Pro-Life??? I Think Not.

Posted on by under Law and justice, Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry, religion, Social commentary

Let’s make a few things clear from the start.  Those who call themselves “Pro-Life” are actually not in favour of protecting all life.  They are only anti-abortion.  Those who call themselves ‘pro-life’ support the death penalty … a barbaric procedure with the potential for taking an innocent life.  Those who call themselves ‘pro-life’ most often are also ‘pro-gun’ … guns have one purpose and one purpose only:  to take lives, to kill.  Among those who call themselves ‘pro-life’ are many who are climate change deniers, who eschew regulations to protect and repair our environment such that it may continue to support life into the next century.  Those who call themselves ‘pro-life’ are the most likely to argue against government aiding single mothers struggling to feed their children, or to pay their bills in order to keep their children alive.  So no, the pro-life movement is naught but an anti-abortion movement.  Let’s call a spade a spade.

Now, I have a couple of issues with these anti-abortionists.  First of all, nobody is forcing them to have an abortion!  If I choose to have one, that is my business and nobody else’s, for this is my body … not yours.  By the same token, I certainly would not attempt to force a woman to have an abortion, even if she already had 15 children and no way to support them.  It’s her choice, plain and simple.

My second objection is that 99% of the people who oppose a woman’s right to choose, do so based on their own religious convictions.  Since I don’t share those religious convictions, their beliefs do not apply to me.  Since we have a secular government that demands a wall of separation between church and state, it is grossly unconstitutional for the government to trample my right to choose.

My third objection, of course, is that I see the anti-abortion movement, largely funded and founded by men, as a further attempt by men to dominate what they still, after all these years of the women’s movement, see as “the weaker sex”.  “Pro-life” … just one more form of bigotry, as if we needed more.  What if women were allowed to decide when a man should have a vasectomy?  Can you imagine the hue and cry?

So, these ‘pro-life’ folks held a rally over the weekend in Washington, D.C.  And guess who spoke at that rally?  Yep, none other than Donald Trump, the impeached president, the first president to speak at the annual event.  A number of his sycophants in Congress also attended, including: Steve Scalise, Chris Smith, Ralph Abraham, Warren Davidson, Bob Latta, John Joyce, Lloyd Smucker, Mike Lee, James Lankford, Brian Fitzpatrick, and Brad Wenstrup.  And let us not forget to note the presence of Kellyanne Conway, and Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar.

A few of the more ludicrous snippets from Trump’s speech*:

  • “Together we must protect, cherish, and defend the dignity and the sanctity of every human life.” (This from a ‘man’ who recently ordered the assassination of an Iranian general, that ultimately led to the deaths of 176 innocent civilians)
  • “Sadly, the far left is actively working to erase our God-given rights. Shut down faith-based charities, ban religious believers from the public square, and silence Americans who believe in the sanctity of life. They are coming after me because I am fighting for you and we are fighting for those who have no voice and we will win because we know how to win. We all know how to win. We all know how to win. You’ve been winning for a long time. You’ve been winning for a long time.” (Huh??? Is there an echo?)
  • “Nearly every top Democrat in Congress now supports taxpayer-funded abortion all the way up until the moment of birth. Last year, lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb right up until delivery.” (Um … Donnie?  That’s called ‘birth’, not abortion)
  • “But what is going on in Virginia? What is going on? The Governor stated that he would execute a baby after birth.” (No, Donnie, that is not what Governor Northam said.)
  • “Unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House. And as the Bible tells us, each person is wonderfully made. We’ve taken decisive action to protect the religious liberty. So important. Religious liberty has been under attack all over the world and frankly very strongly attacked in our nation.”  (Is “religious liberty” then, only for those who believe in a certain way, and to hell with the rest of us?)

Now, make no mistake – Donald Trump was not there for any reason other than to shore up his base, the right-wing evangelicals who form the largest portion of the anti-abortion movement.  This was, for Trump, nothing more or less than a campaign rally, sans maga hats.  Donald Trump is a misogynist by any definition of the word … he has a long history of abusing women, including his three wives.  He was having an affair under the very nose of his present wife as she gave birth to his youngest son.  It would not surprise me in the least to find that Donald Trump has paid for a few abortions for his many mistresses.

