Republicans and Abortion

It seems these days that republicans, in general, don’t much like facts, but prefer right-wing rhetoric. Roe v Wade shouldn’t be the major issue on the docket for the 2020 election, but for a large portion of the republicans, it seems to be the only issue. But, they have their facts all wrong, so our friend Xena has done her homework and sets the record straight for us all. Thank you, Xena!

We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident

I’ve never been one to vote based on issues that are not relevant to my life or the betterment of this country, such as climate change.  For at least two decades, I’ve personally heard Republicans say they were voting for a politician because they are anti-abortion and/or anti-gay rights.  I always asked if they planned to have an abortion and if they are gay?  To that, they wanted to quote from the Bible, in which I had to remind them that the United States does not have a theocratic government.

Frankly, I’m tired of hearing Republicans say that they don’t understand how Christians can be Democrat when Democrats  made abortion legal in the United States.  That is simply not true.  At the time of Roe v. Wade, six (6) of the Justices on the Supreme Court were appointed by Republican presidents.

Voting because of wanting laws that control the lives…

View original post 322 more words

34 thoughts on “Republicans and Abortion

  1. Dissenter here.

    If you step into the shoes of the Republican-“Christian” who is pro-life for one second, their main point is not the fact they want to go against the woman’s right to do what she wants to do. They want to protect the baby’s right to live. From their perspective, the baby in the woman’s womb is a human being. And abortion is an act that does not treat these humans as humans are supposed to be treated. Imagine a big segment of the human race being killed and their rights taken away from them forcefully.

    To the pro-lifer, the fight against abortion is not to limit rights, but to enforce rights. Not to label pro-choicers as N*zis, but we have seen this happened before in Germany. People were killed in large numbers against their will. The pro-lifer takes the abortion debate seriously in their politics because to them it is serious. From their perspective, it is genocide. This fact justifies why Republican-“Christians” are so riled up against abortions.

    And honestly, everyone should be. Does a human being have the right to end a life of an innocent other? Is it evil or bad to say that a human cannot take another innocent human’s life? Can anything justify the killing of an innocent human? Again, the focus of the Pro-life movement is not to take away rights, it is to enforce them.

    No one has the right to take an innocent life. And I believe every human being has the right to live (or at least, not get killed for not doing anything wrong). That is my opinion.


        • Thank you, dear friend. I am an Enchristed one. I don’t use the title “Christian” because today’s doctrines are all over the place, many of which are anti-Christ. They don’t apply “faith without works is dead”. Instead of giving their money to pastors to buy mansions and private jets, they should open an orphanage and provide free health care to the women whose lives they want to control. Oh — and teach their sons not to commit fornication.

          Liked by 4 people

          • Indeed, it seems that in the past decade or two, the evangelical movement has given the whole of Christianity a bad name. It sickens me to see these wealthy pastors living in mansions, owning private jets and yachts, and knowing that people who struggle to feed their families are the ones who made them wealthy, while getting literally nothing in return.

            Liked by 2 people

      • I just wanted to give an opinion on abortion. I did start off by addressing your view that Republicans are giving too much attention to abortion in their voting habits, which you started off your post. So, I was not off topic. I just added a layer that you failed to give in your post: the reason why these Republicans take abortion seriously.

        I agree on your other points that the justices who upheld abortion rights were appointed by a Republican president. But I just wanted to explain why Republicans now still take abortion seriously even if historically Republican-appointed judges ruled for abortion rights.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Ahhh. A presumptuous response for disrespecting the intent of a post by putting the blame on me. Yes, I remember that twice or more you tried preaching by submitting comments to my blog. If I remember correctly, I responded to you once pointing out that the intent of my post was not about the right or wrong of abortion. Thereafter, several other “handles” submitted comments likened to your own. So, your disrespect for subject matter is persistent.

