The hypocrisy of being "pro-life"

[GodLovesCats]

Your logic is flawed. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, e.g. a fertilized egg in the woman, which is growing into a baby. Contraceptives, regardless of nature, prevent the actual conception/fertilization of the egg.

Which is why I want to know what makes pro-lifers hate contraception.

 

[Jamdoc]

I doubt many women take it lightly. It is very stressful and women know the decision will be with them as long as they live.


Ectopic pregnancies are always like that. It is medically impossible to transfer an embryo to the uterus. If this happens, even the staunchest pro-lifer will have no problem with saving the mother's life.

Other fatal pregnancy-related problems include pre-eclampsia, which can kill both the mom and fetus but is treatable. It can also cause cerebral palsy, which happens when the oxygen supply is cut off rrom parts of the cerebral cortex. So it is one of those conditions where pro-lifers will argue against killing a disabled fetus, refusing to accept the possiblity a stillbirth is more likely (and that the mother can also die).


If both parents know all about it and decide together, along with the doctor, it is not worth anything to make a neonatal infant live that way, it is the right decision for them. This is a personal decision and no one has the right to call them evil if they go that route. But pro-lifers have a huge issue with this idea, so if anyone uses this as a reason, it must be kept secret outside the hospital and doctor's office.


I can't be convinced it is ever moral to force a rape or incest victim to stay pregnant 40 weeks. She is not guilty of anything; rape is defined as being forced to have sex after telling the man she does not want it. There is no reason to punish the mom for what the dad did. My solution proposal: Police should have Plan B on hand to give the rape victim to take when they arrive to arrest the rapist.

You may not have a problem with it, but God might. God might be absolute on it to where you just have to let a fatally deformed baby suffer and watch it die on its own while you try to save it in vain.
God might be absolute that pregnancy from rape or not, you will carry and deliver that baby and love it because He considers it a blessing to you.
It's hard to know because when the bible was written there was no option so yes, you just had to watch a deformed baby struggle and die.
Yes, if a man raped you you just had to bear the child and raise it.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I respect the disagreements people have about whether a baby should live or die and am not endorsing a second or third trimester abortion that is not medically necessary. In fact I acknowledged this in my post. God gave us free will and just like I can't force anyone to choose abortion, neither do you have a right to force a woman to stay pregnant against her will. It is about respecting her decision, knowing what is right for one woman is not right for another.

Is God absolute that in every situation a woman should be forced to raise her baby even if she can't? Let's see what the Bible says about that.

 

[coffee4u]

Over and over again so-called "pro-lifers" say two things that butt against each other:

1. Contraception is a form of abortion, especially the morning after pills (Plan B).
   
2. There is no reason to have an abortion because women can use contraception.

Uh, what? People want women to prevent unwanted pregnancies but not use the devices which were invented solely for that purpose. You can't have it both ways. If you do not want anybody to use contraception, you must love abortions of unwanted embryos and fetuses because using contraceptive pills and devices prevents them.

First point, it's chemical contraception we are talking about. The pill and other hormone-based methods can prevent implantation. There is a difference between preventing implantion and preventing fertilization.

Second point, if a pro-life person said that they are referring to condoms and other barrier or timing methods.

I also have seen "pro-lifers" speak out against mandatory sex education, which is the only way to make sure all girls and boys learn about contraception and abstinence. Again, if you want all girls and women to avoid having unwanted pregnancies, you must support this requirement for health teachers in every public and private school.

We are not one homogenous group, the same way that not all Methodists are one homogenous group. Stereotyping any group based on X is always wrong because no two people are the same. May as well substitute "Pro-lifers" for Black/Asian's/Democrats and see how that works for you. You have seen some people who happen to be pro-life speak against it, I am sure I can drag up people from other 'groups' who think the same way. I even found an atheist and secular humanist group against abortion. Don't assume you know all of someones thoughts because you see a label.

Abstinence? Lol schools don't teach that. The reasons against sex education are how its been handled not the fact that its sex education.
1) They are teaching too much detail at too young an age
2) There is no abstinence teaching
3) The overall atmosphere is one of "we assume you will be having sex"
4) They teach mechanics without any emotional component.
5) Some parents want to teach it themselves with their own moral views.
There are a wealth of reasons why someone may be seen as 'against sex education'. You don't know why and can't assume to know.
Now maybe there are better courses around, I don't know, but these are issues that I have seen spoken about.

Reducing abortions will not happen by making them illegal. All that would do is make most abortions very dangerous, even life-threatening. It will not reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. If you want the number of abortions to be nearly zero you must support everything that would effectively reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies because desperate women will seek untrained people to remove fetuses out of their bodies.

So what do you want, fewer unwanted pregnancies or a lot of sick women occupying jail cells?

And encouraging young scared women by using soothing language full of lies encourages abortion.
Not having programs in place to help women with their pregnancy and after encourages abortion.
Not teaching teenagers that the developing embryo is not some clump of cells but a baby with arms and legs encourages abortion.
Proliferating the lie that abortion saves mothers lives encourages abortion. Ask a doctor and see how minuscule that rate actually is.
Making adoption too hard and not encouraging adoption as a valid choose encourages abortion.
Making abortion easy encourages abortion.
Broken home where girls don't feel loved by there fathers encourages teen pregnancy because those girls look for love and acceptance in sex.
Teaching sex education without also teaching self-worth, abstinence, pregnancy details and the emotional impact of having sex also encourages teen pregnancy.

