Are you actually pro-life?

[koshergrl]

pro-life
An American political stance characterized by the belief that abortions constitute murder. Currently, America has legal abortions available to those who want and can afford them. Persons of the pro-life platform wish for abortion to be illegal.

Urban Dictionary pro-life

 

[emilynghiem]

Not so. Pro-life means that you value life, and those of us who call ourselves pro-lifers have specifically taken on the challenge of protecting the unborn.

Don't fall for the nonsense the left spouts Emily, they do it to muddy the waters. They are pro-death, and they know it. That's why they challenge the definitions. If we are pro-life, they are pro-death. And they are pro-death, so they are going to pretend we aren't really pro-life.

The OP is Prolife. What are you talking about?

A. Are you assuming that some "commie liberal" posted this as a criticism that prolife people are hypocrites?
That's not who posted it and why. it is NOT an attack against prolife by opponents if that is how you read it, koshergrl

B. Pedro de San Patricio stated very clearly about being prolife, even clarifying this position since the age of 12,
ie. lifelong serious commitment in the face of opposition.

I think the point was that
even more needs to be done to ACHIEVE the goals of prolife advocacy.

Not to diminish prolife work, but to INCREASE, EXPAND, do more in support of prolife success on all levels!

C. are you saying that none of this has to do with REALLY being prolife.
You are saying it is just a political stance that abortion should not be a "legal" choice,
and no amount of "outreach work" to prevent abortion is essential to being prolife.

You are only concerned with the "legality" of what it means,
and don't care about the LOGISTICS of preventing unnatural termination across the board by the choice or hand of man?

Well koshergrl what if I told you that the insistence on focusing on prolife as just political and legal opposition to prochoice is HARMING the ability to resolve this issue, that it actually becomes counterproductive. Just like if people are so against war, they diminish support for the military, which causes war to drag out and cost even more lives, then it has the opposite effect.

the backlash from pushing gay marriage has more of a detrimental effect of enforcing more division and political fear-based bullying and defensiveness, and does not promote healing or acceptance but more RESENTMENT and resistance to fight against it.

koshergrl I appreciate you standing for the right decisions, and no compromises to that,
but I agree more with Pedro de San Patricio APPROACH that to really LIVE the prolife
ideals, then all these other areas need to be addressed to root out all causes on all levels.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's sickening seeing how many people use this label without knowing what it means. It's not just anti-abortion. Protecting children from the pro-abort crowd is just one facet. A true pro-life position is also:

anti-execution
pro-reform
anti-euthanasia
pro-healthcare
anti-poverty
pro-welfare
anti-war
pro-internationalism
anti-inequality
pro-immigrant
anti-sexist
pro-family
anti-racist
pro-social harmony

These aren't just words. They aren't labels. They are hard and fast positions. To call oneself pro-life and demand someone's death is a blunt contradiction. Claim to promote peace and hawk for war and you're simply the worst sort of hypocrite. Say you care about children and then leave them to starve in the streets or send them back to grow up in a war zone and you're no better than the baby butchers than whom you pretend to be any different.

What a steaming pile.

Racism has nothing to do with pro-life, poverty, internationalism, immigrant, sexist - seriously - you have attempted to claim that opposition to abortion forces someone to be a fucktarded progressive.

 

[emilynghiem]

Full Definition of PRO-LIFE
: opposed to abortion
— pro–lif·er \-ˈlī-fər\ noun

Pro-life Definition of pro-life by Merriam-Webster

Yes, people like me and others I know can be OPPOSED TO ABORTION
yet not believe it is constitutional for govt to ban or criminalize abortion
where it discriminates and punishes women more than men.

For example, I have proposed to designate another level of statutory rape
where any act resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child or unwanted abortion,
is a certain degree of rape that violates health and safety codes, as a form of "relationship abuse" or "sex abuse".

And instead of blaming one partner over the other, trying to prove who said did or agreed to what or didn't
(which violates privacy and is outside the realm of govt due process)
then BOTH partners can be subject to counseling to resolve the cause of the problems
that led to the complaint or report of "relationship abuse" (whether domestic abuse,
harassment, stalking, breach of contract, etc.)

So anything that would otherwise lead to abortion
would fall under "relationship abuse" and there could be
a personal level of health and safety codes adopted by
communities or districts to address this level by consensus of the residents
so it isn't "imposed by govt" but is self-enforced as a local policy
(similar to noise or nuisance ordinances of civic homeowners or neighborhood associations).

My point is there are ways to police the problems that otherwise lead to abuse and abortion,
without banning it AFTER the fact which affects the women partners more than the men.

I believe in enforcing a more consistent level of consensus to PREVENT coercion and
relationship abuse would do more to prevent abortion from even becoming an issue.