The “religious freedom” that Trump is speaking of is only for those evangelicals who form a large portion of his base.  It actually deprives the rest of us of our religious freedom … and in more ways than just abortion.  If his staunchest supporters had their way, LGBT people would be discriminated against, as would Jews, Muslims, atheists … just about anybody who didn’t share their views.

Separation of church and state is a concept with a purpose … the purpose being equal rights for all, not only one religious group.  When Trump speaks at an event such as the one last week, when he promises to go against the Constitution in order to appease one group to the detriment of all others, he is breaking his oath of office and he is failing in his duty to represent ALL the people of this nation.

*  Full transcript of Trump’s speech at 2020 March for Life rally

48 thoughts on “Pro-Life??? I Think Not.”

  2. Hi guys, I’m glad I started a waterfall of disagreement (I suppose you could expound that it is my nature to do so). In order to be pro-choice, you have to primarily assume that it is a “woman’s right” to kill her unborn infant. To be pro-life, you must understand that “life has inherent value”, and that even an unborn fetus is still a “potential” life. Scottie is making the case that since the fetus (or unborn child) is still within the vicinity of it’s host, that host has the sole authority to determine it’s child’s viability. This is false, only if you accept the premise that “life is valuable”, if not, then it could be valid. If then, “life is valuable”, is abortion an act of evil?
    Jill, I have one question for you, “why should abortion be legal?” If it is illegal, are we invading a woman’s right? I certainly don’t think so. A women has a right to have sex with whom she pleases, and if it’s unprotected and she gets pregnant, then that is a consequence she will have to endure to the end. With cases related to rape and incest (which are currently a very trivial minority of the existing abortion cases and are very unfortunate), my argument is this : “why should the unborn fetus suffer the consequences of it’s guilty fathers actions?” Again, all of these arguments are formed from my beliefs about specific universal truths, such as the belief that “life is precious and valuable”, without these truths, where are we as a nation?

    P.S,
    Can we stop it with the hypersensitivity? ❤
    Learn to gain a little humility…

    Liked by 1 person

    • You’ve made your point, and I’ve made mine. I stand by what I said … perhaps someday you’ll understand the rights of a person to have autonomy over their own body. Until then … enough said. Thank you for dropping by.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes. And Perhaps some day you will understand the value of life. I don’t enjoy disrespecting my elders, but I must remind you that you wouldn’t be a “BEING” today had your mother aborted you. How unfortunate that would have been? You wouldn’t be here talking to me today, expressing your “pro-choice” views, and telling me I don’t understand the rights of a person to have autonomy over their own body. It’s quite comical, only the born appear to be pro-choice, while the unborn don’t even have a voice, I’m sure they they would be in favor of saving themselves if they could. Nice chat Jill.
        Best,

        Like

    • Hello Dylan. I think you did not quite understand the part of viability of the fetus. Science, medical knowledge, decides when a fetus is able to live independent of the host. Think of it this way, if you have a child and that child needs a part of your body or they will die. The law says you do not have to undergo surgery and give up even the smallest part of your own body even to save the the life of your own child. That is a living breathing fully functioning human child. You can not be forced to even give blood to save anyone. That is body autonomy. It is your body and your right to say what happens to it. Yet you are demanding far more of a woman with a growing clump of cells that have many stages to go through to be come a human life. At any stage, at any time, it can be interrupted by nature it self because carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth is a gamble that often fails. Plus it is a dangerous task that can have life long medical consequences for the woman. Also Dylan it takes at least two to “have sex” to start a pregnancy, yet you seem to put all the responsibly and onus on the woman. Why? Why should a man get to have his fun and then just walk away leaving someone else with all the life threatening danger and economic consequence of a mutual act. We have the medical / biological knowledge to deal with the issue. An abortion before viability is as moral as using “protection”. Both simply stop the potential of a zygote developing in to a possible offspring. You have to give the priority of rights to the already living functioning human woman over the growing clump of cells that may never reach the stage of birth. If you don’t, you regulate a woman to being simply an incubator, good for a mans pleasure and to bear him children with no rights to her own body. She becomes a slave.
      That is simply unacceptable. Be well. Hugs

