Forcing women to give birth is. Huge difference.

Every woman should be given the right to make her own choice. Be strong in your beliefs, practice your beliefs, but don't force others to comply/conform to your standards. It's none of your business. It's private.

Nothing wrong with being pro-life personally. I suspect most are.

However, if it was your position on this site that you, the government or anyone else can subject a woman to living by your rules/dogma with regard to life, then all hostility is warranted. The place for that kind of rhetoric is on a religious, or, sadly, some Republican sites.

From my perspective, in a free society, we should not allow the government to impose "moral" or even religious views on others when it serves no broad public interest. That is the essence of separation of church and state.

We are all allowed our views on when life begins, but to say one group's views are so superior to all others is the height of hubris.

Consider these thoughts from a former Weather Underground bomber, "If you think you have the moral high ground, that's a very dangerous position, and you can do some really dreadful things....the Oklahoma City bombing, I am sure that guy felt that he was on the side of right and there was maybe a handful of people who agreed with him so that is a dangerous ethical position we (Weather Underground) fell into that was caused I think by the Vietnam War, the Vietnam War made us a little crazy, that's the only way I can explain it."

Where we don't get along as well as we should in this country you will ALWAYS find arrogance, indifference to the views of others and a sectarian pursuit of one sided goals, e.g., the zero sum game. You can take that to the bank.

Did the OP write that somewhere else or something? Cause they sure didn't say it in their opening post to this thread.

End of story.

Some women don't want to be mothers, ever, under any circumstances. Several of them post here.

We have been subjected to RW lunatics trying to end all choices for women, including birth control, under the guise of "pro-life" for a long time. It is extremely difficult for me, personally, to fully trust someone saying they are "pro-life" because I am quite used to their agenda being to use the courts and intimidation to end all reproductive rights in this country. I admit in some cases that is a knee-jerk reaction on my part. But I hold reproductive rights very dear and voice my opposition to any attempt to make abortion illegal or unobtainable, and I become even more rageful at the attempts to end access to birth control and low cost health care such as Planned Parenthood provides.

Progressives have been under attack from the right for too long simply for believing in people's rights. It is difficult to separate out people that have certain beliefs and miraculously don't want to force them on others from the huge majority who do.

...a woman has the right to control her own body, i.e., to terminate an unwanted pregnancy?

If not, that is probably the source of the hostility.

That's not good.

--imm

I wouldn't take it personal remember Your right to have your opinion ,and criticism comes with living in America ,So keep speaking and sharing your opinion and that is how conversations positive or negative turn into Change !!!!!!!!!!!!

If you are going to ask women to carry every pregnancy to full term because you think it's the right thing to do, you will need to give them a lot more incentive than prenatal health care. How about health care for the child into adulthood? Education. Jobs. Economic equality. Civil rights.

Beyond that, what other people do with their bodies is frankly, none of your business.

Puleeze. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, snowflake.

It may not be my business what you do with your body but I have the right to declare my opinion. I am not for abortion being illegal; I am for people to stop acting like it's no biggie, a "choice" like whether to get a latte or a no-foam capp, and to act like the sperminators have no part in the decision.

Welcome to DU by the way.

Every woman has their own reaction and that's perfectly okay. There are those who are very pragmatic about their experience and very matter of fact. I would never dare presume to judge or expect them to react in any other way than what's best for them. Your ASSumption that its wrong in some way for people to act like it's "no biggie" is problematic imho.

implies that people who are pro-choice are anti-life and that's just not the case.

then don't get one. But that decision belongs to you only and shouldn't be forced on another who may believe differently.

try to force your beliefs on everybody else. As a woman, I don't think I'd ever have had an abortion. However, I also don't vote for people who want to take that right away.

I don't understand what you mean by "volitional" in the same paragraph as "devoutly" pro-life. I don't want women to have to choose abortion either, but I don't want to take that choice away from them. Be advised that many pro-lifers support a "personhood" amendment that would outlaw all abortions and many forms of birth control. The Ryan/Akins wording would also impose 14th Amendment rights on an unborn fetus at conception. This would criminalize abortion and make it murder as well as taking away additional choices for women. If I were counselling women in their decision, I would help them explore options, in the hope that adoption would be possible, but many circumstances just make that impossible. If all you mean is that you would try to help women find ways to have children in a responsible way and would provide help after the birth, then I would understand, but you are not really clarifying your opinion.

