Pro-lifers: What do they want the consequence of abortion to be?
All of my relatives are pro-life/anti-abortion. They are regular church-goers, neutral towards gays, and they do believe in a social net to help poor people. Many of them have charities in their will, have adopted foster children and homeless animals, etc.
I asked my mom and my sister to pretend their abortion beliefs became law, meaning all abortion was illegal except when the mother's life was in danger. I asked them to play the "Now what?" game...should the aborting mother go to jail, prison, and for how long? Should there be a trial about the abortion and should the newspaper cover the trial? And so on. Anyway, they were flabberghasted and they couldn't even answer my questions.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||11/23/2012|
They think that if they make it illegal it just won't happen anymore.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||11/21/2012|
By outlawing abortion no legitimate doctor would perform the procedure. The penalty of criminal prosecution would be sufficient to deter any health care provider from openly offering such a service.
Pre-Roe v. Wade, the states were divided as to whether a mother could be prosecuted for aborting her own child. "[S]elf-abortion was neither clearly permitted nor uniformly prohibited."
|by Anonymous||reply 3||11/21/2012|
That is why God made bridges.....so whores who find them self knocked up outside of marriage can jump off them.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||11/21/2012|
Barbara Bush is pro-choice.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||11/21/2012|
"Many of them have adopted foster children."
I don't believe this. Foster children are incredibly hard to place in adoptive families, and it is unlikely one person would have "many" relatives who'd done it.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||11/22/2012|
I had the same reaction as r7. How many of your relatives have adopted foster children? If several, your family is exceptionally kind and generous.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||11/22/2012|
This always burns my biscuits. These pro-life fools aren't doing anything to help the situation. They're crying about the innocent babies being killed, but they do absolutely nothing about the ones that are here now. Its an odd disconnect that I don't understand. To me, if you have a houseful of multi-racial kids whom you've taken in and are doing something about the situation, bitch about abortion until the cows come home. If you don't, STFU!
|by Anonymous||reply 9||11/22/2012|
My two sisters and their husbands both adopted siblings in foster care. One sister and her husband adopted a baby and 2 older brothers, the other one adopted 3 sisters and 1 brother (grade school age). They are exceptionally generous. That's my point, that they still hold these provincial views about abortion.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||11/22/2012|
indeed, this is because it is MUCH easier to complain about abortions and stop them then actually successfully raise children well. Why not do the VERY LEAST you can and simply squawk about abortions abortions abortions!
|by Anonymous||reply 11||11/22/2012|
Dear, we don't think about those theoretical questions. If it comes to that, I'm sure God will show us the way. For now, let's just say that we were taught that a zygote, even a second old, is sacred. And we will always believe that. We pay no attention to history and we have no intellectual curiosity about what the future will bring should we get our way.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||11/22/2012|
With condoms as easy to obtain and even available at the checkout line in our local supermarket, I gotta say that if a person isn't mature enough to pick up some form of birth control before engaging in sexual relations, then they aren't mature enough to be having sex.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||11/22/2012|
[quote]My two sisters and their husbands both adopted siblings in foster care. One sister and her husband adopted a baby and 2 older brothers, the other one adopted 3 sisters and 1 brother (grade school age). They are exceptionally generous. That's my point, that they still hold these provincial views about abortion.
OP, being as generous as they seem to be, perhaps they believe (naively) that all unwanted babies will end up finding someone loving and generous enough to want to adopt them.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||11/22/2012|
I think the only way to prevent abortions would be to put all women in chains as soon as they become pregnant. I don't see any other way. Abortions have been happening for thousands of years, and making them illegal won't stop them from happening.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||11/22/2012|
But they ARE having sex, R13. You can't stop them. And if they aren't mature enough or responsible enough to take those precautions, they are exactly the people who shouldn't be forced to bring babies they're not mature or responsible enough to gestate, let alone raise, into the world.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||11/22/2012|
OP you could ask this question about any fundamentalist belief and will get no answer other than the conduct is wrong.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||11/22/2012|
There'll be underground "Craig's List"" abortionists to serve this market.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||11/22/2012|
When abortion was illegal there were 1 million abortions per year. After it was legal, there were 1.5 million abortions per year, and now it has declined to 1.2 million abortions per year. So making abortion illegal did not stop abortions.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||11/22/2012|
Abortion to be made illegal?
Back in business, and ain't it grand? Let the good times roll. Yesterday things were out of hand. Now they're under control.
Bye-bye blues, so long adversity. Happiness, hello! (Hello! Hello!) Keep the status quo Permanently so!