          Look, I didn’t fail to add YOUR layer to my post. My post was written before you read it, right? It was written in the manner and with MY intent. Yes, you disrespected the subject matter. It’s about politics — not whether abortion is right or wrong. It’s about Republicans blaming Democrats for the decision of Roe v. Wade. It’s about more Justices on SCOTUS being appointed by Republican presidents who decided Roe v. Wade. If there is any blame to pass for that decision, put it where it belongs on Justices appointed by Republican presidents.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Sorry, I don’t think I got those comments into my notifications. I am not bashing the facts you put in your post, therefore, I am not disrespecting them. Even if my comment was so far out there and it was about something not related to your post, I still have the right to share my opinion. Well, my comment did have a relation with your post.

            I know you did. But since you snapped so fast at me after my first comment that was in relation to your post (in that it explains why pro-life people are still crazy for pro-life), I explained to you how my comment adds a layer of info not found in your post. I am not saying your post is bad or misinformed. I am just saying that I have info that might explain why pro-lifers are still crazy about pro-life even if the SCOTUS judges who ruled for Roe v. Wade were Republican appointed.

            To be fair, moral matters and questions is a big part of politics. The right and wrong of something drives politics. But this is not an important point in this discussion.

            I did not “disrespect” your post. If you feel that way, sorry. I agree with the facts in your post. And I wanted to add info not found in the post that would explain why the pro-lifer takes abortion seriously, which you seem to find odd in the beginning of your post.


            • ManJan,
              It’s my post, and your first off-topic, diatribe, comments were sent to my blog. Therefore, I can “snap” and not approve your subsequent comments that were also off-topic.

              By your logic, a person can post about being stopped in traffic, and you will comment in diatribe fashion about abortion, then say you were on topic because the person failed to include an argument about the rights and wrongs of abortion.

              Good day.

              Liked by 1 person

              • I am not denying you have the right to “snap”. I am just saying that it isn’t the best look for a discussion or in general. So…

                Sure, I can post something about Barnie the Dinosaur on a post about the English Civil War and still be within my rights. Though, my comment had a stronger connection to the post than my example did above. Sure, if I see you missed something in a post (no matter how small or big it is), and I feel it would be good for the public in general to get another set of facts to further their understanding of the subject, I will post it. I have the right to post it, you have the right to “snap” because of a comment from someone you have never met in your life before, lol.

                You have a good day too. Snapping because of politics is totally appropriate given the current state of the country.


                • ManJan,
                  WARNING. Long-running sentence ahead.
                  So, now you’re claiming the right to be disrespectful by going off -topic,

                  Who gives you that right?


                  • The first amendment. Plus, I am not being disrespectful to the topic. I am not being disrespectful to the post (which I have said I agree with). I just added related info to the topic and post (which I think is beneficial to the topic).


                    • No, ManJan. The First Amendment does not give you to right to post comments on blogs. The Blog’s Administrator gives you — us — the OPPORTUNITY to post comments on their blog. Indeed, Word Press has a feature for turning off comments on the blog, individual posts, or comments after a certain amount of days. It’s an opportunity that no one is entitled to. That is also why Word Press has a feature to monitor comments before approving to publish or categorizing them as spam or placing them in the trash. Guess what? Blog Administrators also have the authority to block.

                      You continue to say you are not being disrespectful to the topic. That is not your judgment. Rather, it’s the judgment of the author.


    • You can choose what you do with your own body, based on your beliefs, but don’t tell me what to do with mine, for I don’t share your beliefs. Believe it or not, there are many people who don’t ascribe to Christianity, myself being one, and who see your stance on abortion, when you support the death penalty, as the ultimate hypocrisy.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Okay, I believe like you. A person should have the right to do whatever he or she wants to his or her body. But the Pro-life stance says that the baby in the womb is also a person with these rights to do whatever to his or her body. The woman does not have the right to take away their right. Main point is, the baby is not the woman’s body; she does not have the right to do anything she wants to do with it. She could decide to do anything to her, for example, arm or leg because it is hers. But the baby in her is not part of her body. It is a separate (genetically) human being.