Last edited Wed Oct 24, 2012, 03:34 PM - Edit history (1)

I believe that the social structure should be formed in such a way that woman would freely choose to bring the child to term. I know this will never be entirely possible, but I'm suggesting that life is a wonderful thing and everything possible should be done to make for birth. Somehow there seems to be a disconnect between being pro-birth and pro-life. The Right insists on births, but not a favorable life. The left insists on a favorable life , but not births. I want to see the disconnect eliminated as much as possible and promote life from conception to death. Yet, do this in a non-coercive manner that respects individual freedom. I think the disconnect is a sub-optimal choice. Life deserves a bias over death.

THAT'S the disconnect.

Combined with your insulting women's abilities to make the decision for themselves (telling us that women need a "spiritual counseling session" before they have an abortion) sets people's teeth on edge.

As long as you realize that abortion is a private medical decision between a patient and her doctor, and respect that privacy, you should be fine.

support, agree with, wish were in place, vote for or support?

would do, if your birth control failed at the same time you were taking a cancer drug for your medical condition. This drug has all kinds of warnings about birth defects, both physical and mental. You are also the mother of a healthy 3 year old. Do you abort as all your doctors believe you should or do you deliver (30% change of carrying to term) a severely handicapped child that will require hundreds of thousands of dollars of care? Oh, you have no insurance and must work full time to support your other child.

That was my situation and I truly believe that I made the moral decision.

I could never criticize a decision in the context of this scenario. I don't honestly know what I would do, but I think the person must be at liberty to make whatever choice they feel is right.

when you made your choice. According to the poster, if you did so, you have "trivialized what's involved" in your decision, and "may have profound regrets later."

Aren't you pleased to know that the poster is so concerned for your well-being?

Terms that may seem apparent to each of us but in reality may be very different for each of us.

What is "pro-birth"?
What is "life"?

Thank you for answering.

Oh, 1 more question. How do you "reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies" by making abortions illegal? I fail to understand how making this procedure illegal will change how people feel about being pregnant. Please educate me. Thank you.

To me to be pro-Birth is to have a bias in favor of the gift of life. Other things will weigh in and must be factored, but the process begins with a preference to bring the child to term.

Life is something organic that experiences growth and development over time.

One can in theory reduce abortions by providing economic, spiritual and physical help to the mother.

You seem to be calling every woman who has had an abortion "pro-death". Is this right?

Do you favor making abortions illegal? What restrictions would you like?

You didn't answer this question. How do you "reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies" by making abortions illegal?

I personally have a bias toward being pro-birth. My thinking is that an overwhelming majority would have this bias too. The issue is complex, and I am not so presumptuous that I think I can possibly know what determinations a woman must make in choosing an abortion.

I'm not wanting to make abortions legally coercive. I'm wanting to make sure women think they have real options available to them that can enable them to choose life. I detest abortions for gender selection, but as a practical matter how could that exclusion be enforced.

I don't know how one reduces the number of abortions by making them illegal. That's not my agenda. I want to reduce them through offering women support.

that is not legally coercive--join one, or start one.

able to get one? I am unclear of what you mean and would like to understand rather than assume. Thanks

I don't understand "I'm not wanting to make abortions legally coercive" as no one is saying women should be coerced into having an abortion.

Offering women support is a good thing. I wish there was more backing for affordable child care along with the child care providers being paid an affordable wage. Something I think gvt should be involved in.

Don't have one. That is YOUR choice.

But honestly, if the uterus you speak of is not in YOUR body, then it is none of YOUR business.

Well said!

You implied that women are just too stupid to make this decision for themselves, that we silly women just aren't capable of thinking the thing though thoroughly. These are your words:

It seems to me prudent that the women seeks counsel from her spiritual adviser and her family. I fear that if the mother looks at this purely in medical terms, she trivializes what's involved and may have profound regrets later.

Edited for spelling

Incredibly insulting. The poster is indeed "confused".