The whole problem of not forcing women by external coercion would be
addressed BEFORE anyone makes the decision to have sex, and thus introduce the chance of
pregnancy and the risk of abortion. the "right to choose" should be enforced well BEFORE that point
if you are really going to protect life and liberty for all people equally.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

In order to be REALLY prolife, then all the other factors that prevent abortion need to be addressed fully as well.

The OP is so completely for reducing and preventing abortion on all levels, and was saying it that way.

I think you are coming from the viewpoint that it isn't possible to prevent,
so all these things are still contributing to abortion; you don't share the OP's belief that
by working all the angles, then ALL life can be sustained, the same solutions to healthy
balanced peaceful living will eradicate the problems causing war, abortion, executions etc.

That's what I got out of it, and I come from the same line of thinking although I'm prochoice politically.
(I find that any laws trying to ban abortion "after the fact" are going to cause problems
because this disproportionately affects the women and doesn't address the MEN equally responsible for the
sex and pregnancy, if not more responsible in the case of rape/incest or other coerced acts that caused the pregnancy.)

But I do agree with the OP there needs to be consistency across the board
if we are going to solve the problems that are otherwise protested by either side.

If we solve those problems, of course, we will be on the side of prolife in preventing
any unnatural termination of life due to manmade conflict or abuses that can be resolved instead.

Basically this. To be consistently pro-life one must be anti-abortion. That said, simply being anti-abortion isn't the same as being pro-life. The pro-life cause requires respect for all life, and that includes mother as well as child. Simply making abortion illegal isn't going to stop women from getting them. You didn't fix the problem. You just dampened one symptom - and not by very much at that. If you want women to stop getting abortions then the first thing you have to do is understand why they get them in the first place. You have to ask them for their reasons and be prepared to listen. You wanna know what the most common reasons are? Unplanned pregnancy and poverty. More than that, you have to be willing to do what it takes to fix them. Make it illegal and women will break the law to get it unless you solve the problems causing them to want it. It's happened before. It will happen again unless you live up to your stated principles and do what needs to be done to alleviate the struggle of the young mother carrying another child she can't afford.

Not so. Pro-life means that you value life, and those of us who call ourselves pro-lifers have specifically taken on the challenge of protecting the unborn.

Don't fall for the nonsense the left spouts Emily, they do it to muddy the waters. They are pro-death, and they know it. That's why they challenge the definitions. If we are pro-life, they are pro-death. And they are pro-death, so they are going to pretend we aren't really pro-life.

The unborn aren't the only living beings. That's what I'm trying to explain to you. Yes. The unborn baby's life matters. Yes. She deserves our protection. But you know what? She's going to be born one day. Are you going to continue protecting her life? The anti-life crowd build one of their strongest arguments on this hypocrisy. "They're not pro-life; they're pro-birth. They only care about you until you're born and then you can die on the streets for all they care." You would be shocked to know how successful a talking point this has been for them. There's a very good reason why that is too. It's abso-*******-lutely true. And I say that as a diehard pro-lifer. Either give a damn about her when she's born too or stop pretending and hurting the case of those of us who do.

 

[koshergrl]

I see n

It's sickening seeing how many people use this label without knowing what it means. It's not just anti-abortion. Protecting children from the pro-abort crowd is just one facet. A true pro-life position is also:

anti-execution
pro-reform
anti-euthanasia
pro-healthcare
anti-poverty
pro-welfare
anti-war
pro-internationalism
anti-inequality
pro-immigrant
anti-sexist
pro-family
anti-racist
pro-social harmony

These aren't just words. They aren't labels. They are hard and fast positions. To call oneself pro-life and demand someone's death is a blunt contradiction. Claim to promote peace and hawk for war and you're simply the worst sort of hypocrite. Say you care about children and then leave them to starve in the streets or send them back to grow up in a war zone and you're no better than the baby butchers than whom you pretend to be any different.

What a steaming pile.

Racism has nothing to do with pro-life, poverty, internationalism, immigrant, sexist - seriously - you have attempted to claim that opposition to abortion forces someone to be a fucktarded progressive.

Yup.

 

[koshergrl]

Full Definition of PRO-LIFE
: opposed to abortion
— pro–lif·er \-ˈlī-fər\ noun

Pro-life Definition of pro-life by Merriam-Webster

Yes, people like me and others I know can be OPPOSED TO ABORTION
yet not believe it is constitutional for govt to ban or criminalize abortion
where it discriminates and punishes women more than men.

For example, I have proposed to designate another level of statutory rape
where any act resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child or unwanted abortion,
is a certain degree of rape that violates health and safety codes, as a form of "relationship abuse" or "sex abuse".

And instead of blaming one partner over the other, trying to prove who said did or agreed to what or didn't
(which violates privacy and is outside the realm of govt due process)
then BOTH partners can be subject to counseling to resolve the cause of the problems
that led to the complaint or report of "relationship abuse" (whether domestic abuse,
harassment, stalking, breach of contract, etc.)

