Friday, November 03, 2006

Isn't it interesting

how groups that are working toward an overturn of Roe v. Wade have appropriated the GOOD side of the debate as far as language goes? They are Pro-life. (So I'm what -- pro-death?) They are "concerned for life" of unborn children. I am also concerned for life -- of women and children who already exist on this planet without adequate food, shelter, medical care .... I am getting really tired of being portrayed by anti-choice groups as a person who wears black all the time, carries a scythe, and looks at every pregnant woman she sees with a death ray.

That is all.


  1. Susan9:36 PM

    The main problem I have with the pro-life movement is that they are specifically focused on the babies. It's primarily about abortion, and occasionally they'll toss in a natural death thing here or there.

    The Catholic church, of which I am a member, calls on Catholics to turn away from "the culture of death". That life is sacred and that we are called to accept God's will as He knows what is best for us and He has a plan for us.

    I do believe and accept that God has a plan for me. I am sure that I have deviated from His plan and followed my own in the past and will again in the future. I choose not to push my personal faith upon others however, and that is why I will say that I am pro-choice if you ask me. It's because I am smart enough to know that CHOICE can mean choosing to HAVE the baby as much as it means choosing to abort that baby. And frankly, I really bristle at being told what to do. In a perfect world we wouldn't have to worry about such things, but it's not a perfect world. Every baby that some of these groups are fighting for is NOT a perfectly formed white baby with dazzling bright eyes waiting to be adopted. Is that shameful? Perhaps.

    What gets me though, about the loudest of the loud in the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate, is that saving the babies thing.

    Oh sure, we need to save that baby. Yes we do. But only until that baby gets born, and then it's on it's own. If it needs extra medical care because of premature birth, WIC services or the food shelf or extra schooling because of a developmental delay...that's a drain on the taxpayers. If the child is rejected or removed from his home and dumped in foster care, again - a drain on the taxpayer. Perhaps the kid will feel the military is his only option and be sent off to war. If his leg gets blown off, well, his vet benefits have been cut so too bad. He lives in a city where he can find inexpensive housing, but it happens to be near an oil refinery that dumps crude into our rivers. But it's great that his mother didn't abort know? Because that would have been murder and thank goodness we saved his life so he could get that opportunity to live.

    I'm not saying it's always such a bleak picture. I know several families who have adopted beautiful, unique children (as babies or toddlers, with unknown histories and even twins/triplets) and all has been well. What I'm saying is, if you're truly PRO-LIFE, you better go for ALL of life. And that means no having or supporting abortions, euthanasia, the death penalty or war. And no polluting the earth or using resources selfishly. Take it one step further and be a vegetarian, because animals are God's creation too. In fact, unless it's harvested from something that stays alive to bear again, you'd best not eat that either.

    Is that extreme? You tell me.

  2. I used to think of myself as pro-life, but I don't really any more.

    While I think we should do what we can to support someone who wants to keep their baby, I also don't believe we should torture someone who doesn't.

    And bombing abortion clinics?? And killing doctors? Wrong. I don't see in The Bible anywhere that those types of actions are okay, but yet they are justified in the minds of some people who call themselves pro-life.

    And, that is jack-ass stupid.

  3. I'll throw a male opinion into this hyar: I do NOT support abortion on demand. Nor do I support an outright ban of abortion for any reason. There is a reasoned, rational middle ground. Right to lifers who advocate blowing up abortion clinics are as criminally wrong as abortion advocates who support "on demand" abortions as a substitute for self-responsibility and accountability.

    I please neither fundamentalist side with that stance. Nor do I care to.