That completely misrepresents what I believe. The choice is the woman's. It's prudent for us all in life altering decisions to seek the counsel and wisdom of others. I think most intelligent people approach decision making that way. I do think if the woman looks at this in only a medical context (which a previous poster on the other thread suggested), I think she is limiting other important considerations from my perspective.

From this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021602143

From Post #6 It seems to me prudent that the women seeks counsel from her spiritual adviser and her family. I fear that if the mother looks at this purely in medical terms, she trivializes what's involved and may have profound regrets later.

unless the steps they take in making a decision are the exact ones you think they should take?

I mean, life is a complex business. Simply managing the one body attached to a single human head is, to me, enough of a full-time job.

Really, do you honestly believe that all these other people are so grievously 'doing it wrong' that they need helpful unsolicited advice like you are trying to, apparently, offer them?

+!

Thanks for posting this, it provides very important data.

But I did include decades of peer-reviewed studies - including Koop.

I believe there are many pro-life people who feel about the fetus what many of us feel about death row, namely that if there's a chance that an innocent life is being taken, we should err on the side of caution. But, as a liberal, I don't think the way to end abortion is to ban it, but it's to create better services for pregnant women and new mothers, make adoption easier (for example, by allowing gays to adopt and making the process more affordable), educating young men and women to practice safe sex, and so on. Where I disagree with the pro-life movement is in its desire to take the easy way out by simply passing a law: That's unfair to women who want to keep their reproductive rights private and who may face enormous distress by bearing a child to term, and it does nothing to address the issue that some women have that they will not be able to raise their child because of poverty, mental illness, physical disability, troubled relationships, etc.

As a liberal, I respect the pro-life viewpoint, but disagree with the idea that the solution is to outlaw abortion. All that does is force women to take more desperate measures.

Excellent wisdom!

I have no problem with your position at all. There are probably a number of people here that "secretly" believe as you do.

The only issue (and I might have missed it in you post)...is whether or not you would support making abortion illegal. As long as your position on abortion isn't forced on others, I have no problem with it.

-P

I personally believe abortions in general are immoral, but in some cases, they are the more moral choice, as in sinkingfeeling's example (post #15). The Church's current teachings on abortion are contrary to every other doctrine of self defense, which leaves me to admit that there's an element of sexism in it. Also, because different religions have different teachings on ensoulment (i.e., when the fetus receives a soul and therefore becomes human), it becomes an issue of separation of Church and State, which is a dangerous line to cross under any condition. That said, my goddaughter is the product of rape; she's 18 now, a spectacular young woman and I couldn't imagine my life without her and I'm grateful every day that she's in the world. So there's that.

But because, like I said, this is largely a religious issue, and ultimately, constitutionally, cannot be a matter of law or legislation. But as someone who wants this to happen as seldom as possible, I support welfare for single mothers and low-income families to lessen their burden, I believe that the stigma against single mothers--which is prevalent in many religions--needs to go away, and there needs to be easy access to birth control and sexual education. Statistics say that a lot of times, more often than not, an abortion is the result of a woman or family's financial situation... and I'm sure there's a fairly large minority of abortions caused by young Xtian girls terrified at their parents finding out they've been having premarital sex... so, change the culture, provide support, provide contraception, and by a sidelong ways, you've done a lot to limit this from happening.

My $00.2

Women who have had other children, or go on later to have a child, but are married?

I support welfare for single mothers and low-income families to lessen their burden, I believe that the stigma against single mothers--which is prevalent in many religions--needs to go away, and there needs to be easy access to birth control and sexual education. Statistics say that a lot of times, more often than not, an abortion is the result of a woman or family's financial situation..

One can be as "pro-birth" (whatever that's supposed to mean) as they want, birth as many times as they want, no one is stopping them ie the Duggars. Go for it.

One cannot, however, force others to do the same regardless of their wishes. Surely you are not suggesting you want to force others to adhere to your demands?

A fair reading of my posts should make that obvious. I don't want to coerce one soul.

otherwise why posit the inference those who do not believe as you do are in need of "spiritual" help? It is not the "soul" we are talking about, it is the legal right of privacy woman have and those who choose, for themselves, what to do with their own body.

