Pro-lifers bastardize the red equal sign for gay marriage

[SpeakNow]

This makes me stabby

[Shoes Grace]

*strangled sound*

Yes, well, if they were talking about EQUALITY, they would realise that giving a foetus rights above and beyond a woman's isn't equal either. I think, at best, a foetus is a legal alien- US citizenship is conferred upon birth, not conception. I would love to see this come up in some immigration court. They could write a sequel to Inherit the Wind.

[Miggy]

Have to admit I hadn't seen the red equal sign until you posted this and I looked it up.

I am still puzzled over the fundy need to turn everything around so it is about them. The wider community wants/doesn't want gay marriage and they respond by talking about abortion? If this was a primary school debate the teachers would pull you up for being off topic.

[Miggy]

*strangled sound*

Yes, well, if they were talking about EQUALITY, they would realise that giving a foetus rights above and beyond a woman's isn't equal either. I think, at best, a foetus is a legal alien- US citizenship is conferred upon birth, not conception. I would love to see this come up in some immigration court. They could write a sequel to Inherit the Wind.

Let's talk about equal rights to life;

(1) let's talk about a woman's right to survive pregnancy

(2) let's talk about a doctor's right not to be shot by protestors

Do I need to go on?

[Sass]

If forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy is 'equality' they must also support mandatory blood/bone marrow/organ donations right? Right?? Because your right to control your own body is not as important as another persons right to life. :roll:

[JenniferJuniper]

Women. Don't. Matter.

That's all anyone needs to know about these anti-choice militants. They would rather see women die from pregnancies gone wrong or a 14 year old rape victim be forced to give birth instead of accepting the notion that females might have any rights with regard to pregnancy termination.

We may be chronologically in the 21st century, but when it comes to most Republicans in the United States these days, we may as well be more than 100 years in the past.

[ADoyle90815]

Women. Don't. Matter.

That's all anyone needs to know about these anti-choice militants. They would rather see women die from pregnancies gone wrong or a 14 year old rape victim be forced to give birth instead of accepting the notion that females might have any rights with regard to pregnancy termination.

We may be chronologically in the 21st century, but when it comes to most Republicans in the United States these days, we may as well be more than 100 years in the past.

Exactly. They only consider women to be brood mares, and if they die from pregnancy complications, then it's like when other livestock dies. As George Carlin once said, "If you're preborn, you're fine, if you're preschool, you're fucked." After all, they only care about the fetus, but once it's born, they're on their own as they hate food stamps, Medicaid, WIC, Head Start, etc.

[August]

Women. Don't. Matter.

That's all anyone needs to know about these anti-choice militants. They would rather see women die from pregnancies gone wrong or a 14 year old rape victim be forced to give birth instead of accepting the notion that females might have any rights with regard to pregnancy termination.

We may be chronologically in the 21st century, but when it comes to most Republicans in the United States these days, we may as well be more than 100 years in the past.

You've left out the other half of the attitude. There should be punishment for having sex.

[Childless]

Most pro-lifers don't care about life. They care about controlling women. If they really cared about life, they would support comprehensive sex education in schools, free birth control, universal healthcare, food stamps, welfare, WIC, etc. There are millions of children in this country that suffer from lack of food and healthcare. Where is the outrage over that? Where is the tireless efforts to promote comprehensive sex education and free birth control, the only things proven to lower the rate of unintended pregnancies and thus the rate of abortions? There's a reason why Europe, while having much more liberal abortions laws, has a lower abortion rate than the U.S.

No. It's not about saving lives. It's about controlling women, particularly their sex lives. I'm all about saving lives. But, I'm about saving lives all around, not simply before they're born. Until the pro-lifers start caring about those already born as much as the care about fetuses, I can't take them seriously as true pro-lifers.

[Soldevi]

^ A hundred times this.

[salex]

Most pro-lifers don't care about life. They care about controlling women. If they really cared about life, they would support comprehensive sex education in schools, free birth control, universal healthcare, food stamps, welfare, WIC, etc. There are millions of children in this country that suffer from lack of food and healthcare. Where is the outrage over that? Where is the tireless efforts to promote comprehensive sex education and free birth control, the only things proven to lower the rate of unintended pregnancies and thus the rate of abortions? There's a reason why Europe, while having much more liberal abortions laws, has a lower abortion rate than the U.S.

No. It's not about saving lives. It's about controlling women, particularly their sex lives. I'm all about saving lives. But, I'm about saving lives all around, not simply before they're born. Until the pro-lifers start caring about those already born as much as the care about fetuses, I can't take them seriously as true pro-lifers.

:agree:

This is obvious when, without question, whenever there are comments on abortion on a news site or newspaper, a few are on the life of the baby but the most aggressive/angry comments are about how women abdicated their rights by having sex--the idea of these women having sex willy nilly (which apparently is the whole cause for abortion) makes a lot of people / men so angry you can almost see them foaming at the mouth.

After all, per the Eve and the apple story-- big headed babies are God's punishment on women. And avoiding that is trying to get out of God's punishment as aborting for medical reasons is trying to avoid God's will. (Their logic, not mine)

I have heard (who knows if it is true) that when lightening rods were first used ministers preached against them because they were being used to thwart God's will and potential punishment on people. It is always amazing to me to think that people who say the believe that god it all powerful and has a plan and knows how it will all turn out think that a 20 year old aborting an unplanned pregnancy or a couple aborting a child with severe disabilities is going to somehow ruin God's plans and change the course of history. An omniscient all powerful God can't be thwarted so easily.

