Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am beginning to believe the issue at the core of the "Pro-Life" movement is abstinence, not abortion. The hard-core pro-lifers are also against birth control, support abstinence-only sex-ed, and will shame any girl who gets pregnant, even if they keep the baby, because they dared to defy the rules of the fundamentalists and have sex before marriage. They oppose free distribution of things such as condoms to help prevent unwanted pregnancies. Why else would they shame teenagers who get pregnant? They should be supportive of them for keeping the baby but instead they consider them "whores" because they had sex.
That's also why they also support laws making it harder to adopt children and oppose helping those who choose to have their babies. It's not about the children. It's about controlling women. They want to make sure life is as difficult as possible for young women who have sex out of wedlock.
Now I want to say I don't think this is the case for all pro-lifers. There are some pro-life arguments I actually am sympathetic to. However, it seems the most vocal conservative pro-lifers are really about promoting a society where women stay pure until marriage, as the Bible demands.
I do think that there are people who are pro-life and do support purity until marriage, but I don't think you can paint all pro-life advocates with that broad of a brush. Most pro-life advocates not only support birth control, they use it themselves. Most pro-life advocates (myself included) are living in the 21st century and realize that kids raised today are under much greater pressure to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage than our generation and while it would be wonderful for everyone to wait to get married, it is hardly a realistic expectation. As to abstinence only programs in school. I personally do not believe it is the role of the public school to teach sex ed beyond the subjects taught in biology. IMO, I think that the issue of sex and morality is for the parents to teach. If a child thinks that they need more information about sex and can't go to their parents for answers, then I think that a school counselor or nurse should be the one to answer any questions, but generally, I think that teachers need to focus on the core subjects instead of teaching about positions and fetishes, etc.
As to shaming pregnant teens, I could not agree with you more. If pro-life advocates really want the goal to be that more babies are brought into this world, then they also need to advocate for pregnant teens to be treated with dignity and compassion and that means working to keep the girls in school and making sure that the father of the child is involved at least financially for the child.
I do think that there are people who are pro-life and do support purity until marriage, but I don't think you can paint all pro-life advocates with that broad of a brush.
Exactly! Heck, if anything the pro-life folks are fertile turtles.
We Protestants certainly aren't Puritans, that's for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
This said, I am a Christian, but I cannot say I am 100% pro-life.
Same here. I do not believe in late term abortions, which I believe are a travesty. The problem is the left refuse to comprehend that most people feel the same. That most people are pro-life but not anti-abortion. I guess it's that lock-step thing they have going on right now.
Exactly! Heck, if anything the pro-life folks are fertile turtles.
We Protestants certainly aren't Puritans, that's for sure.
Same here. I do not believe in late term abortions, which I believe are a travesty. The problem is the left refuse to comprehend that most people feel the same. That most people are pro-life but not anti-abortion. I guess it's that lock-step thing they have going on right now.
I am beginning to believe the issue at the core of the "Pro-Life" movement is abstinence, not abortion. The hard-core pro-lifers are also against birth control, support abstinence-only sex-ed, and will shame any girl who gets pregnant, even if they keep the baby, because they dared to defy the rules of the fundamentalists and have sex before marriage. They oppose free distribution of things such as condoms to help prevent unwanted pregnancies. Why else would they shame teenagers who get pregnant? They should be supportive of them for keeping the baby but instead they consider them "whores" because they had sex.
That's also why they also support laws making it harder to adopt children and oppose helping those who choose to have their babies. It's not about the children. It's about controlling women. They want to make sure life is as difficult as possible for young women who have sex out of wedlock.
Now I want to say I don't think this is the case for all pro-lifers. There are some pro-life arguments I actually am sympathetic to. However, it seems the most vocal conservative pro-lifers are really about promoting a society where women stay pure until marriage, as the Bible demands.
I disagree.
Most people are pro-life including me.
I'm a devout agnostic and I believe the bible is basically a book of fairy tales but I'm against abortion because it's murder. I'd make exceptions for a woman who was dying in childbirth or if the baby was conceived through forced means-rape or incest-but most abortions are done because the couple was too lazy to use protection, so they killed the life they created.
Abortion is the same as taking the life of another human being, it has nothing to do with religion, abstinence, virginity, controlling women, or what the great holy book of fiction demands.
Exactly! Heck, if anything the pro-life folks are fertile turtles.
We Protestants certainly aren't Puritans, that's for sure.
Same here. I do not believe in late term abortions, which I believe are a travesty. The problem is the left refuse to comprehend that most people feel the same. That most people are pro-life but not anti-abortion. I guess it's that lock-step thing they have going on right now.
Not a protestant, or atheist more of a nativist but agree with the highlight however the problem being the left is also bit of an overstatement just as saying the right is the problem. We hear the far right pro-life side get goofy about using the day-after pill. Once again it is the extreme examples that foul an ability to have the middle of the road heard.
I am basically pro-choice and would generally have no objections to huge restrictions on 3rd tri-mester abortions. First 3 months no issue whatsoever. The 6th month starts to be a bit of an issue now that prenatal care is getting so good.
I know of a little girl, whose mothers water partially broke at 5 months. 3 months for mom in isolation and 6 months after that for the little girl who was finally delivered at a bit over 8 months. Mom does claim that with the medical issues the little girl has and of the course the hospital costs at the time, that the little girl is the MILLION DOLLAR BABY, and has the insurance reimbursement records to prove it.
I was born and raised in the abstinence era----- didn't really work to well.
Last edited by JIMANDTHOM; 05-24-2017 at 06:40 PM..
Reason: to add the last.
"Pro-life" should be change to "pro-zygote". Once the child is born it's on it's own as far as they are concerned.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