Bringing religion into this is, in itself, an attempt at coercion, imo. You have the right to believe what you want, you do not have the right to foist your beliefs upon others under the guise of "pro-birth" (again, whatever that is supposed to mean), imo.

There are many people in this great nation who are not spiritual at all. I am one of them. So is my wife. Why would she ever need to seek "spiritual advice" on anything????

I'm not trying to promulgate a legislative process on how to decide to abort or take to term. I'm just saying what seems prudent to me. If not to you, that's fine. Again, I'm not coercive.

From elsewhere in this topic: "doesn't mean that I have to insist on government to coerce my position through law."

I pointed out I'm my own "spiritual adviser" in another thread to no avail.

I cannot imagine anything more antithetical to the concept of individual liberty than the idea that the law has supremacy over a person's own body.

That you apparently can't see that is the problem. It implies that each of us is, first and foremost, the property of the government.

Obviously, you haven't read my threads. I see everyone's point that the government should not use coercive means over a citizen's body. Where do I dispute that point? Again, I'm volitional, and not coercive pro-birth. If you're going to criticize my position, please be fair enough to represent it correctly.

"To say that abortions are morally neutral is to say we should be ethically indifferent to life or death as long as it's in the womb."

"I firmly believe that America wants a culture of life, and not death."

"Human nature and culture aren't autonomous for theists."

Your second reply in its entirety reinforces the collection of dog whistles in the first.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021602143

that have fought this issue for decades don't recognize the dog whistle when we hear it? Do you think that we have not previously encountered these "soft" anti-choice ops before?

If you just hope more women would choose not to abort, and maybe you'd like to make WIC and other services for parents provide more to help them raise their kids so they're less likely to choose abortion for financial reasons, I don't have a problem with that.

If you want to actually restrict the choice at all, then I do have a problem with that.

I think the choice should absolutely be available, but there are cases where greater social services for mothers would make more choose not to abort, and so long as it's their choice, that's awesome.

I can only repeat, the woman's choice or volition is the deciding factor. Coercion is unacceptable. I am sorry if I haven't articulated that point well, but that is my position.

In a perfect world we would have no abortions. If I could persuade every soul on earth then I would prohibit abortions for gender selection. I am obviously not persuasive, so that's not in play. Moreover. if I could, I would try to make birth control universally available and acceptable so that no one would have an abortion for birth control reasons. Those two, gender selection and birth control would be the prohibitions. I know that's not possible by persuasion, and I don't want to do anything by coercion. My wording was nit the best.

Even the tiniest towns have family planning centers. Yet even they report unwanted pregnancies (unrelated to gender selection or their laws about population control).

FWIW, your assertion that ANY woman has abortions as "birth control" is offensive. You can edit that. Gender selection abortions in the US are also extremely rare. But I'm presuming you know that. Again, you can edit that out.

I know a LOT of people who have had abortions.

Not ONCE have I EVER known ANYONE that had an abortion for gender selection and none for birth control. That is right out of Randall Terry's playbook on framing the debate for abortions.

I think you are in the wrong place.

Even made the suggestions on exactly what to cut myself.

Glad to see Randall Terry's framing is known and understood by others here.

The "confused" schtick, along with clumsy and veiled phrasing, is wearing very thin.

If you mean as their ONLY birth control method, again, I knew one over the years. One of hundreds. Otherwise it really isn't that pleasant of a thing to do regularly.

I don't know anyone who has had an abortion and ever said "oh, that was fun, I want to do that again". It hurts. Then you can't have sex for a while while you heal. It costs money. And it hurts.

So if you could persuade everyone, you would want laws to forbid abortions for "birth control" (whatever the hell that means) or gender selection? Sounds an awful lot like coercion to me.

but here's my remaining 2 cents.

TRY TO IMAGINE what it would feel like to have NO control over what happens to your own body--to cede those basic rights over to the courts or to the government. It is such irony that those who tout "small government" favor this most horrific invasion of the government into the personal lives of American citizens. We call the sterilization programs of the past barbaric --but the idea that government enters into ANY such deeply personal decision is barbaric--that is what we should have learned by now. You seem not to understand the slippery slope of letting the current "pro-life" crowd dominate the argument and eliminate Roe v Wade.