Having a society that does not value children encourages abortion. I realized recently that most shopping centres in the US do not have parenting rooms or child play spaces. We also have paid maternity leave. Things like that send an unspoken message that children are not a valued part of your country.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Schools do teach abstinence. They teach everything . . . except abortion, rape, and incest. No, they are not too detailed at too yoong an age either. Maybe some state laws allow this, but it is not standard.

 

[GraceBro]

Over and over again so-called "pro-lifers" say two things that butt against each other:

1. Contraception is a form of abortion, especially the morning after pills (Plan B).
   
2. There is no reason to have an abortion because women can use contraception.

Uh, what? People want women to prevent unwanted pregnancies but not use the devices which were invented solely for that purpose. You can't have it both ways. If you do not want anybody to use contraception, you must love abortions of unwanted embryos and fetuses because using contraceptive pills and devices prevents them.

I also have seen "pro-lifers" speak out against mandatory sex education, which is the only way to make sure all girls and boys learn about contraception and abstinence. Again, if you want all girls and women to avoid having unwanted pregnancies, you must support this requirement for health teachers in every public and private school.

Reducing abortions will not happen by making them illegal. All that would do is make most abortions very dangerous, even life-threatening. It will not reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. If you want the number of abortions to be nearly zero you must support everything that would effectively reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies because desperate women will seek untrained people to remove fetuses out of their bodies.

So what do you want, fewer unwanted pregnancies or a lot of sick women occupying jail cells?

What is your evidence for your position? Do you have any statistics or source material you can share so we can consider the foundation of your position? Otherwise, we are forced to answer opinions about "pro-lifers." Thanks.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

• Contraception is a form of abortion, especially the morning after pills (Plan B).

• There is no reason to have an abortion because women can use contraception.

No, morning-after pills are not contraception.

No, there is no reason to have an abortion, and it has nothing to do with contraception. Either, A) don't have sex, or B) have the man who raped you arrested.

I may be a little hard-nosed, but I go Old Testament on rapists, and I tend to seek the harshest of punishments. Incidentally, I feel the same way about murderers.

 

[GodLovesCats]

So you want the mom to die when the fetus is cuasing a life-threatening emergency?

That is ALWAYS a reason to have an abortion.

 

[Silmarien]

Actually, making abortion illegal would dramatically reduce the number of abortions. How does that not follow? What it would do is make abortion the abode of the wealthy who will travel to have the procedure done.

I think the research on abortion rates worldwide shows something a little more complicated: Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access

The highest rates are in Latin America, where abortion is largely illegal, and I don't think it makes sense to think that this is primarily because the wealthy are seeking abortions abroad. Whatever is driving the relatively lower rates in European countries (contraception? healthcare access? financial stability?), it certainly can't be legal restrictions.

What does often seem to go hand in hand with illegality, at least in Latin America, is a complete disregard for the poverty stricken women that are at highest risk in the first place. That troubles me, given our country's tendency to see financially unstable mothers as "welfare queens" leeching off the system. I don't see how a pro-life movement that has wed itself to policies leading to greater wealth inequality is going to actually lead to a net reduction in the rate of abortion. It'll be brought down by criminalization, and then driven right back up by increased demand.

 

[Jamdoc]

No, morning-after pills are not contraception.

No, there is no reason to have an abortion, and it has nothing to do with contraception. Either, A) don't have sex, or B) have the man who raped you arrested.

I may be a little hard-nosed, but I go Old Testament on rapists, and I tend to seek the harshest of punishments. Incidentally, I feel the same way about murderers.

Having the guy arrested doesn't make the woman not pregnant though. She still has lasting consequence from that vile act against her.

 

[Silmarien]

I respect the disagreements people have about whether a baby should live or die and am not endorsing a second or third trimester abortion that is not medically necessary. In fact I acknowledged this in my post. God gave us free will and just like I can't force anyone to choose abortion, neither do you have a right to force a woman to stay pregnant against her will. It is about respecting her decision, knowing what is right for one woman is not right for another.

Is God absolute that in every situation a woman should be forced to raise her baby even if she can't? Let's see what the Bible says about that.

The Bible absolutely does state that self-sacrifice and service to others is essential--the true neighbor is the Samaritan who doesn't shrink from helping a stranger because of the personal cost, and there's really nothing relativistic about that. I think an unwanted pregnancy would quite clearly fit into the "cross to bear" category, and abortion is therefore an inherently selfish act.

To what extent that can or should be enforced with state power strikes me as a much more difficult question, but I don't see how the decision can ever be "right."

 

[chevyontheriver]

Which is why I want to know what makes pro-lifers hate contraception.

