BlogHer - pro-life - Comments

my take on life

babyamg7 — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:54:18 -0600

well Ive spent about an hour reading what everyone has to say and i agree and disagree with so much of it ....here's what i have to say ...i think the baby is a baby .....when lacy Peterson was murdered the whole country thought of her and her baby ..not her and her ball of cells .....he took 2 lives ...hers and her unborn baby's .....so why is it a baby when someone wants it? but a ball of cells when an inconvenience ........and when pro-choicers say its not a life because it cannot live without its mother? i don't understand that either? because an newborn infant cannot survive without someone Else's dependency ....so in a pro-choicers view it should be OK to kill children until they can care for themselves because there mother chose not to take care of them .... I'm pro-life ....i don't believe in the death penalty in any circumstance...i don't believe in embryonic stem cell research i think no one should have the power to take away a humans life/soul ....i am a firm believer in a woman's choice ..i chose to do what i want when i want but i don't chose to be a prostitute or steal or sell drugs or murder because its wrong and you go to jail for these kind of things .....so just because we believe in choice doesn't mean we get the right to chose to murder .....and i agree that more should be done to educate so unwanted pregnancy's accrue way less often i have two daughters they are just baby's now but as there mother and teacher i will try my hardest to raise them as my mother raised me ..very strictly lol my mom raised me to believe in god and to try my hardest to be moral ...i saved my self for marriage and for the respect and strength of myself and my husband .....so it can be taught and im no saint either when i was first married i took birth control but when i googled is birth control abortive i was in shock to know it was i also asked my doctor and he confirmed that if you believe life begins at conception it is abortive so i flushed my pills very sadly and now i have 2 daughters at 22 and my 1st was planned but if i would have been taking my pills i wouldn't have my unplanned beautiful 1yr old marykate who i love and adore.........anymore people just except immoral things because they think its normal ...but its not ....and I'm not saying that if a woman gets an abortion she will be dammed to hell because i truly believe in my heart that most woman who get abortions don't fully understand what they are aborting and as fare as the rape issue goes its very rare but if it happened to me i would keep it because that child would be half of mine and if it was to hard to keep there are millions of woman out there dieing to chose your baby for adoption...also if i had to make the choice of my life or my baby's i would chose my baby's it would be selfish to live 22 years and chose not to give them a day ....and as far the abort because there was something wrong with the baby i don't think that's right either there has been so many cases where doctors have been proven wrong and if there was something wrong with my child it would still be mine and giving to me for a reason

I'm a firm believer that life happens for a reason even though at times we cant understand what that reason is ....someday we will

I'm sure there's alot of people who don't like my take on life... but its mine

i may live in a fairytale world but i BELIEVE in good

Whatever, always some reason to get out of doing what's right

birthmom — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:16:54 -0500

Two wrongs don't make a right! God can handle anything. I was raped and my daughter is the most beautiful perfect girl ever! I disagree..I think Pro-Choice supporters are a bunch of wimps. If I had to pick someone to have my back out of a crowd of strangers..you bet Id ask who was a democrat first, and weed out the sissy's!

Your a woman, be happy yu CAN give life!!!

(and pro-choice means pro-abortion! to do nothing is to be just as guilty)Woman's right is what I believe too, just I stand for the litle girl inside the womb's right also.

Birth Mom

Get out of my womb!

MiniHaHa — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 00:16:32 -0500

If I need to have an abortion, it is my LEGAL right! While I am NOT pro-abortion, I AM pro-choice! What I do with my body is none of your business! All of you who are "pro-life" are so hypocritical! You don't mind seeing legislation that will force women who are raped or have become impregnated by incest, to give birth to these fetuses, but once they are born, if they make it, all the social programs that will help to take care of them are almost always voted down by Republicans.

Why eggs though?

shesautomatic — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:49:27 -0500

If eggs are expensive (and they are) why not replace them with cheaper, higher quality sources of protein? For example, tofu has a higher protein content, is much cheaper (.99 for 12 oz, while a 24 oz carton of eggs goes for around $3.00), and lower in saturated fat. You can do almost anything to tofu you can do to an egg, including bake with it and scramble it. It's now readily available in almost all grocery stores.