        Okay, first of all, you assumed my religion. I did not share to you if I was a Christian or not. Second, you assumed again my stance on the death penalty when I never shared that in my comment above. And you called me a hypocrite for believing in a belief I never said I believed in.

        Taking away your assumptions of my beliefs in other topics, I agree with your stance that one should have the right to do with one’s own body. I also agree that no one should take away this right from him or her. Therefore, a mother has no right to take away the rights of the baby in her womb since the baby is not a body part of hers but it is its own genetically special human. If you are for “personal rights”, you would be pro-life since the baby inside is also a person and it is separate from the mother.

        Giving someone the “right” to take away another’s personal right to live under the pretext of protecting human, personal rights is hypocritical.

        Liked by 1 person

        • My apologies for making assumptions … I was wrong to do so.

          A number of things drive my support of abortion:

          If a woman does not have the means to support the child, then that child will live his/her life in poverty and the mother will not have the opportunity to improve hers or the child’s living conditions, for she will be busy working 2-3 jobs to support it.

          The planet is already over-populated and I would almost support a global ‘one-child’ policy at this juncture, given the ravages of climate change.

          Most of the same people who would force a woman to have a baby she cannot afford, vote against policies that would help struggling parents, such as food stamps, housing assistance, etc. It’s as if they consider that baby’s life sacred all the way up to the point of birth, but after that it becomes just another social burden.

          I could debate this endlessly, but … there isn’t much point, for neither of us will change the other’s mind.

          Liked by 1 person

          • No problem.

            Okay, I understand that many pregnancies are forced upon women in the least favorable times. But that is not justification to kill the baby. First of all, you are assuming that the child will have a bad life. This is only an assumption; assumptions should not be used as proofs if the life of the baby is on the line. Also, many successful and happy people had hard lives as children. So, when one kills the baby because one thinks it will have a bad life, who says that it will not have a good one? Until a time machine is created, we can never know this answer and we will be ending a life based on a mere assumption.

            Now, on the hardships for the mother. Yes, it is unfair and unfortunate for a mother to go through all the hardships of having a child when she barely can keep herself afloat. But this is still not a good enough reason to end a life and trample the individual rights of an individual. If killing a human being that is causing one financial, emotional, and physical hardships is okay just because he or she is alive and under one’s care, then the teen species would be extinct since teens are a pain to their caretakers financially, emotionally, and physically. My point is that just because it is causing unfortunate events to me, does not mean it has to die for it. It still has rights. I can’t just kill it because it causes an inconvenience. Why? Because it is its own person with its own life. If it was my arm that was causing me problems, then cutting it off would be totally okay for me to do. But if it is another human being, I can’t just kill it because it is causing me distress. It is just a cruel truth of life. If I believe that every human life has a right to live and no other human can take that right away from them, then I have to be pro-life. I am not saying that the mother’s pain is good, no, I am just saying that it does not justify death to the baby.

            Also, there are options (adoption for example) for mothers who cannot afford to financially, mentally, and physically care for their babies.

            I think the planet’s population is just not organized enough. It is not overpopulated. The state of Texas alone, if we used it all for growing food, could feed the entire world’s population. But this is not a big deal in this discussion. But if the earth is getting over-populated, I still can’t see how it justifies killing babies. The one-child policy seems nice until a couple accidentally has a number two. What should they do now? Kill it? What if they don’t want to? Does the government have the right to infringe on the family unit like that? Does it have the right to infringe on the right to live of that second child? So, the one-child policy does sound promising at first glance, but it becomes a moral and ethical problem if you look into it closely.

            Yeah, I am personally a Christian. But calling oneself a Christian in America really does not mean anything nowadays. As you have pointed out, a self-proclaimed can be crazy for the life in the womb but also be crazy for the death penalty. Mainstream Christianity in America is not Biblical Christianity. Yes, these people that vote for policies like this are either short-sighted or just follow unquestionably the political winds of their sides.