      Like

  3. I am a day late, but sincerely doubt that any comment I would have made yesterday or could make now had/has the possibility of being an improvement or a worthy addition to what has been already written. Your post is an excellent honest opinion and a true synopsis of the Pro-Life agenda, plus Trump’s self-centered support of it. Amidst the many interesting comments I am, however, in awe of both Scottie’s and your responses to young Dylan’s comment…well said indeed! Thank-you!!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thank you, my friend!!! Dylan, claiming to be 15-years-old, speaks without the wisdom that life’s experiences bring, and often grates on my nerves, for he is viewing things in a single dimension. Thanks again, dear Ellen.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Personally I am unhappy that abortion is seen by some sections of society as sort of birth control- have an abortion, that’s it, all over back to daily life, I suspect most women do not find the aftermath that easy. In fact you’ll notice that most methods of birth control rely on a woman having to change her body or its chemistry. Heaven forbid that a man’s precious parts be fooled around with!
    I would have more respect for Pro-Life as a group if they showed (1) Compassion to women (2) Supported disadvantaged (in all ways) women through the term of their pregnancy and through the early stages of motherhood.
    It’s a difficult issue with many facets to it.
    Both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice need to take a step back and consider the woman, pregnant and worried for that future. They would do well to work together.
    (And by the way…Men should keep the fornicazoni out of it, unless they have anything constructive, thoughtful and compassionate to say) (In fact if they kept out things out of it there would be less of a problem!)

    Liked by 3 people

    • I think there are very few who take abortion lightly. I know a couple of women who, for one reason or another, have had an abortion and I know it to be a gut-wrenching decision that will stay with them forever. I’m eternally puzzled, though, by the anti-abortion movement that also wants to make birth control largely unavailable. Can’t have your cake and eat it too, folks. Sigh. The republican congressman for my district, Warren Davidson, bragged on Twitter that he had attended and was such a pro-life supporter. I responded and said that then surely he must be willing to do his part to keep from unwanted children being born, so should I go ahead and schedule his vasectomy? Funny, he never did respond.

      It is indeed a complex, multi-faceted issue, but bottom line is that the world is already over-populated and if a woman cannot take care of a child, she is better off having an abortion than bringing another child into the world. And, it is her choice … or at least should be … nobody else’s. Sigh.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. The thing is trump wouldn’t care if all women had an abortion tomorrow or if no one ever could have one again. He doesn’t care about this issue. He just panders to the religious cult wing of his base and they are stupid enough to believe he means it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hello maryplumbago. So very true your comment. He only cares about what affects him and his dream of wealth. He knows that to keep pulling the first gravy money train of his life he has to stay president. So he is fighting for his ego, his much needed money income, and his need for reelection. Hugs

      Liked by 2 people

    • You’re right … he has no opinion one way or another, and as I said, I would not be surprised to find that he’s paid for a few here and there. But … he is desperate to keep his “flock” in tight, not letting a single one get away.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. So I have a ton of thoughts on this, as someone who did once attend the March for Life (nearly a decade ago), a lot of which would echo your sentiments about how “pro-life” really is only about banning abortion.

    On a somewhat related note, apparently people being able to keep their healthcare on their parents’ plans until age 26 (and increased access to birth control as a result) drove down abortions in the under 26 age group. Of course, I doubt there were a lot of signs in support of Obamacare, the legislation which made all this possible: https://ihpi.umich.edu/news/access-birth-control-through-aca-drives-down-abortion-rate

    Liked by 3 people

  11. The pain of a woman raped and then forced to give birth to her attacker’s baby. This is taking away the fundamental right of a woman to control her body.
    Cwtch

    Liked by 3 people

  12. Hi Jill, nice post, although I have some minor comments. First, the term “pro-life” is a term related to the “abortion debate” currently taking place in America, and nothing else. Also, I wouldn’t make the claim that “those who are pro life support the death penalty”, obviously there are those who don’t support the death penalty and are still pro life. This is called judging a book by it’s cover (I’m sure you’ve heard this statement before), when you assume someone’s entire political beliefs based on the stance they take in one area of disagreement. You do this repeatedly throughout the entire piece, saying, “Those who call themselves ‘pro-life’ most often are also ‘pro-gun.’ Once again, blatantly false. Secondly, the idea that abortion is simply “a woman’s right to choose” is itself a immoral statement. Do you believe in moral absolutes? I’m sure you do. If we didn’t have moral absolutes, we wouldn’t have justice, because there would be “no” activities labeled “evil!” Such is the case with abortions, it’s a matter of good and evil, not simply a choice. Choices have consequences, and the consequence of an abortion is “death.”