As for chickens being 'on the level' of a human fetus, I think if we look at the things that are generally considered to comprise a 'person', we would see that adult chickens fulfill more criteria than a fetus does. They are sentient (capable of feeling pain), reasoning, self-determined, self-aware and capable of communication, which are considered to be five out of five criteria generally used to conceptualize a 'person' without looking to religion or arbitrary (genetic) criteria.

The relationship between woman and fetus is different from the one between farmer and chicken. Fetus use the woman's body to sustain life, while farmers use the chickens bodies and lives for profit. The fetus cannot exist without the woman, while the chickens would probably be better off existing without the farmer. In some cases, the woman may have chosen her relationship with the fetus, but the farmer always chooses to enter into a relationship with the chickens. That's not to say there aren't some similarities; both the fetus and the chickens are considered property, and as such have no rights under the law. Neither the chickens nor the fetus have any say in what happens to them.

I agree that giving the farmers monetary support to treat their chicken's better is a fantastic plan, but that money has to come from somewhere as well. Why not combine legislation with incentives? No one is forcing them to treat the chickens inhumanely right now. They have the option to choose to do something else right now, but many don't because it's hard, if not impossible. I think a big part of this legislation will be forcing the big conglomerates to respect individual farmer's choices to be compassionate, because right now it's the giant companies that have structured the market in such a way that it's impossible for a farmer to maintain his contracts and still treat the chickens like they're more than objects.

The truth is that we legislate morality constantly. We have laws against rape and murder, and indecent exposure and public drunkenness. We have laws against abusing our children and spouses. We even have laws attempting to protect 'food' animals against 'unnecessary suffering'. What are those except legislating morality?

Yes! Yes!

MrsWsKitchen — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 04:41:21 -0500

I know so many people who are going hungry. Middle-class people are going hungry in my neighborhood. We're having to make some serious choices about what food to buy, even when it does not coincide with the ethical choices we'd make if food prices weren't so darned high.

I used to buy free-range eggs exclusively. I've had to switch to the cheap ones, and I cringe every time I crack one open. It was the last place I cut--every other budget issue was addressed before this one.

I would LOVE to see more attention to subsidizing the everyday farmer. Subsidies--yes! More realistic measures--yes! I communicate with many local farmers and understand that the requirements for becoming certified organic or cage-free are often cost-prohibitive, so they don't do it. But I can visit, see how their animals are treated, and decide whether or not to buy direct from them if I like how their small family farm is run. THAT's the true spirit of supporting the local farmer and encouraging more ethical treatment of the animals that become our food.

Amanda
Mrs.W's Kitchen

Eggzellent point, Clizbiz

Kpvega — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:01:25 -0500

It really does boil down to (hard-boils?) an individual's interpretation of the least of us. Oprah said the least of "beings" which is more inclusive than "us."

I could never say a fetus is on the level of a chicken. I believe all human life is sacred, and it would have to be pretty miraculous chicken for me to call it sacred. But still, we do have a responsibility to respect animal life as well.

The parallel I see between chicken farming and abortion is the matter of legislating morality. Legislating respect for life. The use of the word choice on Oprah really made it impossible to ignore the analogy. If you oppose conventional chicken farming, you can choose not to buy those eggs. Should that be the end of it?

If we really believe the practice so wrong to the chickens, shouldn't we act to protect them? As pro-lifers would protect unborn life, despite the very real hardships to women with crisis pregnancies. I'm not being flip, I think the analogy clarifies the dilemma.

And then the part about social change, about support and resources for chicken farmer, parallels the support we need for pregnant women. Legislation aside, women in crisis need more help if pro-lifers want them to keep their babies.

Do we ignore the inhumane treatment of chickens just to keep eggs "safe and legal?"

The part about a comedy sketch of clay-mation chickens quoting Martin Luther King, well, that just makes me chuckle. ;-)

Thanks for clicking through to finish reading my post! I really meant it when I said, "But the chickens!" I for one will spend more for cage-free.

Kristi Vega BabyPhilosophy.com -- diapers, slings, & babythings

Eggzactly! Take Two

ClizBiz — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:28:40 -0500

I replied earlier without reading the entire post - my bad. Still, your theory here holds water here for me - and I am vehemently pro-choice. Which means it scares the crap out of me ... which means well done here.