            I mean, I won’t call it a debate. A discussion would be better. You called out the hypocrisy of certain voter groups (which I agree). But I also think that the pro-choice stance is hypocritical if they are using the banner of protecting personal freedom. The only way abortion can be okay is if the baby in the womb is not its own individual. As long as it is an individual, it has the same rights as any other individual in our society. The right of not being killed for merely existing and being a burden to society is one of them.

            Liked by 1 person

        • Re: “If you are for “personal rights”, you would be pro-life since the baby inside is also a person and it is separate from the mother. ”

          Are you aware that courts do not recognize an unborn child as a “person”? I’m not talking about abortion either, but in matters such as child support and paternity. For example, a woman lacks standing to file for child support until after the baby is born. A man challenging paternity can not have a determination of fatherhood until after the baby is born.

          And then you strung in more things that make no logical sense, such as painting pregnant women as nothing more than test tubes.

          This is why so many of the intentionally deceptive wording by those making your arguments tends to result in people shaking their heads, knowing there is no point in arguing with ignorance.

          Liked by 1 person

          • The courts, as you know, change their definitions of things many times throughout history. Depending on the political winds, the court can rule anything as something else. The court’s definition is irrelevant because it is subjective to political changes which it itself is subjective to political dramas. If this was a court, sure, their definition of what is what is important. But here we are in a conversation that is criticizing court definitions. We are arguing on what is right because it is right, not because a court says it is right. If you used the court’s ruler of right and wrong, then your views on the death penalty (I took the liberty to view some of your other posts) breaks down. If you use the court (a subjective ruler based on subjective political changes) as a ruler of definitions, why are we debating about anything? An unborn child is not a person. By whose say? The court. And the death penalty is a viable option for executing justice. By whose say? The court. My main point, the courts definition means nothing in this discussion.

            If the baby in the womb is in fact a separate individual, can any financial, emotional, and physical discomfort justify its death? Why do we stop with the unborn? The teen causes way more pain to the parent? Why not kill them? Because society in general recognizes teens to be individuals who are not supposed to die just because they are a pain to their caretakers. Therefore, if the unborn is a person, he or she should have the rights of a person. One right a person has is not to get the right to live taken away from them by someone else. I am not saying the hardships of the mother is minimal, no. But it is not enough to justify the death of another innocent person.

            Life is hard. If a society pledges to treat every human with the same rights, not everyone will be happy. This is why the justice system is set up in such a way that a guilty criminal could get out without punishment because there is no clear evidence incriminating him when everyone knows he committed those crimes (mafia bosses, for example).

            Painting pregnant woman as nothing more than test tubes? Instead of calling me a pregnant-women-painter, actually take the effort to show me where I did that. A woman is a woman deserving of the right of any other human being. An unborn human also deserves the right of a human. I am not painting pregnant women as test tubes, but you are painting unborn babies as unhuman.

            The unborn is genetically and, in many cases, different in sex to their mother. This proves that they are separate individuals from their mother. Now, on their personhood, I think the better question to ask instead is how do you prove that these individuals are not human? If the unborn is not human, then killing it will have no moral guilt. But if it be a human, the murder of an innocent person is morally evil. So, the question to ask before making a position on whether killing it is okay or not is to ask if it is truly a human or not? And if the answer to this question be gray and not conclusive, the reasonable person would say that the unborn should be treated as if it is a human being until further evidence of it not being a human being comes in conclusively.

            If you go hunting with your friend in the woods and it is dark and you get separated. And then you see shadows moving in the bushes that might be a deer or a your friend, will you shoot or not? Of course you would not shoot. Until you know it is a deer and not your friend beyond the shadow of a doubt, when you know it is a deer and not your friend, then you will shoot. This is the same problem in the humanhood debate of the unborn. If you do not know whether it is a human or not conclusively, don’t kill it. We know it is a separate individual according to science, but whether it a “full-human” deserving of rights or not is debated. But until we get a conclusive answer to that debate, we should not kill it for fear that we find ourselves killing something human that we labeled unhuman (for example, N*zi Germany labeled many as unhuman and slaughtered them for the “good of society”.)