Abortion is not a good form of birth control, but it is the best, most humane, most enlightened compromise for a difficult situation. You are free to speak out all you want against it--but DO NOT COMPROMISE the right to safe and legal abortion, or to birth control & other legal pregnancy termination/health care--for others. In aligning with the current "pro-life" forces you are perceived to be one of them on this issue. Better come up with a different description, or something without "pro" in it--if you really are different and need to promote your views.

-----------------------------

Some people see this as a litmus test. But as your positions indicate, it is not always true.

A lot of words have been put into my mouth. A lot of straw men have been constructed to be torn down on this thread. I'm not confused about my position. I'm confused over the response to it. If Clinton or Obama came on here, their positions would be trivialized and intentionally misconstrued by some. My position comports and is congruent with their's, yet some distort it and misapply it. Maybe you feel that abortion is morally indifferent and therefore you don't care if it's rare. You don't care if the numbers are reduced. I do care because in most cases I believe the option of life is far more morally preferable. If you disagree with me, I don't try and denigrate you. I don't try and score points off of you. I understand that good people think differently. I wish I were more persuasive than I am, but I don't want to coerce anyone to my position. But my position is a reflection of who I am, and it seems to me some tolerance is a good thing.

Last edited Fri Nov 2, 2012, 09:27 PM - Edit history (1)

First you claim to be "confused" as to why your holier-than-thou sermon about being "pro-life" is firmly countered. Then you have the gall to compare yourself to President Clinton and President Obama and claim to have knowledge of how DU members would respond to them should they come on DU.

And lastly, you insult anyone who disagrees with you by claiming that they are attacking you and your position, and that your condescending and moralizing demeanor is totally innocent. Your comments about "tolerance" would fall squarely under the category of: "physician, heal thyself."

You are typical of all right-wing "pro-lifers" who believe that it is their mission in life to dictate the rights and personal beliefs of others, while acting offended if called on it.

Being "pro-life" is perfectly acceptable on DU. Being an overbearing, sermonizing, bore about it is not. The issue of abortion is a matter of personal choice for women, and the SCOTUS has ruled that to be the case. If you are against abortion, don't have one.

My kids used to use that phrase when they ran out of excuses. Yes, you are pompous and by far the most obnoxious of all other posters I've seen in this thread. And, please let me be the judge of what is, or isn't, a waste of my time.

As I said earlier, it is perfectly fine to be "pro-life" (whatever that means), and to express your views about it on DU. It is NOT okay to lecture, preach, and talk down to those who don't agree with you -- especially when you knew the likely response you would receive. I believe that you actually came to DU to pick a fight, and then act all innocent when you were called out. That is a strong indication of purposeful disruptive behavior.

BTW, your response sounds very much like it came from Free Republic. Are you sure that you're not lost and on the wrong board?

Please don't feel obligated to read.

From what I have read, you favor life, but are only against abortion in the case of sex selection and as a means of birth control and "wish" all would feel this way.

That puts you in the same category as most other people. There is no need really for much discussion.

If you want to know something that gets people hopped up, it is your quote below,

"The Right insists on births, but not a favorable life. The left insists on a favorable life , but not births."

Let me translate this for you as your words come across as creating a false equivalency at a minimum and are truly insulting if you really think about it.

The Right wants to coerce woman into giving birth, regardless of the individual's wishes, e.g., nationalize womens' bodies during their child bearing years.

but wants to do nothing to support that coerced mother or child once birth is given.


The Left insists on assisting impoverished families, and does not believe the government has a right to tell women what to do with their bodies.

It should be obvious why people are aggravated.

I'm sorry, but there does seem to me a disconnect on the issue of birth and subsequent life. I think the disconnect lacks conceptual appeal. I may not have stated it the best way, but I was trying to suggest there is another way to look at this issue. Birth and life are part of a pro-life philosophy. In practical terms, a culture of life will emphasize and promote both. My readings here suggests that to affirm and promote a pro-birth view is somehow intellectually deficient. Fine, but I have a different opinion. I believe that life is a good thing, and as a society we should make sure we do all that we can do to assist mothers in making a choice for life.

