"Why i lost faith in the pro-life movement"

[SquirrelySquirrel]

I can't copy and paste right now on my phone, but this is the most comprehensively awesome post I've ever read on the topic. It's long, but she hits on all of the points.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... ement.html

[Curly Girl]

I can't copy and paste right now on my phone, but this is the most comprehensively awesome post I've ever read on the topic. It's long, but she hits on all of the points.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfem ... ement.html

Wow, what an excellent post! I can relate to this, as a "I wouldn't have an abortion, but I don't think it should be outlawed" Catholic.

[linnea27]

She hits the nail on the head. Pro-lifers these days are slut-shamers, nothing more. They want birth control and abortion outlawed so a woman can't hide that she had sex. They don't want funding to go to poor women because that would be rewarding them for having sex when that child is supposed to be a millstone around that woman's neck forever. They don't care about babies.

I can't believe anyone who claims to be pro-life if they don't also support public health care.

[Mela99]

Love it. Plus, you don't find pro-choice workers attempting to blow up your house, follow your kids to school, and start scenes at your workplace till you get fired.

I still don't understand that mentality.

[Peas n carrots]

She hits the nail on the head. Pro-lifers these days are slut-shamers, nothing more. They want birth control and abortion outlawed so a woman can't hide that she had sex. They don't want funding to go to poor women because that would be rewarding them for having sex when that child is supposed to be a millstone around that woman's neck forever. They don't care about babies.

I can't believe anyone who claims to be pro-life if they don't also support public health care.

Women can't win with the pro lifers. Condemning a 12 year old girl to pregnancy and child birth is NOT pro life. Telling a mother who already has hungry mouths to feed is not pro life.

Sorry, these folks really burn my candles. Pro lifers want to have their cake and eat it too.

[Rosa]

I love Libby Anne so much.

[Swamptribe]

One thing she did not touch on was the pro-life movements claim that the answer to abortion is adoption. (I am not anti-adoption by any means) I would have liked to see her tackle that ole' canard.

Oh, another interesting article on the subject. We have discussed the bibles stance on 'personhood' before.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/3 ... ?hpt=hp_t3

edited to add link.

[SPHASH]

I used to be against abortion laws until about 10 years ago, when I got sick of the anti-choice protesters here where I live. One of them told me the mother did not matter, only the baby does.

I still think abortion is wrong, but the best way to eliminate it is birth control and sex education, not outlawing it, although partial birth and late term abortion should only be legal in the case of saving the mother.

[ceg045]

Thomas Friedman did a great op-ed this past weekend reiterating similar points:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opini ... neral&_r=0

[Minerva]

although partial birth and late term abortion should only be legal in the case of saving the mother.

You don't think it should be legal if the fetus has a fatal birth defect? What exactly do you think "partial birth abortion" is, and why do you think it should be restricted?

[Rosa]

i don't know if she's specifically tackled it, but it's come up in comments on abortion posts of hers before, and that made ME realize that I would just about rather commit suicide than give up a child to be adopted by one of these crazy antichoice Biblethumpers. What's the chance an adopter-to-prevent abortion is also a baby beater?

[Minerva]

i don't know if she's specifically tackled it, but it's come up in comments on abortion posts of hers before, and that made ME realize that I would just about rather commit suicide than give up a child to be adopted by one of these crazy antichoice Biblethumpers. What's the chance an adopter-to-prevent abortion is also a baby beater?

They probably also supported those fetal pain bills. Beating your toddler = good. Imaginary fetal pain = bad. Makes sense.

[Guest Anonymous]

I used to be against abortion laws until about 10 years ago, when I got sick of the anti-choice protesters here where I live. One of them told me the mother did not matter, only the baby does.

I still think abortion is wrong, but the best way to eliminate it is birth control and sex education, not outlawing it, although partial birth and late term abortion should only be legal in the case of saving the mother.

You need to look up treemom's story and see if you still think that. There is a pack of lies around about "partial birth" and late term abortions. Almost every one if not all of them are performed on wanted pregnancies where something has gone devastatingly wrong. Women don't up and have them just for funsies.

[Curly Girl]

You need to look up treemom's story and see if you still think that. There is a pack of lies around about "partial birth" and late term abortions. Almost every one if not all of them are performed on wanted pregnancies where something has gone devastatingly wrong. Women don't up and have them just for funsies.

Do you have a link?

[Anxious Girl]

I used to be against abortion laws until about 10 years ago, when I got sick of the anti-choice protesters here where I live. One of them told me the mother did not matter, only the baby does.

