Where would you stand if the Pro-Lifers were ACTUALLY pro-life?

[DerekG]

This is a hypothetical question that I've never seen posed on the DU.

What if the pro-life movement was NOT awash in hypocrisy, and the majority of its members supported social programs that would ensure that mothers and their children would never know poverty (or that adoption agencies would accept children and place them in well-funded orphanages). In addition, what would happen if they were:

Anti-war
Anti-sanction
Against capital punishment
Favored rehabilitation for addicts as opposed to incarceration


In other words, what if the pro-life movement actually transmogrified into a philanthropic force?

THIS IS FANTASTICAL, I KNOW...But how many would actually change their stance on this issue?

Edit: To better define the parameters of this question involving the (highly) unlikely development in politics, these pro-lifers would only favor abortion if the mother's life was at risk. And yes, this would be a non-violent progressive movement. No abortion clinic bombers to be found.

[daveskilt]

1. wow...dunno

are they still blowing up clinics and demanding complete total abolition of any choice for abortion regardless of circumstances?

[IronLionZion]

2. That's the kind of pro-life I am

but apparently since I don't want to make abortions illegal I am pro-death and people who love war and the death penalty and screw the poor and screw social programs are pro-life.

Where am I? What world is this? I think I've gone cross-eyed!

If you think too hard about this blatant hypocrisy, blood will shoot out of your nose. :crazy:

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Do you mean pro-lifers would remove "bastard" from the dictionary?

Every child would be legitimate because it was not aborted? That the community would come together to support the mother were she alone in the world to raise that child?

I don't see it happening.

[leftofthedial]

4. I'd be pro-choice

I think abortion is underutilized.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Underutilized?

Who did you have in mind?

[Alenne]

5. That would be great

for women who wanted to give birth to a child. I would still want abortion available to those who didn't.

[CShine]

6. Here's the real secret.

The majority of so-called "pro-lifers" are not really pro-life. They're anti-sex.

All the major polls of the past 30 years consistently show that only about 15-20% of Americans oppose abortion in all cases, but the majority of so-called "pro-lifers" are willing to allow abortion in cases of rape and incest.

BUT WAIT!! If they're pro-life then certainly they would think that a rape victim's fetus is a child too, right? So if they're going to say they stand for saving the lives of fetuses then why are they willing to kill these fetuses?

The answer lies in the nature of conception. If the sex was consensual, they're opposed to abortion. If the sex was forced, they're against it. In their minds, the thing that distinguishes the two is the nature of the sex act. They are trying to make a statement about consensual sex, NOT about saving the lives of fetuses. This is their way of trying to control what goes on in your bedroom.

When I make this point to a great many so-called "pro-lifers," I have been mildly surprised to see how many of them will freely admit to this right up front. They don't care if fetuses live or die. They want to use the law to make a statement about consensual sex. They want to put a stop to sexual freedom and control what goes on in your bedroom.

Next time you have a chat with a so-called "pro-lifer," run this line of thinking on them. Don't be at all surprised if a whole lot of them admit to it straight up.

[maggrwaggr]

11. that picture is FUNNY!

man, where'd you find that?

[maggrwaggr]

12. the anti-choice people I know, they're all about "save the babies"

your argument would be met with blank stares.

They think the little babies are being murdered, that it's a holocaust.

[Djinn]

22. Thanks CShine

I'd never have thought about it that way but you're dead right - it'd be even more applicable in Australia where I think you'd find that an even higher number of people, within those who are ostensibly against abortion, who would accept it in the case of rape or incest, but you're absolutely bang on - if one believes that ALL life is precious and abortion is "killing babies" why would "killing" a rapists "child" be OK? since when do we punish the children for the sins of their fathers.

As for the original question - I'd appreciate them jettisoning the hypocrisy but it still wouldn't stop me supporting affordable, legal and safe abortions.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

7. I am pro-life

I think people who want to control other women's bodies need to get a life of their own to control.

I'm also pro-choice.

[Nite Owl]

8. That sort of sounds like

being a Catholic. Or what the church was a long time ago anyway. Haven't been in years but what I remember being taught as a child. I'd still be pro choice but glad that more women really had a choice not to have an abortion.

[countmyvote4real]

9. Great thread. Very thought provoking and lots of ammunition.

Thank you everyone.

[maggrwaggr]

10. like .... what if they were Democrats?

gee, I guess I'd say "welcome"

Oh, I see. Anti-abortion Democrats.