There's plenty of unwanted children in foster care. How many have you adopted in order to promote birth?

Or is it up to everyone else to support these children once they're born?

"...we should make sure we do all that we can do to assist mothers in making a choice for life."

It is not your place to "assist" mothers unless you are providing services they ask for. No pregnant woman I ever heard of wants an "assist in making a choice for life". That is a distinctly personal decision that has nothing to with the rest of us.

This notion of prosthelytizing your views to these women reeks of the extraordinary hubris that is the source of many of society's ills today. I want life too, and I wish all mothers would make the choice for life. But it is not my place, neither yours, to "assist" them no matter how misguided you feel their choice is...it is still a free country.

That again is what gets people aggravated. You present your arguments as those of "intellect", but their reality in effect is a sugar coated version of the now blatant right wing coercion model.

I was talking about things like prenatal care.

When you say "...we should make sure we do all that we can do to assist mothers in making a choice for life." in NO WAY can any rational person infer that means pre-natal care.

Pre-natal care comes AFTER making the choice for life.

I don't think we need anymore discussion. You are entitled to your opinions, for sure.

There are rational reasons why you upset people. If you cannot see them, there is nothing more I can say to get you over the hump....

Most people on DU are supporters of a Single Payer Health Care system, which would certainly do more for poor pregnant women than the system we have in place today.

I think you're flailing, frankly.

And starting from there?

and how it is specifically different from the country we have now.

Please, be specific.

I believe coming here means at least
you have a soul.

As long as you're not attempting to force them on the rest of us-- i.e. make abortion illegal and prosecute doctors and women. You are free to believe what you like. IT's just when those beliefs begin to interfere with the rest of us that I draw the line.

P.S. ALL abortions are a form of birth control, so opposing it on these grounds is a bogus argument.

If you don't want to outlaw abortion, you are pro-choice.

If you DO want to outlaw abortion, i.e. what is considered the political "pro-life" (although I object to that terminology) position- then you should acknowledge that and realize that may be the source of the friction.

Many people are personally against abortion. Wanting to outlaw it or make that decision for others is another animal entirely.

Beyond that, I suspect some of the "rancor" you are sensing is from people wondering why you have taken it upon yourself to 'educate' or otherwise correct the behavior of women who apparently feel differently about this matter than you, presumably, do.

I'm not trying to educate or correct anyone. The thread was started for the purpose of ascertaining why my position draws such hostility. The invitation brought several posts trying to correct
,educate and in some cases attack me. I suspect that some think since I attach intrinsic value and worth to the fetus, I must of necessity depreciate the welfare and freedom of the mother. Others understand that my position is built on a religious framework, and for some reason that seems anathema on here. I'm unapologetically pro-birth although I do understand that there are some reasons that abortion is more than understandable. Now, being pro-birth doesn't mean that I have to insist on government to coerce my position through law. Women should make the judgment based on their own conscience. I'm finished with the thread, and that's all I have to say. Thanks to those who offered constructive advice. For those who were petty and abrasive, I'm sorry you're Progressives. Frankly, your rudeness eliminates you from being effective.

in shades of grey.

Are you a vegan?

Anyone holding up their right to intervene in the lives of people who they will never know, in situations they have no knowledge about whatsover, is not liberal. It's oppression.

The alleged pro-lifer is not the victim here, nor does it wash that such views support social safety nets. Because the people in that camp don't do any such thing, ever. as they don't believe in funding it. The willful ignorance of the diversity of situation that people find themselves in, is callous and judgemental.

Abortion is not the answer, RU487 which is the closest thing to a natural miscarriage, and birth control being freely available, is the answer. The same people who are now redefining rape, restricting or criminalizing abortion, are also restricting birth control. And here's a list of stories to read, and why it is not progressive, and never will be:

'We Have No Choice': One Woman's Ordeal with Texas' New Sonogram Law

Halfway through my pregnancy, I learned that my baby was ill. Profoundly so. My doctor gave us the news kindly, but still, my husband and I weren’t prepared. Just a few minutes earlier, we’d been smiling giddily at fellow expectant parents as we waited for the doctor to see us. In a sonography room smelling faintly of lemongrass, I’d just had gel rubbed on my stomach, just seen blots on the screen become tiny hands. For a brief, exultant moment, we’d seen our son—a brother for our 2-year-old girl...

