"Pro-lifers": why didn't you do this first?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is it that a jurisdiction with no legal restrictions on abortion was the first one to pass a bill like this, with one of its aims as the reduction of number of miscarriages?

http://www.am980.ca/2015/12/09/new-pregnancy-loss-bill-ont


... and now that you know about it, will you fight for something similar where you live?

 

[outhouse]

and now that you know about it, will you fight for something similar where you live?

I don't think this group is reason or logic based.

 

[Orbit]

Criminalizing miscarriage?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why is it that a jurisdiction with no legal restrictions on abortion was the first one to pass a bill like this, with one of its aims as the reduction of number of miscarriages?

http://www.am980.ca/2015/12/09/new-pregnancy-loss-bill-ont


... and now that you know about it, will you fight for something similar where you live?

This just comes across as being spiteful towards pro-lifers.

 

[Scott C.]

Why is it that a jurisdiction with no legal restrictions on abortion was the first one to pass a bill like this, with one of its aims as the reduction of number of miscarriages?

http://www.am980.ca/2015/12/09/new-pregnancy-loss-bill-ont


... and now that you know about it, will you fight for something similar where you live?

Why would or would not a pro-lifer be more likely to oppose or support such legislation, than a pro-choicer? I don't get your point.

 

[Thanda]

Why would or would not a pro-lifer be more likely to oppose or support such legislation, than a pro-choicer? I don't get your point.

Absolutely agree. It sounds irrelevant whether or not you are a pro lifer in terms of the chances that you would support this bill.

 

[Useless2015]

Why is it that a jurisdiction with no legal restrictions on abortion was the first one to pass a bill like this, with one of its aims as the reduction of number of miscarriages?

http://www.am980.ca/2015/12/09/new-pregnancy-loss-bill-ont


... and now that you know about it, will you fight for something similar where you live?

Its awful that women have multiple miscarriages when elsewhere another woman kills the child by choice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why would or would not a pro-lifer be more likely to oppose or support such legislation, than a pro-choicer? I don't get your point.

I would think that someone who thinks that fetuses are full-fledged people would be concerned with preventing miscarriages.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just to clarify: it's this particular aspect of the bill that I'm focusing on:

The law will also increase funding for research into the causes of stillbirths and pregnancy loss, improve access to counselling, and expand programs for high-risk pregnancies.

 

[Scott C.]

I would think that someone who thinks that fetuses are full-fledged people would be concerned with preventing miscarriages.

Of course. Miscarriage is very sad, especially to the future mom who's excited to be pregnant and anxiously awaits the birth of her child. Is there something about this legislation that makes you think a pro-choicer would oppose it? I would have to understand it better before I could decide. Regardless of whether or not I decided to support the legislation, I would hope that medical researchers would find ways to stop miscarriage, just like I want a cure for cancer, etc. Is your point that conservatives might rather see such an effort made by the private sector rather than through taxation?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course. Miscarriage is very sad, especially to the future mom who's excited to be pregnant and anxiously awaits the birth of her child. Is there something about this legislation that makes you think a pro-choicer would oppose it?

No; the pro-choice position is in keeping with helping pregnant women give birth to live, healthy babies when the pregnancy is wanted.

I would have to understand it better before I could decide. Regardless of whether or not I decided to support the legislation, I would hope that medical researchers would find ways to stop miscarriage, just like I want a cure for cancer, etc. Is your point that conservatives might rather see such an effort made by the private sector rather than through taxation?

My point is that "pro-life" often amounts more to punishing women for having sex than it does about protecting fetuses or babies. This is a measure that protects fetuses without punishing women for having sex.

I'm sure there are other ways to approach the issue of protecting fetuses, but as far as government involvement goes, I'd say that the horse is already out of the libertarian barn if you're talking about having the government regulate women's bodies.

 

[Scott C.]

No; the pro-choice position is in keeping with helping pregnant women give birth to live, healthy babies when the pregnancy is wanted.


My point is that "pro-life" often amounts more to punishing women for having sex than it does about protecting fetuses or babies. This is a measure that protects fetuses without punishing women for having sex.

I'm sure there are other ways to approach the issue of protecting fetuses, but as far as government involvement goes, I'd say that the horse is already out of the libertarian barn if you're talking about having the government regulate women's bodies.

You're incredibly wrong about the motivation of pro-lifers. Your belief that pro-lifers want to punish women is a biased belief which is incorrect. I remember many years ago watching a documentary about Communist China. They showed a woman who was well advanced in her pregnancy, as they stuck a needle in her abdomen to abort the child. My wife sobbed as she watched the butchery. Punish the woman? No, not at all. A heartfelt concern for the unborn? Definitely. But I'm not going to debate abortion. If you think you're onto something with the Canada law, it's because you don't understand pro-lifers.

