Do you know what i say to pro-lifers?

[malakos]

Of course, we all know that pro-life types only label themselves as pro-life because they feel it signifies and enhances their moral superiority. Coming out against abortions doesn't make anyone more humane or kind... it's bloated narcissism and logical fallacy that leads them to believe that they are morally superior to others. The I am pro-life therefore I am good sort of correlation equals causation is what's at work here.

Not really. Many of us associate as pro-life simply because, like with many other things society refuses to tolerate, it is not ethically acceptable, harmful to the cohesion of society, and violates human dignity.

I don't tend to view myself as superior. If anything I have an inferiority complex.

 

[malakos]

The answer was always to empower women in society and allow motherhood to be a more certain and predictable affair. The other answer is a better safetynet for poor mothers, longer paid maternal leave, paternal leave... you know baby business like they do in EUROPE. The USA likes to keep it 3rd world for the poor yet state of the art for the rich.

I've never met a woman who had an abortion that didn't have it 100% for economic reasons... they felt that they couldn't afford the baby and had no means of support during the process. Supporting and empowering mothers would have prevented all of those abortions.

And I don't see ONE FUCKING pro-life piece of shit ever come out for empowering mothers. They don't because they are patriarchal authoritarian narcissists.

Actually, the real primary answer that will prevent abortions will be a cultural restoration. A restoration of the knowledge of basic human dignity, reflected by a broad pro-life ethic (which has implications reaching far beyond abortion), which the Western culture du jour is sorely lacking in.

However, you are correct about economic difficulties creating a pressure and temptation to have an abortion. And I agree that this angle should be addressed as well. Don't just assume everyone who is pro-life is an economic liberal (as opposed to leftist). I am largely an economic leftist (probably more so than many of the "radicals" on here), and I know numerous pro-life individuals who are also economic leftists.

 

[622675]

So you envision a type of inquisition made up of "child protectors" Do you know anyone who works for a county child protective services agency? Back in the day, when I was idealistic, I wanted to work at "CPS" in Oregon. I did an internship there and my CaseWorker/Mentor didn't hold anything back, "you do not want to do this job" .
Your idea is an "Unborn Child's Protective Service" Can you imagine the bureaucracy? Sounds like a good idea for a Terry Gilliam movie.

I responded to this thread due to what I recognized in the OP’s comment as a flippant and crass attitude about abortion, childbearing and child support. The fact that abortion is legal has somehow been extrapolated to mean that unborn (prenatal) children have no value and their parents can choose to have no responsibility for this child’s survival or success.

Abortion is legal in recognition of the responsibility the mother has as protector of the unborn child. Spare me the legal definitions of when life begins. It begins with conception and moves to the next sage at birth with the simple flip of a valve in the child’s airway occur so they can intake air instead of fluid. Any description that does not recognize life in the prenatal child is a metaphysical smoke screen.

Abortion should be legal, but that doesn’t change the practical consequences of taking a life. Regrettably organizations like Planned Parenthood have evolved to accommodate irresponsible sexual behavior, encourage no guilt infanticide, and make a profit from the debauchery. I have no hope that a governmental agency (unborn child protective service) would work. It is not the government’s job. Rather, what is needed is a responsible adult who understands they are dealing with a unique life.

I can identify with your experience in the Child Protective System. For ten years I had the opportunity to teach in a number different public school systems. More than half of those years were spent in the rural high schools of Appalachia. The others were spent in metropolitan high schools in TX.

As a teacher, the idealism of youth can quickly give way to the unimagined waves of chaos, which flows in with each student. However, if you keep focusing on what the pivotal change agents are in our culture, one of the first to surface is parental responsibility. The impact of responsible parents evolves a community of responsible individuals. The absence of a socially responsible mindset evolves community populated with individuals who are likely to feel and behave as isolated unconnected entities.

Consider this TED presentation as just one example. It reflects on the negative aspects of isolation and the value of community.

http://ted.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=07487d1456302a286cf9c4ccc&id=786d960ce3&e=dcdaab1aab

 

[temptotalk]

Actually, the real primary answer that will prevent abortions will be a cultural restoration. A restoration of the knowledge of basic human dignity, reflected by a broad pro-life ethic (which has implications reaching far beyond abortion), which the Western culture du jour is sorely lacking in.

However, you are correct about economic difficulties creating a pressure and temptation to have an abortion. And I agree that this angle should be addressed as well. Don't just assume everyone who is pro-life is an economic liberal (as opposed to leftist). I am largely an economic leftist (probably more so than many of the "radicals" on here), and I know numerous pro-life individuals who are also economic leftists.