So anything that would otherwise lead to abortion
would fall under "relationship abuse" and there could be
a personal level of health and safety codes adopted by
communities or districts to address this level by consensus of the residents
so it isn't "imposed by govt" but is self-enforced as a local policy
(similar to noise or nuisance ordinances of civic homeowners or neighborhood associations).

My point is there are ways to police the problems that otherwise lead to abuse and abortion,
without banning it AFTER the fact which affects the women partners more than the men.

I believe in enforcing a more consistent level of consensus to PREVENT coercion and
relationship abuse would do more to prevent abortion from even becoming an issue.

The whole problem of not forcing women by external coercion would be
addressed BEFORE anyone makes the decision to have sex, and thus introduce the chance of
pregnancy and the risk of abortion. the "right to choose" should be enforced well BEFORE that point
if you are really going to protect life and liberty for all people equally.

Whatever. I don't do relativism.

 

[koshergrl]

In order to be REALLY prolife, then all the other factors that prevent abortion need to be addressed fully as well.

The OP is so completely for reducing and preventing abortion on all levels, and was saying it that way.

I think you are coming from the viewpoint that it isn't possible to prevent,
so all these things are still contributing to abortion; you don't share the OP's belief that
by working all the angles, then ALL life can be sustained, the same solutions to healthy
balanced peaceful living will eradicate the problems causing war, abortion, executions etc.

That's what I got out of it, and I come from the same line of thinking although I'm prochoice politically.
(I find that any laws trying to ban abortion "after the fact" are going to cause problems
because this disproportionately affects the women and doesn't address the MEN equally responsible for the
sex and pregnancy, if not more responsible in the case of rape/incest or other coerced acts that caused the pregnancy.)

But I do agree with the OP there needs to be consistency across the board
if we are going to solve the problems that are otherwise protested by either side.

If we solve those problems, of course, we will be on the side of prolife in preventing
any unnatural termination of life due to manmade conflict or abuses that can be resolved instead.

Basically this. To be consistently pro-life one must be anti-abortion. That said, simply being anti-abortion isn't the same as being pro-life. The pro-life cause requires respect for all life, and that includes mother as well as child. Simply making abortion illegal isn't going to stop women from getting them. You didn't fix the problem. You just dampened one symptom - and not by very much at that. If you want women to stop getting abortions then the first thing you have to do is understand why they get them in the first place. You have to ask them for their reasons and be prepared to listen. You wanna know what the most common reasons are? Unplanned pregnancy and poverty. More than that, you have to be willing to do what it takes to fix them. Make it illegal and women will break the law to get it unless you solve the problems causing them to want it. It's happened before. It will happen again unless you live up to your stated principles and do what needs to be done to alleviate the struggle of the young mother carrying another child she can't afford.

Not so. Pro-life means that you value life, and those of us who call ourselves pro-lifers have specifically taken on the challenge of protecting the unborn.

Don't fall for the nonsense the left spouts Emily, they do it to muddy the waters. They are pro-death, and they know it. That's why they challenge the definitions. If we are pro-life, they are pro-death. And they are pro-death, so they are going to pretend we aren't really pro-life.

The unborn aren't the only living beings. That's what I'm trying to explain to you. Yes. The unborn baby's life matters. Yes. She deserves our protection. But you know what? She's going to be born one day. Are you going to continue protecting her life? The anti-life crowd build one of their strongest arguments on this hypocrisy. "They're not pro-life; they're pro-borth. They only care about you until you're born and then you can die on the streets for all they care." You would be shocked to know how successful a talking point this has been for them. There's a very good reason why that is too. It's abso-*******-lutely true. And I say that as a diehard pro-lifer. Either give a damn about her when she's born too or stop pretending and hurting the case of those of us who do.

So? You do what you do to help humanity. You pick a battle and you fight it. Does that mean you shouldn't defend the helpless and the victimized, if you choose one group to focus on instead of ALL?? According to left wing, baby killing sacks, it does.

Legalized assembly line abortion is a disgrace. It demeans and victimizes and often kills women, it supports other people and groups who demean, victimize and kill women, and it exists to KILL BABIES for profit.

It's disgusting on every front, and it needs to stop. I personally think it's indicative of everything that is wrong in our society today, which is why I opt to fight this particular fight. And I think babies who are totally dependent upon the succor of humans are a little more helpless than criminals on death row. Call me crazy. Though I'm certainly not a death penalty proponent, I don't feel that the death penalty even comes close to the number of human rights violations perpetuated upon the innocent as abortion-for-all. Nor am I anywhere near as concerned for people caught in the crossfire over seas, in countries where human rights are not even given a polite nod by natives, regardless of our presence there.

 

[emilynghiem]

Our society has gone to hell that we even have someone ASKING this question all over PP getting caught dealing in body parts of potential HUMAN BEING that was ABORTED

we should start calling those who champion abortion as being PRO-DEATH

Would people who support wars, executions and such be considered pro-death too?