What might help you here is to realize that among all of the pro-life people out there are numerous faithful Catholics. And as faithful Catholics they would also be opposed to contraception. This was the position of all Christians back before 1930 but is exceptionally rare now among Protestants. Even uncommon among your average Catholics. But those Catholics who are actively pro-life are also likely not to approve of contraception either, and would promote abstinence for the unmarried and natural sex without contraception for the married. I don't expect you would understand, but it is a principled objection to contraception and a principled objection to abortion at the same time.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Schools do teach abstinence. They teach everything . . . except abortion, rape, and incest. No, they are not too detailed at too yoong an age either. Maybe some state laws allow this, but it is not standard.

Catholic schools and some evangelical schools will teach abstinence. Not sure which other schools would. Most all the rest would presume that kids would be sexually active and push contraception as the norm. School based clinics are common. And when the contraceptives fail, as they commonly do, they can funnel the girls in for abortions.

 

[Sketcher]

Over and over again so-called "pro-lifers" say two things that butt against each other:

1. Contraception is a form of abortion, especially the morning after pills (Plan B).
   
2. There is no reason to have an abortion because women can use contraception.

Uh, what? People want women to prevent unwanted pregnancies but not use the devices which were invented solely for that purpose. You can't have it both ways.

I personally do not say that. I would say that some forms of contraception are a form of abortion, while other methods of contraception are not. In the majority of cases, the methods of contraception that are not forms of abortion (i.e. condoms) can be used, though abstinence is better.

I also have seen "pro-lifers" speak out against mandatory sex education, which is the only way to make sure all girls and boys learn about contraception and abstinence. Again, if you want all girls and women to avoid having unwanted pregnancies, you must support this requirement for health teachers in every public and private school.

I support sex education. I had sex education and learned about many forms of birth control, but they could have and should have also taught why abstinence is a good idea. Truly comprehensive sex education would do that.

Reducing abortions will not happen by making them illegal. All that would do is make most abortions very dangerous, even life-threatening. It will not reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. If you want the number of abortions to be nearly zero you must support everything that would effectively reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies because desperate women will seek untrained people to remove fetuses out of their bodies.

Ordinarily, I like to defer to a hands-off approach by the government when solving problems. But, abortion is taking an innocent human life, and most of the time it is for convenience. The first and foremost reason we have a government is to restrict people from killing each other, either from without (in the form of national defense keeping invading armies out), or from within (in the form of police and the courts, arresting and punishing those that commit murder). When innocent human lives are being taken for convenience, the government has a duty to stop it. I agree that the demand for abortions must be reduced. I also believe that we have a moral duty to further restrict abortions in a way that doesn't interfere with pregnant women getting needed medical care.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Having the guy arrested doesn't make the woman not pregnant though. She still has lasting consequence from that vile act against her.

How did you miss the part about Plan B? I suggested police having it to give the rape victim so she won't get pregnant and seek an abortion. She will still be in a mental mess, but not also have all of the physical consequences.

 

[Credos4Christ]

I also believe that we have a moral duty to further restrict abortions in a way that doesn't interfere with pregnant women getting needed medical care.

Yes, and this is a point I really want to drive home: I as a pro-lifer am not advocating we lock up pregnant mothers. It would do neither them nor their child any good. But we have to treat abortion as the moral wrong that it is. We furthermore have to accept how simply inexcusable it is that 74% of abortions in the US are performed because moms "aren't ready for a big change". A child's life being inconvenient does not make them any less valuable as a person. That child is still a child of God, made in the image of God, who has a right to live the extent of their life.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Catholic schools and some evangelical schools will teach abstinence. Not sure which other schools would. Most all the rest would presume that kids would be sexually active and push contraception as the norm. School based clinics are common. And when the contraceptives fail, as they commonly do, they can funnel the girls in for abortions.

I went to public schools. They say how effective each contraceptive method from withdrawal to surgery is (the former failing around 60% of the time). Unless you are spayed or neutered, abstinence is required to have no risk of anunwanted pregnancy.

 

[redleghunter]

Pro-choicers actually have other reasons: the mother's socioencomimc situaion, suffering only because of her unwanted pregnancy, and fetuses that will have special needs their entire lives (which are difficult for a woman to adopt out, not just take care of herself). But what I want to focus on now is people saying an unwanted pregnancy can be prevented, but at the same time opposing every method of preventing those pregnancies. Fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer abortions every time. That is elementary math.

So kill them because they may be miserable?

 

[Silmarien]

I went to public schools. They say how effective each contraceptive method from withdrawal to surgery is (the former failing around 60% of the time). Unless you are spayed or neutered, abstinence is required to have no risk of anunwanted pregnancy.

Yeah, I remember being well and truly traumatized by the focus on STDs in public school. The message was always closer to, "If you have sex, you might die" than "Go out and have safe sex," so I'm not sure what sort of public schools other people are talking about here, haha.

Granted, maybe I'm just a hypochondriac and that was my take away message.

 

[redleghunter]

Pro-lifers' have a lower rate of need to adopt, as they tend to be traditional and therefore (unless infertile) are probably more likely to have biological children.

Christians in general adopt at double the rate as seculars. And the usual leftist tripe is they only adopt white babies. When in fact the majority of Christian adoptions are multi-ethnic.

Interesting insights here:

5 Things You Need to Know About Adoption - Barna Group