NOTE: I misspoke in a prior post. I meant to ask if you see a reason that a "pro-lifer" (not "pro-choicer" would oppose the legislation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're incredibly wrong about the motivation of pro-lifers. Your belief that pro-lifers want to punish women is a biased belief which is incorrect.

I don't believe that ALL "pro-lifers" want this, but I think it's common. The movement only makes sense if we approach it with this mindset.

I remember many years ago watching a documentary about Communist China. They showed a woman who was well advanced in her pregnancy, as they stuck a needle in her abdomen to abort the child. My wife sobbed as she watched the butchery. Punish the woman? No, not at all. A heartfelt concern for the unborn? Definitely. But I'm not going to debate abortion. If you think you're onto something with the Canada law, it's because you don't understand pro-lifers.

No, I don't.

I don't understand the mindset of someone who claims to want to prevent abortions but opposes contraception, or who refuses to address the reasons why women seek abortions.

Take maternity leave: do you think that if you made it so working women didn't have to choose between a child and their income, there would be less occasion for abortion? But has there ever been ANY American "pro-life" group that's campaigned for paid, job-protected maternity leave?

There are countless ways that "pro-lifers" could reduce the number of abortions without much effort or pushback... but generally, they don't pursue them. They tend to only pursue the ones that involve making a woman suffer. What should I take from that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

NOTE: I misspoke in a prior post. I meant to ask if you see a reason that a "pro-lifer" (not "pro-choicer" would oppose the legislation.

I touched on that: this legislation helps fetuses while not punishing women. I see it as a litmus test for people's true motivations.

 

[Scott C.]

I touched on that: this legislation helps fetuses while not punishing women. I see it as a litmus test for people's true motivations.

Pro-lifers are more likely to want to prevent miscarriages, than are pro-choicers. Or, it's the same. But in no way is it the other way around.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pro-lifers are more likely to want to prevent miscarriages, than are pro-choicers. Or, it's the same. But in no way is it the other way around.

Then it isn't reflected in their actions:

- "pro-lifers" are the ones most likely to block access to contraception for people with health conditions that cause risky pregnancies.
- "pro-lifers" are more often the ones opposed to free medical care for pregnant women.

... and that's just talking about miscarriage. If you want me to add in the ways that "pro-lifers'" actions lead to increased abortions, I could go on all day.

 

[Scott C.]

I don't believe that ALL "pro-lifers" want this, but I think it's common. The movement only makes sense if we approach it with this mindset.


No, I don't.

I don't understand the mindset of someone who claims to want to prevent abortions but opposes contraception, or who refuses to address the reasons why women seek abortions.

Take maternity leave: do you think that if you made it so working women didn't have to choose between a child and their income, there would be less occasion for abortion? But has there ever been ANY American "pro-life" group that's campaigned for paid, job-protected maternity leave?

There are countless ways that "pro-lifers" could reduce the number of abortions without much effort or pushback... but generally, they don't pursue them. They tend to only pursue the ones that involve making a woman suffer. What should I take from that?

Pro-lifers will differ on their views of contraception and maternity leave. But, from what I can tell, conservatives take a conservative approach to all of those areas, because they are conservatives. None of that has anything to do with punishing a woman. Your position that pro-lifers want to punish women is no different from me stating that pro-choicers want to punish their unborn children with death, for coming into their lives uninvited.

 

[columbus]

Your position that pro-lifers want to punish women is no different from me stating that pro-choicers hate babies and enjoy killing them.

Bingo!
I saw nothing in that article I would object to. Investigation of why babies die, so as to prevent it, sounds like a good thing to me.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pro-lifers will differ on their views of contraception and maternity leave.

They don't differ so much that either of these has ever been advocated by any mainstream "pro-life" organization in the US, do they?

But, from what I can tell, conservatives take a conservative approach to all of those areas, because they are conservatives.

If it's because of stances on government involvement, then I'm sure that you can point me to organizations that are doing these things privately:

"Hey, pregnant woman! If you carry your baby to term, we'll pay you a living while you take care of him/her, then guarantee you a job through our voluntary network of like-minded employers when you're ready to go back to work!"

Does THIS ever happen? Or is what you describe conservatism of the "we want a government so small we can stick it in a woman's vagina" variety?

None of that has anything to do with punishing a woman. Your position that pro-lifers want to punish women is no different from me stating that pro-choicers want to punish their unborn children with death, for coming into their lives uninvited.

If you think so, then show me. What are "pro-life" organizations doing that doesn't involve harming women or taking away their rights?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bingo!
I saw nothing in that article I would object to. Investigation of why babies die, so as to prevent it, sounds like a good thing to me.
Tom

Well, there's one.