Which dovetails into my consistent question of why the uncreated creator god who "let there be" the entire universe--light years worth of space, planets, suns, moon, and on this planet all creatures great and small--how such a god spends so much time worrying about sex and who pokes whom.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

I think that there ARE some pro-lifers who honestly do think they are saving babies. However, even out of those, very few will go the extra mile and lend support to any "socialist" things like WIC or SNAP. I don't think this is totally an inconsistent position as such, though. It's not one I agree with it all, but it is internally logical. It is based on the control of women's sexuality, yes, but not simply for its own sake. It's more like the control of female sexuality is nucleus of the conservative (and usually religious) pro-life worldview.

They seem to believe that the simultaneous criminalization of abortion (and, usually, also many forms of birth control) and destruction of the government's social safety net will force women back into a position of dependence that will make everything else "fall back into place". Without recourse to end or prevent pregnancy, according to this worldview, women will HAVE to be more chaste, as the risk of total financial ruin and the social stigma will act as a deterrent. Women will marry earlier, have more children, and, perhaps most importantly for the ultimate ends of social conservatives, be unable to compete with men in the workplace at anywhere near the rate they can when their fertility is under their control. This is supposed to solve our economic crisis (more jobs for the menz) while at the same time making it very difficult for women to be both sexually active and financially independent. It's also supposed to solve the "crisis of masculinity" by making it equally difficult for men to have consequence-free sex and to force them into adulthood earlier by giving them dependents.

And, also very importantly, without the social safety net, churches are meant to take the place of welfare, thereby having much greater control of social behavior. The government condones "sinful" behavior like premarital sex by giving aid to unwed young mothers without trying to monitor their sex lives, right? Well, if it's up the churches, they can withhold aid or demand that the recipient join the church and become accountable to them. Just as the lack of government aid is supposed to be a deterrent, so is the possible judgement and expectations of the only place where you can get help.

So yeah...it's no joke, ladies, that our wombs are a very real battleground upon which the battle for the future of society is being fought.

[formergothardite]

Pretty much every anti-choice member here has refused to address the very negative effects forced pregnancy has on women and how they can claim to value the lives of women while wanting put them in such a bad situation. They value the lives of hypothetical women who only exist in their heads, not the real women who want abortions and are denied.

[SpeakNow]

I'm pro choice. I'm also pro-life. I would love to decrease abortions by

-increasing access to insurance coverage for (or free) birth control

-expanding the social safety net so that women do not feel that they have to abort for financial reasons

-expanding access to high quality pre natal care

-increasing paid maternity leave

-providing free high quality public daycare

Until so-called pro-lifers for the above, they will never be truly pro-life

[Mela99]

Call it what it is, they're pro-birth, not pro-life. They don't give a shit about anything once it's born - and God forbid, if it doesn't turn out to be a cracker white, straight male.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

Damn it, I really have to stop saying "pro-life". "Anti-choice" or, as Rachel Maddow likes to say, "forced birth advocate" works much better.

[France Nolan]

My favorite thing about anti-choice people is how much they (usually) hate on single mothers. First I'm evil because I'm pregnant out of wedlock. Then I'm good because I continue the pregnancy. Finally I'm evil because I'm raising my daughter alone.

They only want babies born into or adopted into families THEY approve of.

[Jana814]

They only want babies born into or adopted into families THEY approve of.

This very true!!

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

My favorite thing about anti-choice people is how much they (usually) hate on single mothers. First I'm evil because I'm pregnant out of wedlock. Then I'm good because I continue the pregnancy. Finally I'm evil because I'm raising my daughter alone.

They only want babies born into or adopted into families THEY approve of.

You summed it up perfectly.

[louisa05]

Oh, don't get mad at them. Just do what someone I went to high school with did to another classmate who changed her FB profile pic to this.

He congratulated her for recognizing that homosexuality is natural and something people are born with rather than a choice.

She changed her profile pic really quickly after that.

[snarkykitty]

Oh, don't get mad at them. Just do what someone I went to high school with did to another classmate who changed her FB profile pic to this:

He congratulated her for recognizing that homosexuality is natural and something people are born with rather than a choice.

She changed her profile pic really quickly after that.

Is this post missing an image?

[Emkay]

What I still don't understand, going by the 'controlling women's sexuality' (which I completely agree is a very large part of this), what do these men (who aren't quiverfull but are against 'paying for birth control so these women can have lots of sex') think is going to happen to their relationships/sex lives? If your partner is using birth control because you don't want/can't afford kids, and that birth control is no longer an option, do they think all of a sudden their partner will just say, 'let's have sex anyway. It's ok if I get pregnant now.' Nope!

(Either that, or they aren't in relationships/aren't getting sex anyway and are bitter about it, so they want to 'stick it to' those women.)

[thoughtful]

Is this post missing an image?

It took me a second, too, but I think Lousia05 was referring to the image in the OP.

If so, I think that's a great response to it!

[louisa05]

It took me a second, too, but I think Lousia05 was referring to the image in the OP.

If so, I think that's a great response to it!

Yes. Sorry for the colon. Don't know why it is there and not a period. Fixed it.

[Shoes Grace]

Let's talk about equal rights to life;

(1) let's talk about a woman's right to survive pregnancy

(2) let's talk about a doctor's right not to be shot by protestors

Do I need to go on?

Of course, those are clear cases of rights belonging to sentient adults.

Sorry, I jumped straight from reality into science fiction. I worry about finding myself a married woman carrying a healthy pregnancy she does not wish to continue. We haven't ruled out children entirely, just for the immediate future. To tell me that a collection of cells has a right to exist over my ability to make a rational, considered opinion for my personal well-being, it scares the crap out of me. I find myself wondering under what kind of legal precedent someone might choose to prepare a legal case if that bundle of cells is granted personhood and potential rights. Like I said, it's not a US citizen, I wish I knew enough about law to consider it further.