When you say cultural restoration is that another way of saying getting back to traditional roots? Or american values? As far as i can tell respect has to come in when talking about dignity. As in respecting a woman's right to her body. Giving her the free will to decide what she wants to do. Meaning to take away her choice in any cultural restorative way is also taking away her dignity. It can't be both. Either people have a choice or they don't. It's like with voting. Take away a persons right to vote in any way and you've taken their right to vote. The why can be discussed but not the how.

And i agree. Pro-life spans way further than how most want to view it. Life is life, no matter what or who possesses it. No matter the context or circumstances. It's why pro-lifers are seen as hypocrites when they push for capital punishment and to a lesser extent eat hamburgers.

Don't think any of you will actually get anywhere with this though. Not until theres some sort of definition for life that all of you will debate or discuss by.

 

[Nagini]

It's interesting that this thread is an all-male tea party and that no women have weighed in. Given most of the posts' content, it's no small wonder... But that's OK, you can get back to your patriarchal circle-jerk.

 

[Boobalaa]

Well, the p does stand for penis..hmm maybe there's an lpsg where the p stands for pussy..thank you for speaking for all the women who haven't spoken up..yet. I'm sure your words inspired someone..there is a Women's issues thread here where only women can respond. Maybe start a thread over there and see how many women respond

 

[622675]

It's interesting that this thread is an all-male tea party and that no women have weighed in. Given most of the posts' content, it's no small wonder... But that's OK, you can get back to your patriarchal circle-jerk.

Thanks for checking into LPSG. I would find your thought on this subject most interesting. We all need to stand in each others shoes in order to see how the world really works.

 

[Nagini]

Well, the p does stand for penis..hmm maybe there's an lpsg where the p stands for pussy..thank you for speaking for all the women who haven't spoken up..yet. I'm sure your words inspired someone..there is a Women's issues thread here where only women can respond. Maybe start a thread over there and see how many women respond

Okay, since you suggest that 'p is for penis', why don't you relocate this thread to 'Ask a Man'?
That's OK, I can see the fence now.
And thanks for your politeness in telling me to go elsewhere. You're a mensch!

 

[Boobalaa]

Okay, since you suggest that 'p is for penis', why don't you relocate this thread to 'Ask a Man'?
That's OK, I can see the fence now.
And thanks for your politeness in telling me to go elsewhere. You're a mensch!

Not bad for your 3rd post

 

[ColonelLingus]

The Op’s thread topic (Do you know what I say to pro-lifers?) followed by his lead entry (you raise the fuckin kid.) can easily be interpreted to show animosity toward the pro-life position and to degredate the value of the child. The statement also implies a second issue; that the parents of the child should escape responsibility for its creation.

If this was not your understanding of the OP’s lead comments then our communication has failed.

actually its from either david cross or some comedian like that. Maybe Bill Hicks actually i dont remember

 

[twoton]

George Carlin wasn't really funny at all.

I don't get him either. I know he's a hero to many people, but regardless of whatever material he was delivering, I never thought he was funny. Although provocative, I don't find his comedic social commentary particularly substantive. Seems every rant he built in could easily have been snuffed out at the start with a, "Yeah, but..."

On the other hand, he did a great job narrating Thomas the Tank Engine.

 

[Klingsor]

It's interesting that this thread is an all-male tea party and that no women have weighed in. Given most of the posts' content, it's no small wonder... But that's OK, you can get back to your patriarchal circle-jerk.

What are your thoughts on the issue?

 

[Calboner]

Okay, since you suggest that 'p is for penis', why don't you relocate this thread to 'Ask a Man'?
That's OK, I can see the fence now.
And thanks for your politeness in telling me to go elsewhere. You're a mensch!

Let me get this straight: you appear in this thread to object to the fact that no women have posted in it, without adding anything to the discussion yourself, and you blame the men who have been posting in the thread for the fact that women have not been posting in the thread. When someone reminds you that the site is mainly about the male organ and that threads are therefore likely to attract mainly male posters, you imagine that there is a "fence" keeping women out.

So, basically, instead of entering into the discussion, you come here exclusively to make a parade of imaginary grievances.

 

[temptotalk]

It's interesting that this thread is an all-male tea party and that no women have weighed in. Given most of the posts' content, it's no small wonder... But that's OK, you can get back to your patriarchal circle-jerk.