I still think abortion is wrong, but the best way to eliminate it is birth control and sex education, not outlawing it, although partial birth and late term abortion should only be legal in the case of saving the mother.

You think abortion is wrong. Just because you think something is wrong that's a legal right, yes, a right, doesn't mean people are going to comply with your emotions to make you feel better about the world. Deal with it.

[kayray]

You need to look up treemom's story and see if you still think that. There is a pack of lies around about "partial birth" and late term abortions. Almost every one if not all of them are performed on wanted pregnancies where something has gone devastatingly wrong. Women don't up and have them just for funsies.

Yes. I hate when people trot out the "partial birth" and "late term abortion" arguments. I usually see it in conjunction with "if a woman wanted an abortion, she should have figured it out in the first three months".

First fo all, "partial birth" is a term made up by the anti-choice movement. It is not a medical term. Secondly, the women who are facing late term abortions are doing them due to serious birth defects, fetal death, and so forth. These are not exactly chosen circumstances, even if the decision to terminate to save the mother or remove a dying or dead fetus is. Something like 0.17% of all abortions are later term abortions due to these kind of circumstances.

There is no reason to "eliminate" abortion because there is nothing wrong with abortion. All the contraceptive control (because, well, abortion IS birth control no matter how many times someone says "abortion should not be used as birth control"...it prevents birth) and education in the world won't eliminate the need for abortion. It should remain an option always.

[mockingbird]

Ugh, some of the comments reminded me of something I really hate in the Catholic Catechism, that married couples are required to always be "open to life". If your health would be in danger from a pregnancy, you need a church exemption to be allowed to use any method of birth control besides NFP (and technically you are only supposed to use that to space out your kids, not prevent having any). Instead you are just supposed to abstain from sex until the wife hits menopause. Awesome. I mean, not that any non-fundy Catholics I know actually follow the church's rules against birth control, but still, that particular more fundy interpretation of the catechism makes me mad.

[kayray]

One thing she did not touch on was the pro-life movements claim that the answer to abortion is adoption. (I am not anti-adoption by any means) I would have liked to see her tackle that ole' canard.

Yes, me too.

Adoption is an alternative to parenting but it is not the answer to abortion.

Saying it is denies the potential health risks and difficulty of pregnancy (including trauma and tokophobia for some) and childbirth (again, with risks of severe complications, and tokophobia), and the difficulties and issues surrounding the act of giving a child to another family (for example, not all children go to healthy families, not all people (children included) are happy with the outcome, not all children are even adoptable if they have severe health issues, or are "less desired" for whatever other reason).

My best friend gave a child up for adoption when she was 16 (she did not know she was pregnant until she missed the deadline for elective abortion here). Around the same time I had an abortion. Once she gave birth, I think she did an amazing thing for herself and for that child by giving him up for adoption, but it was a very difficult experience for her and she would have preferred to have had an abortion. It still is difficult for her over 17 years later, and though it is an open adoption in some ways that also makes it hard. Me? I am very happy with my decision and have never regretted it, even for a minute, or wished I had done adoption instead. Now that I think of it, today would be 17 years to the day I had my abortion (I know the exact date only because I had it on Halloween and went out to a Halloween party that night, not because it haunts me every day) and that is 17 years of being so, so glad I did have an abortion. And if I got pregnant today? I'd have another one. I don't want kids, and I don't want to be pregnant or give birth to them either.

[RachelB]

Do you have a link?

Here are a couple of links to treemom's story:

http://freejinger.yuku.com/reply/9976/K ... reply-9976

http://freejinger.yuku.com/reply/97488/ ... JGHYhgspxE

[Guest Anonymous]

Do you have a link?

Anyone want to know why I had my late term, Dr. Tiller, Kansas clinic abortion? Because my child had an excruciatingly painful condition incompatible with life. Every moment of her life was spent in charlie horses. She wouldn't be born breathing because the muscle contractures prevented her lungs from expanding and developing. However I lived in a state that at the time did not allow dr's to provide pallative care to newborns until they stabilized breathing, heart rate, etc. Every moment of her existence in utero and after birth (if she was born alive, big if) would have been terrible, miserable pain.

I ended it.

...

I just get frustrated when people (kristina) have such a narrow view of the myriad of reasons that they scream ADOPTION!

I asked her if she supports laws that protect the rights of parents to determine when pallative care is offered to newborns. And laws that require hospitals to offer pallative prenatal care. I wonder how much research she supports with her dollars to cure genetic conditions. Does she understand that these pregnancies would not have made it before we had such good prenatal care? Does she have an ounce of compassion for anyone?