Hey, you might consider me an anti-abortion democrat. I'm certainly against it in my own life. As far as what others do, well .... seeing as how I don't have a uterus, it's difficult for me to make that call.

[Jane Roe]

29. You are probably not a serious crime victim or a serious criminal either

does this lack of experience disqualify you from talking about the death penalty?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. There actually is such a movement

It's called the "seamless" pro-life movement. I find them too rigid on the abortion issue, but I have more respect for them than for the "protect fetuses at all costs, but anyone that the government designates as evil deserves death" school of thought.

[TahitiNut]

14. Then they'd call themselves Buddhists.

Ommmmmmmm....

[lostnfound]

23. Or "Consistent Life Ethic" followers or "Seamless Garment" people nt

[Az]

15. Don't think it would change my stance much

I do not believe there is any moral issue with safely removing a cluster of cells or even a fetus as long as there is no brain. Add brain and you get problems. I would also still defend a woman's right to control her own body. Just as I do not relish the idea of someone jumping on my back for 9 months I must extend the same notion to women.

[oostevo]

19. Looking at your icon made me think,

Wasn't this Kucinich's position for quite a while?

[Az]

31. Yep

Kucinich was antichoice. He has changed his position. I do believe people can change. I am also aware that sometimes they change to appease others. In balance though I suspect Kucinich to be the former.

[corporatewhore]

16. I would consider them progressive fascists

[Joe Momma]

17. i would consider them liberal nazis

[SharonAnn]

18. That's something like Scott Peck's position, as I recall.

he's the author of "The Road Less Traveled".

I saw him give a talk once and during Q & A there waas a question from the audience about hi position regarding a woman's choice and being pro-life. He gave an answer something like what is described above and said that if we had a society something like that, with all those resources to help a woman who had an unwanted pregnancy, only then could he consider being "pro-life" in the sense of forbidding abortion except for the mother's health.

I hope I'm not misquoting him. It was absolutely the most thoughtful, caring, compassionate answer that I've ever heard on this subject.

[Cleita]

20. It doesn't change the fact that the government and religious

institutions have no business in a woman's uterus. The pro-lifers are not about saving babies but controlling women. They treat women as if they are too stupid to be able to make an informed and moral decision about their reproductive abilities and would rather throw obstacles in front of them that could jeopordize their lives.

[Dookus]

21. Absolutely not

Nobody should be able to compel a woman to give birth against her will. Why should it matter what their positions are on other issues?

[GreenPartyVoter]

24. That sounds a bit like the kind of pro-life I am as well

Blame it on my Christian beliefs. ;) No wonder I adore Dennis K.!

[Nobody]

25. A couple questions

1) What about pregnancy prevention?

Your rosy picture doesn't address prevention at all. Would birth control education become prevalent so that all would know how to use it properly and exactly how to make it the most effective it can be? Would having sex no longer be stigmatized? And what happens if you prefer abstinence and someone rapes you? Do we look into research to remove the zygote and put it in someone else's uterus?

2) What's the backup plan if someone absolutely does not want to become pregnant, and birth control fails?

3) Orphanages. What happens to the unadopted kids who turn 18? They're legal adults and therefore can't institutionalized in an orphanage. What do we do with them? back in the 1800s, these kids became servants. Is that what is in store for these orphans? Or will they get a good education so they can compete for jobs like anyone else? But where's their safety net when the economy tanks? I have my family, what about these kids?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

26. I'd mostly agree with them

And then go on trying to convince them recently-fertilized eggs, or even embryos without a passably formed nervous system, do NOT possess the kind of "personhood" they are bound to protect. Neither do defective fetuses which don't have a brain.

[MaddogTerp]

28. You mean, AFTER I sh!t the proverbial GOLDEN BRICK!?!??

[noonwitch]

30. I'd still support the right to legal, safe abortion

A lot of pro-lifers do provide assistance to pregnant women, and I respect that and hope that they can do more. If a woman doesn't really want to have an abortion, but is only considering it for monetary reasons, well, then I support the ministries and religious groups who are willing to help her find a way to afford a baby. If a teenager is afraid to tell her parents that she is pregnant because they are fundamentalist christians, but that teen still wants to have her baby, who better to help her and her family than fellow fundamentalist christians?

However, if a woman doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to the end, it still should be her choice, not the government's.