            Yeah, you are calling me intentionally deceptive in my wordings but give no example of how I am being deceptive in my wordings. You judge my character without proof nor do you make the effort to bring proof. And when judging a person’s character over a couple comments on the internet without bringing evidence into the judging is not enough, just label them and their ideas as ignorant to justify not giving them proof behind your objections (both objections in relation to the subject and objections to their character). This is why the nation is so divided. People assume other’s characters as evil or dumb at the very first post. In person? No, on the internet behind a screen. Respect for others is dead.


            • I would ask that you provide an example of a court decision that changed binding, legal definitions, but am afraid you will confuse issues with definitions.

              As far as your continual, nonsensical diatribe, I will not repeat myself AGAIN as to the topic of my post.

              Regarding your deception, as said in legal proceedings, “The document speaks for itself.” Your comments speak for themselves. The fact that you first submitted a comment to my blog where I told you that you were off-topic, but you continued submitting comments, then discovered Jill’s honorable reblog of my post and disrespected the topic here, demonstrates your deception.

              Do you realize that your disrespect by going off topic, then taking advantage of Jill’s comment section to continue your diatribes, diminishes your credibility?


              • Though I do not think I understood your question there, but I’ll try t answer. Again, as I have said, the courts are subjective and change. Their definitions are not based on absolute truth because absolute truth does not change. I know some of the courts in America used to view slaves as cattle, and now they don’t. Do you know any of the court definitions changing throughout history?

                No, I discovered her reblog first, then yours. I don’t think I submitted a comment on your blog post, actually. But since I submitted a comment on hers, WordPress probably notified you too of my comment since she reblogged you, idk. Lol, how am I “disrespecting” the topic. I agree with the facts in your post. And I wanted to add more info on the post. Yes, my info was against your views of abortion. But it was not against your post. I think you just don’t like dessenting views and you love calling people who don’t believe in the same views you hold as deceptive. It was only a comment! Don’t get so butthurt. Your post was fine. I just made a comment expanding on it.

                Again, you called my arguments nonsensical, yet failed to show me how it was faulty, lol. Accuse without giving substance to back up that accusation.

                I had a fine, civil, and comfortable discussion with Jill on her comment section which she has seemed to give me consent to comment upon (seeing she replied to my comments, did not delete them, and did not ask me to stop commenting on them). Nope, I don’t believe I am “disrespecting” the topic (fancy, but empty language). I might have a dissenting view on abortion, but I did not dissent on the facts of the post. On my credibility, at least I don’t call random people on the internet deceptive and faulty in logic without actually showing counterarguments for those “faulty” arguments. Your credibility is the one in question here. You can’t expect people to believe that his arguments are faulty if you fail to show him how they are faulty and provide a counterargument. You are just shooting blank, empty shots.

                Having a conversation with someone with different views does not have to be negative in vibe. We can just talk like normal people and make progress.


                • ManJan,
                  You remind me of Jehovah’s Witnesses who come by without invitation, ask a non-nonsensical question when told I’m too busy, or on the phone, or cooking. The one thing they can’t seem to say is that they are sorry. They believe they have some mission to disrupt, disrespect, and go on and on and on, and on ….


                  • Or Mormons. Um… I can assure you that those missionaries from those pseudo-Christian religions are not knocking on your door because they believe they have a mission to “disrupts, disrespect, and go on and on”. If you went into their shoes, you will understand that they believe that what they are doing is to help you and not to disrupt and disrespect.

                    I don’t usually call people out on the internet of being dumb, immature, and ignorant much. Because I don’t think it is nice to do so when you barely know the person, his/her background, or experiences. But from our small convo, you have shown that you are immature and hypocritical.

                    First, you call me deceptive and label my arguments as illogical. Do you give any backing to your accusations? No. You just say and hope everyone believes what you say at face value. This is immature and rude.

