Pro-lifers bastardize the red equal sign for gay marriage

[Minerva]

I've seen this pic before. It's cute. Not cute in an "aww, babies" way. Cute in an "aww, anti-choicers" way.

Equal rights for fetuses wouldn't end legal abortion, it would only make it more invasive and, in the case of 3rd trimester abortions when the fetus can actually feel stuff, less humane. People would still be entitled to end their fetus' dependance on their organs, but they'd have to induce labour in every patient and expel the pregnancy without harming it. To actually end abortion without giving fetuses special rights, you'd have to change the law (and possibly the constitution) and make organ and tissue donation mandatory. But try explaining that to someone who thinks women should be barefoot and pregnant.

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.)

Those men will always be able to buy birth control and send their wives away for safe abortions. Abortion bans only affect the poor, remember?

[curlytoes79]

*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.

The really hypocritical thing is that most anti-choicers DON'T believe a fetus's life is worth as much as a woman's life.

Most anti-choice people believe that if it comes down to a situation where either the woman or the fetus has to die in order for the other to survive, they will generally say that the woman should be saved. Of course, there are those sociopaths who believe the woman's life shouldn't automatically take precedence, but by and large, most anti-choicers would choose the mother. I saw a Gallup poll recently where ~90% of those polled (from the general population) said that abortion is okay if the mother's life is in danger.

But what does this mean for the anti-choice position? What makes the woman's life so much more important than the fetus's? It's because the two lives aren't truly equal, and they know this.

[wtylcf]

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

I applaud the points you have outlined above, and totally agree with all of them. I would like to point out, however, that essentially the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life," when used to refer to political positions on abortion, must be reduced to their stance on women's bodily sovereignty if they are to convey any meaning whatsoever. The most important political factor in a "pro-choice" stance is that women who do not wish to be pregnant are not denied access to an abortion within a reasonable timeframe. The most important political factor in a "pro-life" stance is that women who do not wish to be pregnant are denied access to an abortion within this reasonable timeframe.

I completely understand your desire to shade the argument with some nuance, and I get it that some people who describe themselves as "pro-life" may, as you have done, think of the issue more comprehensively than other pro-lifers who would eliminate abortion entirely, in that they would permit abortions, but support measures to decrease the overall number of abortions, such as increasing access to birth control. In terms of a political position, however, even this nuanced "pro-life" position is essentially a pro-choice position.

[Emme]

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.

This is what I was ranting about in the shower to my boyfriend!!!!!!! Bolding is mine.