I've always wondered the same and came to pretty much the same conclusion. It's not a patriarchal circle jerk though. Hell it's not even a circle jerk (or at least not when theres a healthy balance of disagreement, facts, information and good arguments. Once all that goes though then yeah...it can get circle jerky real fast). The women of the site do post in this section from time to time but they rarely stay as the threads usually get out of hand in seconds. The only fence up when it comes to women here is having to deal with many of the guys that verbally upchuck here. It gets old fast. Guessing many of them just don't see any real reason to.

 

[Nagini]

Let me get this straight: you appear in this thread to object to the fact that no women have posted in it, without adding anything to the discussion yourself, and you blame the men who have been posting in the thread for the fact that women have not been posting in the thread. When someone reminds you that the site is mainly about the male organ and that threads are therefore likely to attract mainly male posters, you imagine that there is a "fence" keeping women out.
So, basically, instead of entering into the discussion, you come here exclusively to make a parade of imaginary grievances.

Calboner,
Peccavi! Honestly, if I look past my own feelings, you're right on every point, with a note (not an objection) that my grievances are not imaginary. I overreacted to the preponderance of teufelsdrockh in most of the thread postings.

Temptotalk,
Thanks for being gracious when I was a bitch.

 

[Boobalaa]

@Nagini So, "what are are your thoughts ON THE ISSUE OF THE THREAD?"

 

[123scotty]

[QUOTE="Chrysippus, post: 5635837, member: 967096"
So what I REALLY think is that if abortion opponents cared about children, there wouldn't be a single orphanage or foster home in this country (there wouldn't be any children without a home), that living children would really get the attention that armchair abortion opponents misdirect to fetuses. I think that the 'faith-ers' should put their money where their mouths are and help children that are already here and need parental/familial care.

that about sums it up.

standing out side clinics with cameras
recording patiants going in and out
is no more than bully boy tactics
its hard enough to go through the operation
without someone who doesn't know what circumstances got you to that decision
an exclusion zone should be set up outside clinics
making it safer for people to come and go
and the police to take appropreate action
or maybe people should also film the protesters and show there perfect lifes

 

[622675]

its hard enough to go through the operation
without someone who doesn't know what circumstances got you to that decision

Agree. It may not be a positive situation, but how can your statement be seen as anything more than a "poor me", "forget the child" admission?

 

[Klingsor]

Agree. It may not be a positive situation, but how can your statement be seen as anything more than a "poor me", "forget the child" admission?

You've illustrated his point, since your condemnation is precisely what comes from someone who doesn't know what circumstances led to the decision.

 

[KennF]

This is an interesting observation. But haven't you just described one (popular) perspective on motherhood and responsibility. I disagree with it since it does not emphasize responsibility, but legitimizes the personal ultimate preference of the mother regardless of how well it has been thought out.

It is not a question of denying the mother her rights. The primary decisions surrounding abortion is for those who are the child’s protector(s) and grantor(s) of life to make responsible decisions on behalf of the child. These decisions should occur before birth and extend into maturity. This is not a circular path unless the focus of a child’s protector(s) moves away from the child’s best interest as may occur when the mother’s rights are consistently made paramount over those of the child.

No one said responsibility was easy, especially when it is not in line with ones own desires. But any parent of a prenatal child who is considering abortion must ask him/her self what values they hold that justify taking a (this) life. Or asking, “what is more important to me than the life of my child? I am not saying that a defensible reason does not exist. But if it is your kid, you can’t responsibly escape the challenge of weighing the circumstances, making a decision, and accepting the consequences of that decision.

Great post. Thank you for your candor.

I don't know if my perspective is popular or not, just my perspecitve. And I agree with your observations that the focus should be different. However, my issue on this approach is the implementation.

First, I do not advocate for government intervention into the actual decision making that weighs the two interests. We, as a society, often impress on our children the need to be self-reliant, self-aware, self-determined, and promote, hopefully, informed and enlightened self-interest. It is the way our economy and our politics prosper. A woman who is pregnant has competing interests. That is the weakness in the responsibility approach.

I can see no way around destroying the rights of the individual by interjecting a third party to defend the 'future citizen' interests. Mostly because, inclusive in any decision making process has to be the ability to make the wrong decision. So, either you take that ability away and disallow the woman her right to make a good/bad/responsible decision; OR; you allow her to make a good/bad/responsible decision, understanding that she may make the bad one.

If we lived in an ideal society, then parents would always prioritize their kids. And, as long as we agree there may be situations or conditions where the aborting the pregnancy may be the best thing, then abortion has to be kept legal and within the reasonable means of those best to make those individual decisions...the man/woman/doctor(s)/family(ies) involved.

BTW - I can tell you from personal family history, that the decision's consequences stay with the woman and family forever, or at least 50 years and counting.