    Like

    • Hello Dylan. While I would love to do a deep dive with you as I normally do, this is Jill’s place and I want to respect her right to answer you as she feels is proper. I will add a comment or two here, but if this is a subject you feel strongly about, please come over to my Toy Box and we will chat on it.

      I want to first address your last statement about abortion being death. Death of what? The right response is potential of a human life. Potential is the correct word. The sperm and egg meeting and doing it’s biological jiggy do not make a human. If everything were to go right there is the potential for a human. But it is a long way off. Most fertilised eggs do not become humans by natural process. So if you claim it is a human at conception and your god created this system, he is a huge abortionist. I won’t bore you or the others here with the many stages of development of the growing group of cells which are still not a human baby until a lot later in the process, you can google them and should. The important facts, yes I am a stickler for them, is at what stage the growing fetus is viable, meaning it can exist outside the life it is using to live, like a parasite, and what rights do we humans have to give of our bodies to another, or in other words can we be forced to harm ourselves to benefit another person. Abortion is limited in most cases unless the mother’s life is in danger, which I will cover later is a lot of the time, to before the fetus can live on its own. Until then it is simply a growing collection of cells draining the life energy from the host, a parasite or how cancer can be described. It is not yet a human being, only the potential to become one if everything keeps going right which is harder than most people know. Side note, the idea that a “baby” is ripped from the mother’s womb just before birth and killed is a flat out lie. The only time an abortion is done at that stage is if the baby, and yes at that stage it is a human baby, has died and will kill the mother. The sad fact is many women die because their only hospital is a catholic owned one and they refuse to take the dead baby out as it is a sin and the living female dies because of it. That is a greater sin in my opinion. If you want to compare this, person cannot be forced to give a kidney to a dying child who will die if they don’t get one. Yet you are asking a lot more of a woman who just found out she is pregnant.

      Which leads me to my second thing I want to adress with you Dylan. How much sexual education and biology have you received in your home schooling? Did it address how very stressful on the female body carrying a child to term is? Did it mention the mortality rate for females in the US who try to do so and die from it.

      It’s remarkable to see the improvements in maternal health around the globe, which have produced a steady decline in the number of women dying from childbirth over the last 30 years. But in the United States, there is rain on the parade. Its maternal-mortality rate has been steadily rising — the only developed country whose is. Given that women with employer-sponsored health insurance account for over half of the annual pregnancies in the United States, employers are in a position to demand higher quality care. In this article, we recommend actions they can take by wielding their purchasing power.

      The U.S. maternal mortality rate has more than doubled from 10.3 per 100,000 live births in 1991 to 23.8 in 2014. Over 700 women a year die of complications related to pregnancy each year in the United States, and two-thirds of those deaths are preventable. Fifty thousand women suffer from life-threatening complications of pregnancy. A report from the Commonwealth Fund released in December found American women have the greatest risk of dying from pregnancy complications among 11 high-income countries.

      https://hbr.org/2019/06/the-rising-u-s-maternal-mortality-rate-demands-action-from-employers
      There is a lot of information here if you wish to learn of it, it is worse for non-white females, they die at a much higher rate from childbirth.

      My point is that childbirth is very hard on the female body. It is basically taking everything it needs from them. It weakens their bones as it draws calcium, it puts stress on their hearts, it diverts the body nutrients. As you know I worked in the ICU’s of a major hospital system. We often had women who had given childbirth in our units. Some did not survive even though we did our best. It is a serious thing to carry a pregnancy to term. That is why it needs to be the woman’s choice to do it or not. No man will stand to lose his life either way, but she could. It is her body and she has a right to make all the medical decisions about it. This is about the rights of a living existing human being against a non-viable clump of cells that if all goes right may someday become a human. The misinformation is overwhelming here but if you look at the true science you see it is not a complicated nor immoral act for a woman to decided that she doesn’t want to sacrifice her life for a maybe or a possibility.