That's what I'm saying, yes. If you think "feed the poor and they'll breed" then you're not pro-life. If you think "let him die" then you're not pro-life. If you think we should be executing people then you're not pro-life. To be pro-life requires more than just opposing abortion.

Dear Pedro de San Patricio and Stephanie

Would it help to look at the Spirit of Life vs. the Spirit of killing and death in Biblical terms:
If we hold HATRED in our hearts then this is already KILLING the human spirit and relationship
and that is what leads to DEATH.

However, if we put the Spirit of LIFE first, ie follow the laws of truth and love in SPIRIT
then the physical life, both on earth and eternal life FOLLOW from that SPIRIT.

So what I hear you both complaining about is people are still not embracing the full SPIRIT of life but are still COMPROMISING for FEAR and giving in to side of death and destruction.
They THINK they are doing good, or claiming to, but a lot of it is destructive instead,
because the Spirit of Life and Love is not behind it but FEAR and/or hatred.

So let's look at what is the Spirit of Life and What is the Spirit of Death.

Would it help to explain Christ Jesus vs. Antichrist in terms of
Restorative Justice that is Life giving and RESTORES the love of life in relationships,
makes things new, whole, perfect, where there is no division but ALL HUMANITY are
reunited as ONE in Christ Jesus
vs.
Retributive Justice which seeks to act on ILL WILL (instead of Good Will for All which is God's universal love)
so this spirit is what KILLS humanity, relationships, and leads to physical war, death destruction

Would you agree that anything negative that leads to death is
Antichrist or against conscience and justice.

Anything that promotes life, restoration, healing
is on the side of Christ or conscience,
Christ Jesus as Restorative Justice,
Justice with Mercy, Peace and Justice, Equal Justice for ALL

 

[emilynghiem]

Full Definition of PRO-LIFE
: opposed to abortion
— pro–lif·er \-ˈlī-fər\ noun

Pro-life Definition of pro-life by Merriam-Webster

Yes, people like me and others I know can be OPPOSED TO ABORTION
yet not believe it is constitutional for govt to ban or criminalize abortion
where it discriminates and punishes women more than men.

For example, I have proposed to designate another level of statutory rape
where any act resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child or unwanted abortion,
is a certain degree of rape that violates health and safety codes, as a form of "relationship abuse" or "sex abuse".

And instead of blaming one partner over the other, trying to prove who said did or agreed to what or didn't
(which violates privacy and is outside the realm of govt due process)
then BOTH partners can be subject to counseling to resolve the cause of the problems
that led to the complaint or report of "relationship abuse" (whether domestic abuse,
harassment, stalking, breach of contract, etc.)

So anything that would otherwise lead to abortion
would fall under "relationship abuse" and there could be
a personal level of health and safety codes adopted by
communities or districts to address this level by consensus of the residents
so it isn't "imposed by govt" but is self-enforced as a local policy
(similar to noise or nuisance ordinances of civic homeowners or neighborhood associations).

My point is there are ways to police the problems that otherwise lead to abuse and abortion,
without banning it AFTER the fact which affects the women partners more than the men.

I believe in enforcing a more consistent level of consensus to PREVENT coercion and
relationship abuse would do more to prevent abortion from even becoming an issue.

The whole problem of not forcing women by external coercion would be
addressed BEFORE anyone makes the decision to have sex, and thus introduce the chance of
pregnancy and the risk of abortion. the "right to choose" should be enforced well BEFORE that point
if you are really going to protect life and liberty for all people equally.

Whatever. I don't do relativism.

Well koshergrl for someone who "doesn't do relativism"
your assessment (that prochoice or abortion providers are killing for profit)
is "relatively" the equivalent PARALLEL
of people saying the same of war done in the name of patriotism
as masked nationalism and capitalism for "profit and politics" also,
even "racist genocide" similar to what is said about abortion!

You may not be doing this on purpose,
but for every view you espouse there is an equal and opposite
view on the other side that is "relative" to YOURS!

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

What a steaming pile.

Racism has nothing to do with pro-life, poverty, internationalism, immigrant, sexist - seriously - you have attempted to claim that opposition to abortion forces someone to be a fucktarded progressive.

Every single one of these causes is bound up in mine. Do you really not believe that racism has always played into the abortion movement? Do you not realize that it's the direct spawn of the earlier eugenics movement? You know, the same one the progressive mainstream lauded until the camps in Germany were discovered?
As explained above, poverty is one of the single biggest reasons women abort. It's also a grave cause of death in its own right. If you really care about people's lives then how can you oppose ensuring even poor people - the "leeches" as capitalists like to brand them - have access to affordable healthcare and sufficient food and shelter?
Internationalism essentially meant taking a stance that advocates diplomacy over war. If you don't see how working out differences rather than kill over them is pro-life then I can't really help you.
The immigrant angle comes from the fact that many immigrants, primarily those immigrating illegally, are refugees from war torn shitholes like Mexico and MENA. You ultimately have two options for dealing with them. Accept them here, or send them back home to die. Which would you consider more pro-life?