I am not sure what I would have done had the laws been different at the time. But I know options would have been nice. To feel like I didn't have to flog a newborn with intubation, IV's, being unable to hold her. To know that we could have brought her in more peacbly and let her die quietly might have changed my mind.

I did what I think was right by her. I ended her unbearable suffering. And I don't regret one day of it.

...

Also, it does not require a judge's consent to get a late term abortion in all states, there just aren't many providers in the whole country and Kansas has more relaxed rules making it easier for people like me. There are only a handful of clinics that do mid-late 2nd trimester and beyond abortion. One is the US. Dr. Tiller's in Kansas, where I had mine. He was one of the most compassionate people I have ever met in my life. Having an abortion wasn't an option in my state (which is about 1000 miles away) because the laws are so restrictive abortions past 12 weeks must be preformed in a hospital. Which would be fine, except there are 3 hospital systems in my town, none of which will perform these abortions without convening an ethics panel and there wasn't time, not once we were sure. That is the problem with religious and public owned hospitals in the bible belt.

...

One misconception I would like to clear up that i hear bandied about a lot is that it is somehow easy and common to get abortions past 16 weeks (just 4 weeks past the end of the 1st trimester). It is not. I would argue (although I don't have solid evidence for it) is that almost all abortions occur between weeks 10 and 14. (Mostly because most places won't do it before 10 weeks).

In most states getting a mid to late 2nd trimester abortion isn't really abortion on demand and most states may not have providers that will do it except in a case of immediate emergency (as in crashing in the hospital emergency)

http://freejinger.yuku.com/reply/10002/ ... eply-10002

**ETA: Crossposted with RachelB.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Libby Anne, Tom Friedman and David Frum have written a trio of articles that are - gasp! - LOGICAL. If you are truly pro-life, you should support things that both reduce the number of abortions/miscarriages, and which support life after birth. Period, end of sentence.

I'll add one more thing: if you are genuinely pro-life, you should not only sign your donor card, but have yourself on a bone marrow donor registry and donate a kidney as an altruistic donor if possible. I'm not joking. A recipient of a kidney donation is most certainly a "person", and their life cannot be sustained long-term without a kidney (since the average life span on dialysis is 5-7 years, with poor quality of life). The operation required is compared to a c-section.

Here's an article by an altruistic donor:

http://www.aish.com/sp/so/48937647.html

Note that she's basically saying why she's not crazy, and why she personally felt the negative reactions of others was not warranted. She's just encouraging others to at least think about doing it voluntarily. Compare and contrast to those who would FORCE women to undergo something that's at least as physically demanding, if not more so, without screening out those for whom it would be physically difficult.

[clicker dies]

Yes, me too.

Adoption is an alternative to parenting but it is not the answer to abortion.

Saying it is denies the potential health risks and difficulty of pregnancy (including trauma and tokophobia for some) and childbirth (again, with risks of severe complications, and tokophobia), and the difficulties and issues surrounding the act of giving a child to another family (for example, not all children go to healthy families, not all people (children included) are happy with the outcome, not all children are even adoptable if they have severe health issues, or are "less desired" for whatever other reason).

My best friend gave a child up for adoption when she was 16 (she did not know she was pregnant until she missed the deadline for elective abortion here). Around the same time I had an abortion. Once she gave birth, I think she did an amazing thing for herself and for that child by giving him up for adoption, but it was a very difficult experience for her and she would have preferred to have had an abortion. It still is difficult for her over 17 years later, and though it is an open adoption in some ways that also makes it hard. Me? I am very happy with my decision and have never regretted it, even for a minute, or wished I had done adoption instead. Now that I think of it, today would be 17 years to the day I had my abortion (I know the exact date only because I had it on Halloween and went out to a Halloween party that night, not because it haunts me every day) and that is 17 years of being so, so glad I did have an abortion. And if I got pregnant today? I'd have another one. I don't want kids, and I don't want to be pregnant or give birth to them either.

Yes, the bolded part. There are two options in pregnancy, as per the mother's decision: carrying to term and abortion. There are numerous options after birth but they basically boil down to parenting and not parenting. Adoption falls into the latter.

I am against adoption in its past and current form. Too many baby-hungry adopters willing to do anything to get a (white, recently birthed) baby. Or going across the globe to 'rescue' an orphan (who aren't usually orphans, and really for the cost they might as well donate money to unicef or specific orphanages or towns). There is still lots of coercion of young and impressionable young women, sometimes from family, other times from agencies or prospective adopters.