                    Second, not only have you ad-hominem this whole discussion, but you have switched the subject from abortion to my character. You say that I remind you of a Jehovah Witness whose whole life mission is to find a way to bother you. If you are too “busy” doing stuff, then why answer me back in the comments? You have the right to ignore me. If you do, boom, you are not bothered. Also, I would love to say sorry to you, but I need to know what I did wrong first. You, on the other hand, have been rude and call opinions as deceptive and such (without actually lifting a finger to back up those claims). Have you said sorry for being rude and immature in handling a conversation? No. I am not even asking for you to say sorry because I don’t really take real offense from some random person on the internet. But you are hypocritical in asking me to say sorry.

                    Lol, every time I give an argument for my views on abortion, what did you give in reply? A counter argument? A civil pointing out of logical flaws in my arguments? No. You just say that I am wrong, deceptive, and illogical and expect me to take your word on it when you gave me nothing to back your claims up.

                    Basically, our convos goes like this:

                    ManJan: I believe abortion is wrong. Here is why I think it is wrong.

                    Xena: Your arguments are illogical and deceptive. Your so wrong, I can’t even show you where you are wrong, pesky Jehovah Witness missionary!

                    Then the cycle repeats.

                    This conversation will not go anywhere if the two parties are not willing to civily and rationaly tackle the opinions of the other.

                    Jill, unlike you, apologized for her first rough comment. Then we had a civil exchange of opinions and no hard feelings. None of use changed our minds, but at least we gave our opinions and gave our arguments behind those opinions. We gave our arguments on why the other person’s opinions was wrong. But we never went full on 3-year-old-ad-hominem-playground-style calling out of the other person.

                    I am sorry that I am bothering you. But that is really not my goal. So, I think it is better that we stop our fun discussion on here and go on with our lives lol. (I also apologize for my improperly formatted responses. My comments are often long and confusing since I don’t think through of a logical structure for my comment before hand, lol. I just write what comes to mind.)


                    • ManJan,
                      Re: “But from our small convo, you have shown that you are immature and hypocritical. ”

                      Too bad you did not take the time to familiarize yourself with my blog before thinking you had entitlement and right to go off topic.

                      You disrespectfully submitted a comment that I edited and informed you that you were off topic.

                      Then you apparently stalked my blog months later, found that Jill reblogged my post, and brought your diatribe here.

                      Your lacking discipline to see if it’s safe to dive into the water before you jumped, is on you.


                    • Actually, the Mormons who have visited are very respectful.

                      You are giving jjustification for being disrespectful and disruptive, by first assuming those they speak with need help. That’s very uppity of you. Did it ever occur to you that some people standing in the doorway of their house, think that the person disrupting their home is the one needing help?

                      You mentioned how Jill apologized to you. Jill did not have nor know of our prior meeting, and how you were informed that I do not allow off-topic diatribes.

                      You also assume that we’re having a conversation. No. It was never my intent to have a conversation with you. My position all along was to have you understand the intent of my post and that going off-topic with diatribes is disrespectful.


                    • Manjan … since this thread is on my blog, though the original post was Xena’s, I’m putting an end to it, for I don’t tolerate disrespect here. A difference in opinions is perfectly acceptable, but disrespect will not be tolerated. This conversation is now ended.

                      Liked by 2 people

  2. Jill, thanks for the correct rendering of history. I was telling my very religious sister, I personally would not advocate for an abortion, but I support the right for a woman to choose what to do with her own body. Limitations have been added to this right, but the fettered right still should remain. If a future SCOTUS takes that right away, then the market for birth control and Plan B will explode. And, sadly back alley clinics will crop up. Keith

    Liked by 2 people

    • I was surprised by some of this, as well. I don’t think I would have an abortion, but … I can see certain circumstances under which I would. Bottom line, I don’t wish to be told what I can and can’t do with my own body. If women are banned from having abortions, then fine … force every male to have a vasectomy! Not much difference there . Yes, ‘coat hanger’ abortions will return, as will the back alley clinics. And the demand for birth control will explode, but those same evangelicals that claim to abhor abortion also are against birth control. Seems to me, they are just against women’s rights, period.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.