Instead, before I’d even known I was pregnant, a molecular flaw had determined that our son’s brain, spine and legs wouldn’t develop correctly. If he were to make it to term—something our doctor couldn’t guarantee— he’d need a lifetime of medical care. From the moment he was born, my doctor told us, our son would suffer greatly...

http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/the-right-not-to-know

But the alleged pro-lifers don't to hear those details. They wash their hands of the grief of a mother and father, in the most personal and hurtful experience of their lives. The alleged pro-lifer wants to get involved in the lives of people they have never met, for their own egotistical satisfaction. What is being done to a lot of people is so cruei and dehumanizing, that it borders on vicarious sadism.

If she'd been in Pennsylvania, the govenor has this advice for those women who didn't want to hear anymore about it:

'Just close your eyes if you don't want to see it.'

It's bad company to keep, leading to things like this, and PA just passed a law to deny TANF to children whose mothers can't prove their life wasn't the product of rape. In other words, they don't support life after birth. The alleged pro-lifers don't.

The pleas of the alleged pro-lifers ring hollow. Here's more, that the alleged pro-lifers have caused to happen, and how they are shredding all empathy in our laws. These same people do not support rape crisis centers, battered women shelters, taking care of those who have been hurt by violence. But they wave their alleged pro-life flag to batter other people's lives that they never met:

Questioning ‘forced' sonograms

The new law proposed by state Sen. Dan Patrick pretends that women have abortions casually and without thought.

As a psychotherapist for 30 years, I am convinced that this paternalistic premise is wrong. The bill is punitively aimed at the woman who is so miserable and fearful in her pregnancy that she considers abortion. To impose a layer of patriarchal officialdom by requiring that these women review sonograms adds to the torment and lingering trauma of one of life's most difficult ordeals. What about the sexual partner? Shouldn't he be made to watch this video? Becoming pregnant when there is no support or resources is not done solo. Passing a law that pretends that it is amounts to anti-woman discrimination.


http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/forced-sonograms-immigration-legislation/nRXYD/

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/21/its_not_just_forced_ultrasound_abortion_rights_under_assault/

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/826225/forced_ultrasounds%2C_%22informed_consent%2C%22_and_women%27s_health_in_texas%3A_the_sad_state_of_the_state/

http://truth-out.org/news/item/6745:statesanctioned-rape-forced-transvaginal-ultrasounds-in-virginia-texas-and-iowa

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/15/government-sanctioned-rape-in-state-virginia-and-texas

EOM.

Are you a vegan? Cause vegans are the biggest pro lifers on planet earth!

Interesting, isn't it?

It amazes me the misinformation that is spewed out on here. Veracity should count for something. This is the initial thread for me on the subject. I have posted on some other threads, but this is the only one on the topic I started.

Since there is a thread started two days ago with over 300 posts in it on the very same subject that I now see you didn't bother to contribute to, I thought surely that must have been yours, too. It's virtually identical. Why wouldn't you post there? Why begin yet another thread on the exact same subject? And why do you suppose the author of that other identical thread hasn't bothered to post in this thread? Very curious. You and CthulusEvilCousin friends? If not, you should introduce yourselves. You have identical beliefs.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1598057

You should be more honest before you throw out misrepresentations. I have no idea who you're talking about, and I never saw his post. My original post was specifically related to the hostility to my posts.

There is nothing about being pro-life that makes you anti-liberal. And you can be pro-life as well as pro-choice. You just hope the woman chooses life.

It is easy for people to be assholes on the internet and progressives are not immune from that phenomena.

If you'd posted to deny any other oppressed group medical care based on their inborn characteristics you'd probably be deep sixed by now.

Your uterus doesn't have to make this decision 1955. Your view matters as much as Akin's or Mourdick's.

It aint up to you to tell the women who CAN have children that they MUST.

I don't believe it is right for the government which is supposed to be impartial and represent EVERYBODY to prohibit by law something that should be a personal decision. ESPECIALLY when they are doing it to impose morality based on someone's interpretation of their own religious doctrine.