not have boyfriends?
How can we make it popular for teen boys to not have girlfriends?
Can we convince people that romantic relationships are to be eschewed in favor of more cerebral type relationships?
Why? Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women “over a barrel”, forcing them to work cheap.
The larger the labor supply, the cheaper it is. The more desperately you need a job, the cheaper you’ll work, and the more power those “corporate lords” have over you. If you are a wealthy elite – or a deluded supporter or lackey – your wealth, power and privilege is enhanced by a labor pool, forced to work cheap.
The ugly truth is that cheap-labor conservatives just don’t like working people. They don’t like “bottom up” prosperity, and the reason for it is very simple. lords have a harder time kicking them around. Once you understand this about the cheap-labor conservatives, the real motivation for their policies makes perfect sense. Remember, cheap-labor conservatives believe in social hierarchy and privilege, so the only prosperity they want is limited to them. They want to see absolutely nothing that benefits the guy – or more often the woman – who works for an hourly wage.
How can we make it popular for teen girls to not have boyfriends?
How can we make it popular for teen boys to not have girlfriends?
Oh, Denise.
has a boyfriend =/= having sex.
has a girlfriend =/= having sex.
My youngest sister has been married to her husband for about 2 years now. They both just finished their first college degrees, and are now moving on from their community college to university. She also just announced she was pregnant for the first time last week (I’m still trying to wrap my brain around it-that’s another reason I’ve been kinda absentee lately). She had boyfriends all through high school, but wasn’t sexually-active until she married her now-husband. They were dating for a year before marrying. I don’t think 21 is an unreasonable age to have children, and I don’t think cloistering yourself is necessary to ensure you don’t start having children until your 20’s, either.
Robert,
I pity those who see other human beings as amounts of a yearly salary or an hourly wage. I assure you, those of us on the ground floor aren’t doing what we do to keep labor cheap (although, if you know of somewhere that’s hiring, please, let me know!). These salary numbers and mobility factors are real, actual people, Robert. I don’t care HOW easy killing my children while I’m pregnant with them makes my life, I don’t care what kinds of jobs I have to accept rather than kill them-ABORTION IS STILL THE ACT OF KILLING MY CHILD, AND THAT SHOULDN’T BE LEGAL.
@ x: It is likely that having a boyfriend/girlfriend will lead to a sexual relationship of some sort.
It is likely that those without such relationships will remain chaste.
Not necessarily, Denise.
One-night-stands happen. I’d rather teach children responsibility, and give them the proper knowledge about sex and how it relates to being a good citizen, and a good person, along with respect for themselves and their sexuality.
What the hey is Robert yammering about? Is he trying to say that conservatives are only pro-life to keep labor cheap? Well, I’m sure that a child who’s life is saved by a sidewalk counselor isn’t going to grow up and feel betrayed and wish to be dead if he or she “discovers” that his or her life was only saved to keep minimum wage low. And, I’m also pretty sure that an army of dead pre-born children isn’t up in some celestial sports arena cheering for their parents who wisely snuffed them all out so that minimum wage could rise.
Truckload of duh.
I wonder if this is true of the general public. It certainly never has been for me. I’m not sure your definition of a “positive, love-filled environment” meshes with all that many people in current society. I’m certainly not saying it’s a bad approach, but it’s definitely not for everyone. Biased, though, because I genuinely believe a “no-killing” approach is the best way to go.
For me, tubal ligation was the best decision I ever made. It was a difficult pregnancy with my daughter, and sex with my husband was stressful afterward because I was always terrified of getting pregnant again. Not everyone’s situation, but it was mine. Things are so much happier since the operation.
You know, if people aren’t already ready for a religious message, there’s a good chance they’re not going to want to hear it, no matter how nicely you want to present it. And again, it won’t suit everyone.
I’d love to see everyone admit the humanity of the fetus (though I’m against the “personhood” movements). No big population is ever going to accept the religious approach these days. That’s no reason to stop trying, because there will always be people to be won over. It’s just that expecting the general public to buy that belief will never work. I just want the killing to end. That’s all.
xalisae says:
December 10, 2012 at 6:05 pm
Not necessarily, Denise.One-night-stands happen.
(Denise) Yes, yuck.