However, I am very much in support of guardianship, which can be made permanent. It does not erase any person's biological ties, does not falsify documents. People still get kids but then get to be adults and realize that though they are the ostensible parents they did not birth this human. Stating otherwise is denial. Adoption in its current form is an industry, driven by people who will pay an arm and a leg for a baby, no strings attached (for the most part).

I'm willing to bet your friend is going to be dealing with that fallout all her life. At least it's sort of open, from what you say.

Also, I love the article.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Yes, the bolded part. There are two options in pregnancy, as per the mother's decision: carrying to term and abortion. There are numerous options after birth but they basically boil down to parenting and not parenting. Adoption falls into the latter.

I am against adoption in its past and current form. Too many baby-hungry adopters willing to do anything to get a (white, recently birthed) baby. Or going across the globe to 'rescue' an orphan (who aren't usually orphans, and really for the cost they might as well donate money to unicef or specific orphanages or towns). There is still lots of coercion of young and impressionable young women, sometimes from family, other times from agencies or prospective adopters.

However, I am very much in support of guardianship, which can be made permanent. It does not erase any person's biological ties, does not falsify documents. People still get kids but then get to be adults and realize that though they are the ostensible parents they did not birth this human. Stating otherwise is denial. Adoption in its current form is an industry, driven by people who will pay an arm and a leg for a baby, no strings attached (for the most part).

I'm willing to bet your friend is going to be dealing with that fallout all her life. At least it's sort of open, from what you say.

Also, I love the article.

I'm going to disagree with the general anti-adoption position. While I certainly do not support abuses of the adoption process and would agree that it needs to be well-regulated, it's a legitimate option that in some circumstances, may be the best solution.

I don't like the guardianship option, and I say this as someone who had worked in child protection in both cases of adoption and cases of permanent foster care. It was overwhelmingly clear to me that kids need families - not just a placement, not just a guardian, but a family to which they can belong, people who can be called mommy or daddy, and the feeling that they have parents who have a permanent connection to them so that they won't simply move on to a new home if they act up.

[ems]

I'm also one who at one point would have termed myself "pro-life" but have completely lost faith in the movement. I never really thought that the goal should have been ending Roe vs. Wade, but the article does a good job of describing the areas of grey in trying to determine when life begins. A newly fertilized zygote is not the same as an embryo, is not the same as a second-trimester fetus is not the same as a newborn baby. And if society can't agree on when life begins, we have no right to legislate "personhood."

I still believe that the best way to be "pro-life" is to support things that protect the dignity of life on earth - available food, shelter, health care, and education for all. And I believe that this will actually reduce the number of women choosing to abort.

I definitely think there is something to the claim that "pro-lifers" are really about regulating sex. I have heard from some conservative-but-not-full-out-fundie Catholics that contraception actually increases abortions. :doh: Because contraception is not fail proof and leads to more casual sex leads to more unintended pregnancies leads to more terminations of those pregnancies. What these people in their Catholic bubbles don't realize, aside from the fact that out-of-wedlock-sex and abortions have always occurred, is that society will never go back to pre-sexual revolution. By all means, teach and encourage abstinence, but it you want to actually reduce unintended pregnancies, access to contraception has got to be encouraged.

Realizing that people will make different choices than you do and have a right to do such is part of being pro-choice. And that is why I am pro-choice, while I strive to value all life and its dignity.

[RachelB]

Libby Anne, Tom Friedman and David Frum have written a trio of articles that are - gasp! - LOGICAL. If you are truly pro-life, you should support things that both reduce the number of abortions/miscarriages, and which support life after birth. Period, end of sentence.

I'll add one more thing: if you are genuinely pro-life, you should not only sign your donor card, but have yourself on a bone marrow donor registry and donate a kidney as an altruistic donor if possible. I'm not joking. A recipient of a kidney donation is most certainly a "person", and their life cannot be sustained long-term without a kidney (since the average life span on dialysis is 5-7 years, with poor quality of life). The operation required is compared to a c-section.

Here's an article by an altruistic donor:

http://www.aish.com/sp/so/48937647.html

Note that she's basically saying why she's not crazy, and why she personally felt the negative reactions of others was not warranted. She's just encouraging others to at least think about doing it voluntarily. Compare and contrast to those who would FORCE women to undergo something that's at least as physically demanding, if not more so, without screening out those for whom it would be physically difficult.

Keeping in mind, of course, that if you donate a kidney, your insurance company may drop you as having kidney disease. I won't go any further on the ridiculousness of for-profit health care, because that's not what this discussion is about, but it's good for people to know what they're getting into when they're putting their bodies where their principles are.