So? You do what you do to help humanity. You pick a battle and you fight it. Does that mean you shouldn't defend the helpless and the victimized, if you choose one group to focus on instead of ALL?? According to left wing, baby killing sacks, it does.

You can't defend the unborn unless you know the causes of the threat to them. The threat to them comes from a choice of the one bearing them. That choice is made for several reasons. If you really want to defend the unborn baby then you need to eliminate the mother's reasons to have one. You literally can't care about the interests of the fetal person without caring as much about the interests of the pregnant woman.

 

[emilynghiem]

In order to be REALLY prolife, then all the other factors that prevent abortion need to be addressed fully as well.

The OP is so completely for reducing and preventing abortion on all levels, and was saying it that way.

I think you are coming from the viewpoint that it isn't possible to prevent,
so all these things are still contributing to abortion; you don't share the OP's belief that
by working all the angles, then ALL life can be sustained, the same solutions to healthy
balanced peaceful living will eradicate the problems causing war, abortion, executions etc.

That's what I got out of it, and I come from the same line of thinking although I'm prochoice politically.
(I find that any laws trying to ban abortion "after the fact" are going to cause problems
because this disproportionately affects the women and doesn't address the MEN equally responsible for the
sex and pregnancy, if not more responsible in the case of rape/incest or other coerced acts that caused the pregnancy.)

But I do agree with the OP there needs to be consistency across the board
if we are going to solve the problems that are otherwise protested by either side.

If we solve those problems, of course, we will be on the side of prolife in preventing
any unnatural termination of life due to manmade conflict or abuses that can be resolved instead.

Basically this. To be consistently pro-life one must be anti-abortion. That said, simply being anti-abortion isn't the same as being pro-life. The pro-life cause requires respect for all life, and that includes mother as well as child. Simply making abortion illegal isn't going to stop women from getting them. You didn't fix the problem. You just dampened one symptom - and not by very much at that. If you want women to stop getting abortions then the first thing you have to do is understand why they get them in the first place. You have to ask them for their reasons and be prepared to listen. You wanna know what the most common reasons are? Unplanned pregnancy and poverty. More than that, you have to be willing to do what it takes to fix them. Make it illegal and women will break the law to get it unless you solve the problems causing them to want it. It's happened before. It will happen again unless you live up to your stated principles and do what needs to be done to alleviate the struggle of the young mother carrying another child she can't afford.

Not so. Pro-life means that you value life, and those of us who call ourselves pro-lifers have specifically taken on the challenge of protecting the unborn.

Don't fall for the nonsense the left spouts Emily, they do it to muddy the waters. They are pro-death, and they know it. That's why they challenge the definitions. If we are pro-life, they are pro-death. And they are pro-death, so they are going to pretend we aren't really pro-life.

The unborn aren't the only living beings. That's what I'm trying to explain to you. Yes. The unborn baby's life matters. Yes. She deserves our protection. But you know what? She's going to be born one day. Are you going to continue protecting her life? The anti-life crowd build one of their strongest arguments on this hypocrisy. "They're not pro-life; they're pro-borth. They only care about you until you're born and then you can die on the streets for all they care." You would be shocked to know how successful a talking point this has been for them. There's a very good reason why that is too. It's abso-*******-lutely true. And I say that as a diehard pro-lifer. Either give a damn about her when she's born too or stop pretending and hurting the case of those of us who do.

So? You do what you do to help humanity. You pick a battle and you fight it. Does that mean you shouldn't defend the helpless and the victimized, if you choose one group to focus on instead of ALL?? According to left wing, baby killing sacks, it does.

Legalized assembly line abortion is a disgrace. It demeans and victimizes and often kills women, it supports other people and groups who demean, victimize and kill women, and it exists to KILL BABIES for profit.

It's disgusting on every front, and it needs to stop. I personally think it's indicative of everything that is wrong in our society today, which is why I opt to fight this particular fight. And I think babies who are totally dependent upon the succor of humans are a little more helpless than criminals on death row. Call me crazy. Though I'm certainly not a death penalty proponent, I don't feel that the death penalty even comes close to the number of human rights violations perpetuated upon the innocent as abortion-for-all. Nor am I anywhere near as concerned for people caught in the crossfire over seas, in countries where human rights are not even given a polite nod by natives, regardless of our presence there.

Yes to both, I agree with both Pedro de San Patricio wonderfully holistic approach that seeks to address all levels consistently so the spirit of what we do is one.
AND I AGREE with koshergrl that not everyone can focus or care about all these things.
We are going to focus on some things, not others. Or else we can't function effectively on what we CAN do!
EXACTLY!

it is both. We need to harmonize with others addressing the different angles
but it can't get in the way of doing the part WE are supposed to do.