      OK I thank Jill and her viewers for letting me take up this space. Hugs

      Liked by 3 people

      • LOL, so RG you don’t believe in moral absolutes/ good/ evil. Yet when u offer an opinion or thought, by definition it’s polarized, most of the time u choose to pick a side. For instance, u always portray Trump as the devil incarnate. Does that mean Trump is not good or evil… he just is? So why fight or resist, after all shit happens…. and life on earth is what happens to you between birth and death. 😉

        Like

    • Ahhh, but the “pro-lifers” don’t phrase it as such, and in fact ardently deny that their stance is only about abortion. Now, Dylan, you freely criticize the comparisons I make about how most pro-lifers are also pro-gun, support the death penalty, etc. Rather than take umbrage, I will only tell you that I don’t spend 12-14 hours a day on this blog just to pull conjectures out of a hat. No, young man, if I make a statement, you can bet that I have researched it and have data that supports what I say. Now, I don’t mind anybody disagreeing with my opinions, but when a 15-year-old tries talking down to me as if I don’t know what I’m talking about, then yeah, I have a problem. Lastly, Dylan, no … I don’t believe in moral absolutes. I believe that every set of circumstances is different, and I believe that only the woman who is considering an abortion understands all the pros and cons … and that it is NOT our business … not yours, not mine, not the Franklin Grahams and Jim Bakkers of the world, and damn sure not the politicians’ business to tell her what she must do. Dylan … you are an intelligent young man, but you must couple that with respect and maturity for it to have much value.

      Liked by 2 people

  13. Well said, Jill, and I agree with Scottie’s comment too. ‘Pro-Life’ is such an outrageous term….let’s add assassinating doctors and other providers in abortion clinics to your list of reasons why is it just plain wrong.

    Liked by 5 people

  14. Hello Jill. The term pro-life should be renamed pro-forced-birth. These laws are mostly driven by men who feel a need to control females and to regulate women’s sexual life. That is part of the reason it is pushed by the evangelical / fundamentalist religious men because it gives them control over a woman’s body. For some reason these men think sex is only for a man’s pleasure and a woman shouldn’t have any joy in it. They also seem to think it is OK for a man to have sex outside of or before marriage yet women should be punished for it. Which leads me to the question of where do these men think they are going to have that sex if the females are not to and same sex relations are forbidden? So Jill I really don’t think this is about the unborn, nor about babies, it is about power and control. Hugs

    Liked by 6 people

    • Excellent and perceptive, Scottie! And you are right … it is all about control. We are, as I just told another reader, moving backward on the evolutionary scale. In the UK, abortion has been legal nationwide for more than 50 years now, since 1967. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Hugs!

      Liked by 2 people

    • No, you guys had good sense and made abortion available and legal … what, some 50 years ago? Your government was wiser than our own … we are moving backward on the evolution scale. Sigh. Hugs ‘n love to you, dear Jack! ❤

      Liked by 2 people

      • Because of the IRA, and a mass shooting in Hungerford in 1987, guns are illegal here ~ except for licensed shotguns. And, if a reprobate gets caught carrying a knife he can do jail time. Some say that abortion is too readily available ~ the ‘morning after pill’ can be bought at pharmacies and I think works long after the morning after. Having said that, we are far more prudish here than in some places in the USA viz California.
        Love Jill ❤

        Liked by 3 people

        • Every other nation on the globe has stricter gun policies than the U.S., and it shows in the statistics. But, the people here don’t care … some would (and have) give up their children before they would give up their guns. As for abortion … it is a woman’s choice. Period. It is not a choice that is made easily or lightly, but it is hers to make … nobody else’s and for damn sure not some religious fanatics. Sigh. I hate this country sometimes. Yeah, you guys are more prudish in some ways … at least on the surface 😉 Hugs Jack … get well! ❤

          Liked by 3 people

Comments are closed.