You say youre pro-life, but then you want to limit health care for my disabled son

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

It’s a good thing he was born to you. Most people would have aborted him.”
The him was my 6-month-old son, Jack, nestled into my arms, held at the angle he preferred — one that wouldn’t cause his tracheotomy tube to torque. His one and only eye remained fixed on me, his one and only ear perked, waiting for what I would say..............

My religious convictions lead me to identify as pro-life, a position I try to apply consistently across issues. For example, I oppose the death penalty and advocate for the ethical raising and slaughtering of animals. But right now, the conversations I have with other pro-life Americans seem tone-deaf and baffling................

I want to believe better of the pro-life community. I want to believe they care about Jack’s long-term health and not just the fact that he was born. I want to call them pro-life, not antiabortion. But the conversations (or the silence) around health care makes us wonder.

To read more:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/05/09/you-say-youre-pro-life-but-then-you-want-to-limit-health-care-for-my-disabled-son/?utm_term=.4dfd4b8679f1

[Doreen]

1. I can put it very simply for you.

"We" the disabled, are not humans just burdens.

[guillaumeb]

2. My youngest child is a special needs child.

And to be pro-life, for me, means that war, and the death penalty, and abortion are personally wrong. The seamless web of life.

[Doreen]

5. I am disabled and in some sense it is worse for people like

me because you can not tell by looking at me and talking to me for just awhile. Society looks at us and decides we are taking advantage of the system and are lazy. I know there are disabilities that are worse as far as the disability is concerned and I have a part of my heart there for them. I used to believe in the death penalty but that has been changing over the years. I have always hated war because it is simply just wrong. I do see abortion only in a few cases necessary but for the most part no. I also believe it is the woman's choice but it just would not be mine except in some very serious situations. I guess you could say that I am a mixture of pro-life and pro-choice. I am not like some of those freaks that think if the fetus dies at 4 months in the womb that the women should carry it to term.....nasty. I seriously think a woman should NEVER use abortion as a form of birth control....nasty.

[guillaumeb]

6. And some in the GOP apparently feel that disability is due to poor life choices.

That allows them to ignore the disabled.

[Doreen]

9. Damn right it was my decision while a fetus to force my

biological mother go out and drink like a fish when she was pregnant with me!!!

[trotsky]

14. Why can't a woman use abortion as a form of birth control?

It's her decision. Not mine. Not yours. Not the government's.

[Doreen]

15. I do think it is her right and I would never put another

women down for having an abortion for any reason. It is just my personal feeling. I may not agree that they are using it for birth control but I would still stand behind them on it being their decision.

[Heddi]

16. You just called women who used abortion as birth control "nasty"

so you are putting them down. You are either calling the women who use abortion in a way that you disapprove of "nasty," or you are calling the act of abortion "nasty." Either way, that's a very judgemental thing to say in one post only to, a few minutes later, say that you would never put another women (sic) down for having an abortion for any reason and that you would stand behind them on it being their decision.

I don't know if I want someone who considers either me or my decisions "nasty" to be someone standing in my corner supposedly standing up for my right to have a procedure they so vehemently disagree with. You also use "nasty" to describe a woman having to carry a dead and decaying fetus to term. So having an abortion is the same as carrying a dead and decaying fetus to term? I can think of one that is SIGNIFICANTLY nastier than the other, honestly. (hint: it's not having an abortion for reasons that cross your arbitrary and personal line in the sand)

What I do with my body, and the reasons I do it, is 1) none of your business 2) affects your life in precisely ZERO ways and 3) is not subject to your judgement calls of nastiness.

When do you let us in on your private, medical decisions so we can judge their level of nastiness?

[Doreen]

17. I apoligize. I did not mean the women are nasty.

I just feel that is should not be used as the only form of birth control. However, yes it is their right. I just have known women who refused to use birth control and just said with no thought what so ever "I will just get an abortion." that is the issue that bothers me. I have a friend who had a couple of abortions because of that and even though I did not agree with her I fully supported her. It is possible to not agree with someone but fully support them anyway. Anyone who is a parent can attest to that.