It's like an orchestra, we need to work together and blend in tune and harmony.

but I can't be so caught up in what another section is doing
that I don't pay attention to my part. We need to do both things.

So Pedro de San Patricio if koshergrl's job is to rubberstamp NO
on anything that says abortion is acceptable, that's her job.
Her mind won't be designed to "care about" anything else outside her focus and purpose.

And koshergrl maybe it is Pedro and my job to work with the liberals who are fighting
for this social justice and make sure this is done right, and not in conflict with conservatives who
don't want all this railroaded through govt. there are better ways to address and resolve these issues more directly.

So maybe Pedro's job is different, and supposed to be focused on managing collaborative teamwork.

koshergrl whatever is going wrong with people seeking, providing or pushing the choice of abortion,
either Pedro's approach will help PREVENT and CORRECT those causes, or they will do nothing.
Let's give it a shot, and show how much better our resources can be used to PREVENT the
problems behind abortion and the prochoice politics. Then you, at the end of the line in charge
of voting YAY or NAY, can either approve or disapprove of the results, as either effective or not helping
spread the message that abortion is not a viable choice.

But you don't have to approve of any of the process or steps
since that is not your job. You don't have to look at that, but just agree or disagree
if it is helping change perceptions on abortion and encourage more prevention
since this is not a healthy choice for women or society to have this going on!!!

 

[emilynghiem]

What a steaming pile.

Racism has nothing to do with pro-life, poverty, internationalism, immigrant, sexist - seriously - you have attempted to claim that opposition to abortion forces someone to be a fucktarded progressive.

Every single one of these causes is bound up in mine. Do you really not believe that racism has always played into the abortion movement? Do you not realize that it's the direct spawn of the earlier eugenics movement? You know, the same one the progressive mainstream lauded until the camps in Germany were discovered?
As explained above, poverty is one of the single biggest reasons women abort. It's also a grave cause of death in its own right. If you really care about people's lives then how can you oppose ensuring even poor people - the "leeches" as capitalists like to brand them - have access to affordable healthcare and sufficient food and shelter?
Internationalism essentially meant taking a stance that advocates diplomacy over war. If you don't see how working out differences rather than kill over them is pro-life then I can't really help you.
The immigrant angle comes from the fact that many immigrants, primarily those immigrating illegally, are refugees from war torn shitholes like Mexico and MENA. You ultimately have two options for dealing with them. Accept them here, or send them back home to die. Which would you consider more pro-life?

So? You do what you do to help humanity. You pick a battle and you fight it. Does that mean you shouldn't defend the helpless and the victimized, if you choose one group to focus on instead of ALL?? According to left wing, baby killing sacks, it does.

You can't defend the unborn unless you know the causes of the threat to them. The threat to them comes from a choice of the one bearing them. That choice is made for several reasons. If you really want to defend the unborn baby then you need to eliminate the mother's reasons to have one. You literally can't care about the interests of the fetal person without caring as much about the interests of the pregnant woman.

Dear Pedro de San Patricio
I woudn't bar them at all from helping to defend prolife,
but I'd say it is more effective, they will be more respected and listened to
and have a better chance of COMMUNICATING the message if they
look at the entire picture, having compassion instead of anger and disdain,
and approach the situation out of compassion. More people will respond to that, I agree.

But some people's job is just to repeat the resounding NO, OPPOSED, not a choice.
and that's all they understand to do. The rest is for other people to do, but may not be
their job in the spiritual ecosystem of life. We can't ask trumpeters to play the flute part,
we just need each person to find their section and play their part in harmony and balance,
and we can still complete the symphony of life as it is written to include everyone.

the more I read your msgs, the more I think you should be in the role
of music director or conductor to oversee the moving parts and how they work together.
I'd love to help you with that, and with both of us trying to take this on,
more people will surely join even if their parts are limited and not taking on the whole spiel!

Be patient and let each person add what they can.
We need everyone to help, let's not discourage or turn anyone away who
has concerns about what is going wrong, let's help focus on how to make things right!

I think you have the vision and drive for that. I will help you with every
fibre of my being, all resources and contacts I have so you succeed at pulling
this effort together. I believe it is people like you in the community who will lead the way.

Thanks! and let's not lose any sheep who are all different for a purpoise
they need to serve, and are designed to do so, not to be like us.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Every single one of these causes is bound up in mine.

Who cares?

You attempted to force the definition of pro-life to mean brain-dead progressive. That is intellectually dishonest.

Do you really not believe that racism has always played into the abortion movement? Do you not realize that it's the direct spawn of the earlier eugenics movement? You know, the same one the progressive mainstream lauded until the camps in Germany were discovered?

Regardless, pro-life is not an element of racism - one need not wear a "White lives don't matter" tee-shirt to object to Planned Parenthood selling aborted babies.