Back again like a boomerang, Same old stand, Same old gang. Back in business with a bang! Let the good times roll!
|by Anonymous||reply 20||11/22/2012|
No, they couldn't answer the questions, OP, because they've elevated a nonbeing to be more important than the being involved, i.e., the woman. And that's what a lot of these types do. They assume that to hold a woman prisoner for nine or more months is no big deal. Of course, the minute that someone looks sideways at them, many of them want to brandish a gun. They wouldn't tolerate being imprisoned themselves for something that is not illegal.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||11/22/2012|
r13, thank you! Nobody's ever thought of that before! You've solved the whole problem of unwanted pregnancy in one short paragraph! You should get every Nobel prize going for this.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||11/22/2012|
Actually, R19, the CDC said that abortion was down 5% in 2009, and well below 1 million per year.
That said, most on the right think that abortion should be treated as murder, so that would mean putting women in prisons, as well as any doctor. I say let's start with Rick Santorum's wife.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||11/22/2012|
There are two issues here & OP's relatives don't understand that neither of them is "should women & doctors kill babies?", nor even "does a zygote (a mass of cells with the potential to become a person), constitute a baby?".
The first issue is "which of two competing interests should be put first: the interest of a woman, or the interest of a zygote?" The second issue is "Should the priority be enforced as a matter of law?"
The first is not an easy question, but the answer is a personal one. Accordingly, none of us should presume to decide it for somebody else.
If OP's relatives don't want women to have abortions, they're free to offer counsel, write articles, give speeches, & generally seek to persuade pregnant women to deliver rather than abort. And they're certainly welcome to help those who do forgo abortion by providing foster care & adoption (& hooray for anyone who takes this course).
But they are not entitled to elevate the interests of zygotes over the interests of women by force of law. Society should not assert control & intrude upon the sad predicament in which an unwilling pregnant woman finds herself, & OP's relatives have no right to impose their own views on anyone.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||11/22/2012|
That's what it is, the zygote equals a full-grown person to them because they believe it has a soul. I tell them the soul/personhood is a matter of opinion and so there should be choice. But they fail to see that they could be wrong about the soul, and therefore would not permit choice.
I asked them should teenagers who get abortions or "commit murder" go to prison for 60 years and they say no. They don't make any sense.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||11/22/2012|
R25, they don't accept your premise that souls are a matter of opinion. But the very fact that you have a different opinion than they do about souls demonstrates the validity of your premise. Even if your opinion about souls turned out to be inaccurate, it's still true that people have different opinions on the subject.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||11/23/2012|
[quote] gotta say that if a person isn't mature enough to pick up some form of birth control before engaging in sexual relations, then they aren't mature enough to be having sex.
This describes more than half of single straight men having sex at any given time in the United States.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||11/23/2012|
Thanks, OP. I've wondered the same thing myself. Just curious, do your relatives who've adopted children also have some of their own, natural children?
|by Anonymous||reply 28||11/23/2012|
There was a Broadway play in the early 1950's called "Detective Story". One of the plot threads had to do with the arrest of an evil doctor who was an "Abortionist". The big plot twist at the end was when it was revealede that the wife of the lead detective had had an abortion from him, without ever telling her husband she was pregnant.
At that time, the doctors were seen as the criminals, not the women.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||11/23/2012|
I would definitely have an abortion while it's still a clump of cells. After the point where it develops limbs and such, I don't think I could. It's a personal bias that doesn't have to do with religion. I don't frown upon people who have abortions (except partial-birth); I do kind of frown upon people who think abortions are literally no big deal, and/or that they are entitled to fall back on as many as they want, with everyone else paying for them. I would rather pay for people like that to be sterilized.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||11/23/2012|
I think sometimes there is this image of women who have abortions as cold hearted career driven sluts, who have countless no strings attached sexual encounters and abort a pregnancy because they can't be bothered to uses contraception.
But there is the general idea that women who have abortions are very cold, emotionless and have a lackadaisical attitude toward abortion, I think that is mostly true, but again it is their choice, do I judge them for it, of course I do. Would I actively try and ban it - no, probably not.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||11/23/2012|
[quote]have adopted foster children and homeless animals
These two things are not remotely comparable. One is extraordinary, the other kind but quite ordinary. A lot of people "adopt" (or, more accurately, "rescue") shelter pets. I only personally know one person who has adopted a foster child. Are you saying you have multiple family members who have adopted foster children? If so that is quite extraordinary.
However it seems a bit odd to appear to conflate the two. Raising a child that is not your flesh a blood is quite a bit different from feeding and caring for a family pet for maybe 15 years.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||11/23/2012|
I was just trying to express to pro-choice DLers that these people are not selfish, heartless assholes, even though they are hardcore pro-lifers.
One sister is infertile, so they adopted. The other has 2 college kids and she and her husband wanted to adopt more kids.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||11/23/2012|
[quote]But there is the general idea that women who have abortions are very cold, emotionless and have a lackadaisical attitude toward abortion, I think that is mostly true
R31, how many women have you known who've had an abortion? I've met quite a few over more than 50 years & none of them has seemed to be the kind of person you describe.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||11/23/2012|