So, in this theory, an unborn fetus is on the level with a chicken? I don't see why not. But then, if we accept that mankind equal to all animals (which I do), this changes ... um, just about EVERYTHING. Modern society would have to accept all kinds of uncomfortable truths, especially when it comes to any use of an animal, now akin to human slavery.

Anyway, this is a great point too. I keep going back to that phrase "the least of us." An individual's interpretation of that seems to be at the core of this issue. In any case, if we don't change things soon, mankind is about to get some bad karmic lessons.

~ClizBiz

BlogHer Contributing Editor, Animal Concerns, Proprietor, ClizBiz

Believing that life begins

Toto — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:37:50 -0500

Believing that life begins at conception is NOT a religious belief, therefore not all people that are against abortion base that belief on religion or God.

There are many pro-life atheists out there, here is just one woman's beliefs on the issue http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/Parliament/8383/atheist.html

John McCain is very Pro-Life.

Toto — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:26:07 -0500

McCain has always been Pro-Life. There seems to be a lot of misinformation on this thread about what it means to be pro-life. Implying that people who are pro-life don't give attention and care to children and mothers is just an ignorant statement. I'm pro-life and we work within the pro-life movement for ALL life. We believe that defending human life doesn't end after birth, it applies over the entire course of life, from conception to natural death.

I'm Roman Catholic and I've been involved with our mission team for the last four years. Every year we travel to Nicaragua to work with the poor. Our work includes building houses, as well as, working with a local Church and 2 schools to help the children. We work closely with the Nuns who have taken the orphaned children in off of the streets to take care of and educate.

Instead of bashing pro-life people, how about sharing your stories about what kind of service work each of you are doing to better the life of a child.

I simply say pro-abortion

shellie — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:17:42 -0500

I simply say pro-abortion and anti-abortion.

(I'm pro-abortion.)

"Late term abortion" as bull

shellie — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:08:54 -0500

"Late term abortion" as bull crap? Thanks, I thought I'd heard that only in very serious medical cases would something like that be done. Do you have a cite handy?

But didn't Obama himself use that term, talking to a rightwing group this summer? Saying that under certain reasoning about the law, "We can prevent some late-term abortions."

I would not think twice

Southerngirl — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:57:56 -0500

I am pro choice and very much so. But the thing for me would be the what ifs. I know how wrong docs can be. My dad was not supposed to live more than 24 hrs after his amputation and lived 8 yrs and had 2 more heart attacks and another amputation with the same prognosis, to finally die peacfully without even being sick. My sister was going to die because they had no idea what was even wrong with her. The chick is going strong 8 yrs later. My middle son was supposed to be a girl. If I were to choose not to have that child I would never be able to shake the what if the test was wrong feeling. Then there is the fact that I have children not all of which are planned. When I got pregnant with my daughter I thought my life as I knew it would end. She is 5 and I cannot even remember those worries of not having enough. She is just so delightful that the thought of not having her around is unbareable.

I think the differnce between men and women would be the emotional. We tend to look at things from a gut standpoint. We can get thorough just about anything, after all it is our kid. For a man I think it is the financial and practical implications that make them worry.

Michelle

I blog at http://www.mommycan.blogspot.com/

I think you're right

kazari — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:35:54 -0500

Until you've lived a situation like that, you don't know what your response will be. People with Downs Syndrome can live full and fulfilling lives - but like anything, there are prices to pay.

An issue you didn't really mention is the impact on a family. My mother works with children with disabilities (many much more severe than Downs). Almost all the parents are separated. And this seems to be more prevalent in cases where there are other children involved.

I think there must be many heart-breaking decisions to make, if only because you'd be making hard decisions for others.

Semantics debate (Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life)

JeffAHayes — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:25:15 -0500

I JUST NOW got an email that there was "a response" to a posting I made way back before it was clear whether Obama or Clinton was going to win the primaries, lol... Came to see and there have been SO MANY POSTINGS since then I have NOWHERE NEAR the time to read and/or decipher which posting is the one in question, BUT I see the issue of the term "Pro-Life" has come up, and A BUNCH of the overwhelmingly "Pro-Choice" members of this group (myself included) don't like that term and think there ought to be another term for it and some don't seem to understand why there isn't.