As explained above, poverty is one of the single biggest reasons women abort. It's also a grave cause of death in its own right. If you really care about people's lives then how can you oppose ensuring even poor people - the "leeches" as capitalists like to brand them - have access to affordable healthcare and sufficient food and shelter?
Internationalism essentially meant taking a stance that advocates diplomacy over war. If you don't see how working out differences rather than kill over them is pro-life then I can't really help you.
The immigrant angle comes from the fact that many immigrants, primarily those immigrating illegally, are refugees from war torn shitholes like Mexico and MENA. You ultimately have two options for dealing with them. Accept them here, or send them back home to die. Which would you consider more pro-life?

Again, these are red herrings. You can create justifications why they are relevant, but the are not elements of pro-life.

Really I don't like pro-life, honesty dictates "anti-abortion." The issue is abortion and there are two sides, pro and con. There is no such thing as "pro-choice," it is pro-abortion. There is no pro-life, it is anti-abortion.

 

[koshergrl]

Full Definition of PRO-LIFE
: opposed to abortion
— pro–lif·er \-ˈlī-fər\ noun

Pro-life Definition of pro-life by Merriam-Webster

Yes, people like me and others I know can be OPPOSED TO ABORTION
yet not believe it is constitutional for govt to ban or criminalize abortion
where it discriminates and punishes women more than men.

For example, I have proposed to designate another level of statutory rape
where any act resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child or unwanted abortion,
is a certain degree of rape that violates health and safety codes, as a form of "relationship abuse" or "sex abuse".

And instead of blaming one partner over the other, trying to prove who said did or agreed to what or didn't
(which violates privacy and is outside the realm of govt due process)
then BOTH partners can be subject to counseling to resolve the cause of the problems
that led to the complaint or report of "relationship abuse" (whether domestic abuse,
harassment, stalking, breach of contract, etc.)

So anything that would otherwise lead to abortion
would fall under "relationship abuse" and there could be
a personal level of health and safety codes adopted by
communities or districts to address this level by consensus of the residents
so it isn't "imposed by govt" but is self-enforced as a local policy
(similar to noise or nuisance ordinances of civic homeowners or neighborhood associations).

My point is there are ways to police the problems that otherwise lead to abuse and abortion,
without banning it AFTER the fact which affects the women partners more than the men.

I believe in enforcing a more consistent level of consensus to PREVENT coercion and
relationship abuse would do more to prevent abortion from even becoming an issue.

The whole problem of not forcing women by external coercion would be
addressed BEFORE anyone makes the decision to have sex, and thus introduce the chance of
pregnancy and the risk of abortion. the "right to choose" should be enforced well BEFORE that point
if you are really going to protect life and liberty for all people equally.

Whatever. I don't do relativism.

Well koshergrl for someone who "doesn't do relativism"
your assessment (that prochoice or abortion providers are killing for profit)
is "relatively" the equivalent PARALLEL
of people saying the same of war done in the name of patriotism
as masked nationalism and capitalism for "profit and politics" also,
even "racist genocide" similar to what is said about abortion!

You may not be doing this on purpose,
but for every view you espouse there is an equal and opposite
view on the other side that is "relative" to YOURS!

Except I don't do relativism. You applying relativism to me means nothing to me. I still don't do it. You can prate all day how whatever I believe is mirrored by the other side...but I don't buy it, and I don't engage in it.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Really I don't like pro-life, honesty dictates "anti-abortion." The issue is abortion and there are two sides, pro and con. There is no such thing as "pro-choice," it is pro-abortion. There is no pro-life, it is anti-abortion.

I've previously stated that the anti-abortion cause falls under the pro-life cause. It's well and good that you're trying to make abortion illegal. What are you going to do about the demand for it though? How are you going to reduce the number of illegal abortions occurring after achieving your goal?

 

[koshergrl]

Really I don't like pro-life, honesty dictates "anti-abortion." The issue is abortion and there are two sides, pro and con. There is no such thing as "pro-choice," it is pro-abortion. There is no pro-life, it is anti-abortion.

I've previously stated that the anti-abortion cause falls under the pro-life cause. It's well and good that you're trying to make abortion illegal. What are you going to do about the demand for it though? How are you going to reduce the number of illegal abortions occurring after achieving your goal?

You deal with that when it happens. Since abortion will be illegal, you prosecute the providers when you find them. Pretty simple. And there is never a surge in abortions when abortion is illegal. Quite the opposite.

 

[emilynghiem]

Full Definition of PRO-LIFE
: opposed to abortion
— pro–lif·er \-ˈlī-fər\ noun

Pro-life Definition of pro-life by Merriam-Webster

Yes, people like me and others I know can be OPPOSED TO ABORTION
yet not believe it is constitutional for govt to ban or criminalize abortion
where it discriminates and punishes women more than men.

For example, I have proposed to designate another level of statutory rape
where any act resulting in unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted child or unwanted abortion,
is a certain degree of rape that violates health and safety codes, as a form of "relationship abuse" or "sex abuse".