[Heddi]

18. why shouldn't it be used as birth control? It is INHERENTLY birth control

That's what it does -- it is birth control by its nature. Now it's not a contraceptive, but it is birth control all the same.

Also, I have heard the tired trope of women who would rather get an abortion than take BC my entire life and you know what, I have *never* met a woman who would prefer to have a several-hundred-to-thousand-dollar procedure *repeatedly* than take affordable, cheap, or even FREE birth control. It's a card hung out frequently by the anti-choice, anti-woman crowd to demonize that "nasty," but legal procedure.

Sorry, not buying it.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. I authorized the destruction of 9 fertilized embryos. Am I 'nasty'?

I'm male, to be clear. So I'm not within the group you just back-pedaled away from calling 'nasty'.

I destroyed those living embryos just the same. Am I 'nasty'? Do I have a negative moral burden as a result of that action?

[Doreen]

21. As I said in the last post. The person themselves are not nasty.

I am not going to say anymore because everybody has already made up their mind and decided I am totally against abortion and no matter what I say no one will see how I really feel.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Oh, we see how you really feel.

Fear not on that point.

[trotsky]

13. Your opinion on abortion is irrelevant unless you have a womb.

Last edited Thu May 11, 2017, 10:28 AM - Edit history (1)

To publicly proclaim your opposition to abortion only adds to the stigma that anti-choice forces have stoked for decades. Don't be an enemy of women and of their reproductive choices.

[guillaumeb]

24. Failed attempt at framing.

I specifically said it was my personal belief. And I have repeatedly said that I do not feel that my beliefs give me the right to dictate to others.

See #4

[trotsky]

27. The "framing" is that you are a man, and since you cannot get pregnant, your opinion is irrelevant.

Further, stating your opinion that it's personally offensive to you anyway only helps to enforce the stigma women face in making their own reproductive decisions.

It's fan-fucking-tastic that you claim you don't want to force your beliefs on everyone and make abortion illegal. Hooray for you, aren't you awesome. But women don't need your permission. The sooner you learn this and understand it, the better.

[rug]

29. Since you're a man, according to your thinking, delete all your posts on the subject.

[guillaumeb]

31. More failed framing.

And a repeat of the same failed attempt to define my views.

[trotsky]

34. I'm afraid the only one who is failing at "framing" here is you.

By stating your personal opposition to abortion, you add to the stigma that women face when choosing it. You add to the culture that perpetuates the negative. I notice that you haven't even dared to address that reality. Would you care to? If I'm doing such a horrible job of defining your views, why don't you go ahead and state what they are to clear everything up?

[J_William_Ryan]

3. Everyone is pro-life,

including those who defend a woman’s right to privacy.

Those with religious convictions which lead them to identify as pro-life are also able to oppose government seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will, a position both consistent and appropriate.

Those hostile to the privacy rights of women are of course inconsistent in their opposition to ensuring every American have access to affordable healthcare, special needs children in particular.

Their hypocrisy is as offensive as their disdain for the rule of law and the rights and protected liberties of others.

[guillaumeb]

4. Agreed.

My beliefs do not compel me to attempt to force my beliefs on others.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. You have stated you are male, and 'personally against abortion' while politically pro-choice.

You forgot to respond in this thread.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=248092


The shit you say about your 'personal' anti-choice position still has consequences even if you are pro-choice at the ballot box. You add to the shade of guilt cast on women who choose not to carry to term.

So maybe you're being honest when you say you don't 'force' your ideas on others, but you sure as fuck guilt trip them.

[guillaumeb]

25. Ah yes, the "guilt trip" argument.

As if my personal expression of views here is key to the GOP dominating elections at the state level and singlehandedly forcing pro-choice people to hide their views or feel guilty.