I'm not sure if this has been hit yet, but it's simple. NOBODY understand SPIN better than the RELIGIOUS WRONG (right vs. wrong, get it?)

It's up to THE REST OF US to start using our OWN euphemisms to DESCRIBE THEM! They chose terms like "Moral Majority" of which they are NEITHER (most of their leaders have been proven IMMORAL -- consider that their co-founder was, infact, the afore-mentioned FRANK KEATING, of the infamous "Keating Five" fame, the head of Lincoln Federal Savings and Loan, the LARGEST S&L that had to be bailed out during the Reagan Administration's $500 Billion S&L bailout AFTER John McCain and four other prominent Senators BARELY escaped federal charges for giving him political favors).

They CHOSE "Pro-Life" because they COULD and they KNEW that if they called the clearly ANTI-ABORTION position "Pro-Life," it would frame their position as totally MORAL and ETHICAL and ABOVE REPROACH automatically in the simple minds of many who can't or won't think beyond such terms to the very difficult choices and circumstances that face many women and families.

Do I "support abortion" or "favor abortion?" OF COURSE NOT! I think ANY medical procedure should be a last resort. I think ANY WOMAN who repeatedly uses abortions as a substitute for sensible contraception ought to be somehow punished or sanctioned (along with her MALE PARTNER(S)! But I also realizes that accidents happen, along with rapes, incest, and various medical problems, and a woman and her doctor need to have the right to make the ultimate decision about her OWN body and health decisions...

We need COMPROMISE. The Pro-Choice side is more amenable to compromise than the "Pro-Life" side, which for the most part would rather see a woman die than have a totally unviable third-term fetus, likely to be born dead, or near death, aborted, due to some strict religious dogma.

And taking this issue to the point that stem-cell research can't proceed using test-tube embryos that are going to be discarded is the MOST RIDICULOUS THING I think I've seen since "Colored Water Fountains" here in the South.

That, ALONE, is reason enough to NOT elect John McCain in November. The overwhelming promise of stem-cell research (I know there are NOW other ways of creating them, but they're more complicated) may cure MANY terrible diseases! The BUSH administration has STOOD IN THE WAY of SO MUCH SCIENCE to satisfy the KOOKY CONTINGENT of the Republican Party over the last 8 years. He's only FINALLY taking Global Climate Change seriously now that the National Security Agency has deemed it a National Security Issue because they've determined that several of the countries likely to be innundated by flooding as the seas rise will create destabilization in areas of potential conflict that COULD even lead to nuclear conflicts with countries like India and Pakistan... All of 110,000,000-population Bangladesh (formerly called East-Pakistan after it was broken off as a part of India after the British Empire gave up India after WW II) would be under water with just a couple meters of sea level rise.

But the upcoming election is in REAL TROUBLE NOW. Sadly, the American electorate, on the MASS SCALE, is VERY simple-minded. They see this "cute" Sarah Palin, this "Hockey Mom" from Alaska who looks COMPLETELY NON-THREATENING, and A LOT of women who WERE pro-Obama have suddenly switched to McCain based just "on a feeling," without learning ANYTHING about Palin, who is SO FAR TO THE RIGHT she makes Dan Quayle (the last such cynical V.P. choice) seem like a liberal.

This woman's idea of "hunting" is shooting wolves from a HELICOPTER, for starters! She "claims" she said "no thanks" to the $400 million "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, although she both CAMPAIGNED FOR GOVERNOR IN FAVOR of that, and ONCE SHE WAS governor, although she didn't BUILD the bridge, she still TOOK the money, and used it for other things!

So... I have an Idea... Let's start A NEW NAME MOVEMENT... Between now and election day, let's all who plan to vote Obama call ourselves PRO-AMERICA, and label the McCain supporters (who also support continued WAR IN IRAQ) PRO-DEATH...

After all, it DOES seem to be all about Semantics, huh? Who would YOU vote for... the PRO-AMERICA Candidate, or the PRO-DEATH candidate (ANTI-LIFE is another option, if you prefer).

Thoughts???

Jeff Hayes

Spartanburg, SC

Rethink your reproductive rights

over_gulf — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:49:48 -0500

You are stumped because your looking at it all wrong. Try looking at it from another perspective.