And instead of blaming one partner over the other, trying to prove who said did or agreed to what or didn't
(which violates privacy and is outside the realm of govt due process)
then BOTH partners can be subject to counseling to resolve the cause of the problems
that led to the complaint or report of "relationship abuse" (whether domestic abuse,
harassment, stalking, breach of contract, etc.)

So anything that would otherwise lead to abortion
would fall under "relationship abuse" and there could be
a personal level of health and safety codes adopted by
communities or districts to address this level by consensus of the residents
so it isn't "imposed by govt" but is self-enforced as a local policy
(similar to noise or nuisance ordinances of civic homeowners or neighborhood associations).

My point is there are ways to police the problems that otherwise lead to abuse and abortion,
without banning it AFTER the fact which affects the women partners more than the men.

I believe in enforcing a more consistent level of consensus to PREVENT coercion and
relationship abuse would do more to prevent abortion from even becoming an issue.

The whole problem of not forcing women by external coercion would be
addressed BEFORE anyone makes the decision to have sex, and thus introduce the chance of
pregnancy and the risk of abortion. the "right to choose" should be enforced well BEFORE that point
if you are really going to protect life and liberty for all people equally.

Whatever. I don't do relativism.

Well koshergrl for someone who "doesn't do relativism"
your assessment (that prochoice or abortion providers are killing for profit)
is "relatively" the equivalent PARALLEL
of people saying the same of war done in the name of patriotism
as masked nationalism and capitalism for "profit and politics" also,
even "racist genocide" similar to what is said about abortion!

You may not be doing this on purpose,
but for every view you espouse there is an equal and opposite
view on the other side that is "relative" to YOURS!

Except I don't do relativism. You applying relativism to me means nothing to me. I still don't do it. You can prate all day how whatever I believe is mirrored by the other side...but I don't buy it, and I don't engage in it.

Dear koshergrl
then you are an unwilling participant. For each position you cling to and enforce onesided,
this creates the "equal and opposite reaction" to balance that energy.

Just like all the backlash against Bush fueled the backlash against Obama.

Equal and opposite energy pushing from both extremes.

The more you push from your side, there is equal push from the other,
and you cancel yourselves out, and use twice as much energy to fight in opposition.

Laws of karma affect all of us this way.
We didn't make these laws or choose to be born human under this system.
But it governs our human nature and behavior as social creatures
spiritually connected and politically affecting each other!

I didn't choose to be in this fight either,
but once I figured out how it works I try to resolve conflicts
so our energy and resources work FOR US not against us.

I can't help either that I am caught in the middle of
"relativistic" BS back and forth. But that's the
reality of the human condition. We are in this together, like it or not.

I don't like it either, but even meeting people like you makes it worth fighting the good fight,
who stand up for what you know is right, and won't back down for convenience or popularity.

Thanks for that koshergrl
You keep standing for what is absolute
and that is a gauge for everyone else to work around who is relativistic.
We need both in the world, and to help each other fulfill our jobs to the "best of our abilities."

Since I understand the relativistic approach,
if I can help you in any way who doesn't go there,
I am happy to help "translate" back and forth so
people might understand each other better who "don't go there either."

Thanks!

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

You deal with that when it happens. Since abortion will be illegal, you prosecute the providers when you find them. Pretty simple.

So just wait until a woman is caught trying to abort, then prosecute her for murder? You don't see how that utterly fails to address the reason she was looking to get one in the first place? Or how it prevents the next woman from trying to procure one for the same reasons?

And there is never a surge in abortions when abortion is illegal. Quite the opposite.

There isn't a surge in reported abortions. It's kind of like how cocaine dealers don't report their sales information to the government. That doesn't mean there isn't still a thriving black market, either for drugs or illegal abortions.

 

[koshergrl]

You deal with that when it happens. Since abortion will be illegal, you prosecute the providers when you find them. Pretty simple.

So just wait until a woman is caught trying to abort, then prosecute her for murder? You don't see how that utterly fails to address the reason she was looking to get one in the first place? Or how it prevents the next woman from trying to procure one for the same reasons?

And there is never a surge in abortions when abortion is illegal. Quite the opposite.

There isn't a surge in reported abortions. It's kind of like how cocaine dealers don't report their sales information to the government. That doesn't mean there isn't still a thriving black market, either for drugs or illegal abortions.

Wow you just don't read, do you?

Psst...abortions aren't reported now. Right now we have a situation where back alley abortions are legal, and protected by baby killers and butchers and pimps.

The whole fantasy of skanky wimmins lining up for to be chopped up is just that..a fantasy. Baby killers view women as criminal and stupid, and they do what they can to misinform the ones who are most desperate, and actively assist the groups of people who prey upon them and then drag them to the clinics to get rid of the evidence and prolong the work life of said woman. And that is what the dialogue of the pro-abortion zealot supports.