Interesting how you are so insightful into my intentions and amazing power.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Yes. As evidenced by your silence after it was pointed out.

Normalizing the 'well I think it's murder but I won't outlaw it' position is hostile to Pro-Choice efforts.

Abortion is constantly presented as a negative for women, with media reinforcement through films and other art forms. Many who would judge women for multiple abortions, or one in the second trimester, would likely also shame them for having children they could not afford or did not want. Oh, sure, adoption can always be chosen, but it is as wrong to force that option as it is to force abortion or parenting.

According to the National Abortion Federation, 83% of all abortions are for unmarried women and 57% are low-income women. Most abortions are performed in the first trimester and with approximately three out of 10 women having an abortion before the age of 45 (Guttmacher 2/24/14), it is a common medical procedure. The Nation’s Emily Douglas titled an August 12, 2012 article, “Does It Really Matter Why Women Have Abortions?”  While the article is well worth reading, the title is apropos to this blog post. The correct answer? It really does not matter why women choose abortion. It is impossible for anyone but the pregnant woman to know and understand the reasoning behind her choice. How can anyone, pro-choice or anti-choice, have the audacity to judge any woman who chooses abortion more than once or later than most of us would prefer?

https://abortion.ws/2014/04/26/shaming-women-for-multiple-or-second-trimester-abortions/

Those shaming positions come FROM somewhere. In this case, they are partially anchored in your own 'I'm personally against abortion' idea. You hold it as a negative. That there's some intrinsic loss when the option to abort is used. You're a small voice in the din, to be sure, but you are a part of it.

Deleting whatever negativity you hold over abortion at a 'personal' level, would be helpful in the movement to stop shaming women for reproductive autonomy.

[guillaumeb]

32. So let us apply your argument in another way:

You are claiming that by my writing about my personal opinion, I am contributing to the guilt tripping of women. Which brings up 2 questions:

So if Nancy Pelosi supports pro-life Democrats is she also contributing to this toxic dialogue?

And given that most Democrats are people of faith, are your constant attacks on religion an attempt to shame religious Democrats? Is this an attempt to stifle dialogue?

In my view, your argument is a deliberate attempt to close all debate and insist on your personally approved definition of what a Democrat must believe.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. That's because nuance is lost on you.

"In my view, your argument is a deliberate attempt to close all debate and insist on your personally approved definition of what a Democrat must believe."

End of the day, your squishy bullshit 'I'm pro choice politically, but pro-life personally' shit is part and parcel of the shaming that is thrown at women who utilize abortion, from BOTH political sides. I'm not ok with that. The DNC Platform is safe and legal access to abortion/family planning/contraceptives and no backhanded shaming of women who use it.

No snooty, down-the-nose 'personally I'm against it' BS and you know what, you don't even have a uterus so who cares, right? But you sure feel compelled to point it out every time the subject comes up.

Be pro-choice or not. Don't claim to be pro-choice and then sow shame behind our own lines.

So if Nancy Pelosi supports pro-life Democrats is she also contributing to this toxic dialogue?

As a leader in the party, Pelosi is navigating difficult waters, but also acknowledges the reality of it.

"“Can somebody get the nomination? I don’t think so,” she said. “I don’t think that you’ll see too many candidates going out there and saying, ‘I’m running as a pro-life candidate.’”"

http://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/05/03/nancy-pelosi-says-pro-life-americans-are-welcome-democratic-party

You're not a party leader. Also, Pelosi herself is staunchly pro-choice even though the Vatican has directly threatened her faith, and soul over it. I see you suffering no such privations.

Look at these vicious bastards;
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/24/vatican-court-head-no-communion-nancy-pelosi/

Fortunately Pelosi is stronger than they are, AND her local church has refused to attack her in that way.

[guillaumeb]

36. By your logic, Pelosi and every pro-life Democrat

is to blame for having an opinion. What an interesting way to shrink the Democratic Party into permanent minority status.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. You make no sense. Pelosi has a 100% NARAL and 0% NRLC rating and is fiercely pro-choice.

I see no indication she is 'personally pro-life' while politically pro-choice. She has also indicated she's willing to work with pro-life democrats.

She is, apparently the perfect Pro-Choice Democratic Archetype.


*I* am skeptical of, and will point out the disservice pro-life democrats do to women, even if they are politically pro-choice.
It's more than just a question of 'is it legal'.

[guillaumeb]

38. Pelosi is also supportive of what are called "pro-life" Democrats.

Making her the enemy because she recognizes that it is necessary to allow for dissent in the Democratic Party?

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Who the fuck is 'making her the enemy'?

[guillaumeb]

40. Apparently those who dismiss pro-life Democrats.

As is evident from the responses here.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Pointing out fallout from YOUR personal two-faced position on Abortion isn't

'dismissing' pro-life democrats.

It's pointing out they have some shit to resolve.

[guillaumeb]

42. Interesting attempt by you to negatively frame my position.

It says much about you.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Your position IS negative. For the reasons I outlined at least 3 separate times. Of which you have

addressed NONE of it.

[guillaumeb]

44. I have a 2 part position.

First, my personal feelings about abortion.
Second, my feelings about the legality of abortion.

You attempted to frame all who are personally opposed to abortion as enemies and antipathetic to womens' needs. This is, in my view, an attempt to shut down debate and dismiss and shame progressives whose views on this issue differ from your own.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. I acknowledged precisely that two-faced nature of your position and why it is a problem.

If you forgot already, just read upthread. And follow one link. Not hard.

[guillaumeb]

46. Also easy to follow your insulting comments.

And your attempt to "purify" the Democratic Party and make it more to your liking. A recipe for continued electoral disaster in my view.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. I didn't seek to purify the party. I asked you to re-evaluate your position and the NON political

impact that it has on human beings.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

7. Anyone who has somehow not noticed that

the people who most strenuously believe in forced childbearing, likewise consider that once the baby is born they have absolutely no duty or responsibility to it. They are especially dismissive of children born with disabilities or medical conditions. "Pro-life" for them has the very narrow meaning of "No abortion ever".

And the man who wrote this article has undoubtedly been living under a rock for the past 40 years not to have noticed this despicable inconsistency on the part of the so-called pro life faction.

Unfortunately, the Washington Post hides behind a pay wall, so I'm not able to read the rest of the article.

[guillaumeb]

10. The GOP is "pro-fetus", and not really "pro-life" at all.

But that opinion cannot be allowed in the corporate media.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

12. And anyone who hasn't noticed that

is simply living in some kind of weird bubble. It doesn't matter what the corporate media says. If he's missed the total lack of support for anyone with disability, illness, or any other need, then he's being willfully ignorant.

It has nothing to do with the fact that another person, learning ahead of time that a child would be disable, would have an abortion. They of course want to punish women who have abortions, because they think every life is sacred . . . . until it's born.

I'm a godless atheist myself, and I strongly support helping out those in need. Quite unlike a lot of people who consider themselves Christians.

[MyOwnPeace]

8. But, you see,

they're only "pro-life" until the child is born.

Then, you're on your own, you've got choices to make and they'd better be the right ones.

[guillaumeb]

11. And if you are poor, it is because you made poor choices.

Convenient for the rich sociopaths who own the GOP.

[Lordquinton]

23. Pro-life, pro-abortion

Only stance that really seeks to help the poor.

[guillaumeb]

30. My stance also. eom

[50 Shades Of Blue]

26. Why does this author want to believe better of the anti-choice community?

Their actions have always spoken louder than their words.

They want to punish women for having non-procreative sex.

That is their sole motivation, no matter how much bullshit they try to shovel over it.

[guillaumeb]

33. The author is criticizing GOP "pro-life" people.