The Pro-Life Conspiracy

[ADigitalArtist]

Rape accounts for the smallest percentage (about 2%) of abortions. Unwanted pregnancy from "wanted" sex is just revealing that we want no responsibility for our actions and we are willing to kill the baby to avoid it.

Do you know who has the highest amounts of unwanted pregnancies and teen pregnancies? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. It's highly religious states with poor contraceptive education.

Location or level of development doesn't determine personhood. Yet... people fight to make it seem that way when basic scientific observation proves otherwise. I'm not interested in going over and over this.

Me neither. Because I agree that it misses the heart of the issue, and that's body autonomy.

Especially with someone who for whatever reason places so little value on a human life.

Which is about as pertinant as me saying I'm not interested in going on with someone who places so little value on the lives of women.

 

[CLee421]

Well, gee gosh o golly, since you references Exodus 21:20, you might have actually looked at Torah commentary on Exodus 21:20.

So, for example, from the JPS Torah Commentary Exodus (Nahum Sarna) re damage ...

Hebrew 'ason elsewhere always signifies a major calamity, therefore, the most likely issue here is whether or not death ensues. Rabbinic tradition construes the phrase in this way and understands it a referring to the mother.​

And obviously I would like a commentary on the verse. There are many different commentaries by different people. It's not like I didn't try to find one when you said that but I thought you'd so kindly divulge a known source.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I understand you're older than I am - and you've heard and seen more - but your lack of tact or self control in your messages make it less than pleasant to communicate with you.

There is nothing pleasant about dealing with those who deign to instruct others on the meaning of Hebrew text armed with nothing more than appalling ignorance and theological agenda.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And obviously I would like a commentary on the verse. There are many different commentaries by different people. It's not like I didn't try to find one when you said that but I thought you'd so kindly divulge a known source.

<yawn>

disingenuous drivel >> ignore-list
​

</yawn>

 

[CLee421]

@ADigitalArtist

It's quite hilarious that you say the issue is body autonomy but we all started out dependent on our mothers.

This is not a woman issue. Female babies are killed. Female babies have all their eggs they'll ever have, in the womb. So half your DNA was at one point, in a baby, in her mother's womb.

I care about women and men. But I won't say it's okay to abort because a baby is inside me.

Note: I had an abortion 10 years ago. Yep. "Hypocrite!" .... no. Uneducated. Ignorant. Misinformed. Child.

I have a 5 year old now. And I would have a 10 year old ... had people REALLY cared about my body and mental health and told me what I was really doing. But they just wanted my $$$

 

[CLee421]

<yawn>

disingenuous drivel >> ignore-list
​

</yawn>

High five for maturity

 

[CLee421]

There is nothing pleasant about dealing with those who deign to instruct others on the meaning of Hebrew text armed with nothing more than appalling ignorance and theological agenda.

I'm just here to talk, man.

If you can't handle it like a big boy then don't.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It's quite hilarious that you say the issue is body autonomy but we all started out dependent on our mothers.

And if my mother had decided to get an abortion, and I were somehow able to grasp the concept and formulate on an opinion, I would have respected her right and choice to do so because it is a women's issue because it's women's control over what happens to their bodies. If men were capable of pregnancy and childbirth, I would also say it was a men's issue. But it's not. The only one who should be able to decide when and how their body is going to be used by others, moment to moment, is the person with the body being used. In this case, the mother.

 

[CLee421]

And if my mother had decided to get an abortion, and I were somehow able to grasp the concept and formulate on an opinion, I would have respected her right and choice to do so because it is a women's issue because it's women's control over what happens to their bodies. If men were capable of pregnancy and childbirth, I would also say it was a men's issue. But it's not. The only one who should be able to decide when and how their body is going to be used by others, moment to moment, is the person with the body being used. In this case, the mother.

The baby has a body. It's completely separate. From conception on. Separate, developing, human being. The baby simply starts in our womb because that's how we reproduce. The baby is not part of the mother. Most of the nourishment comes from the placenta as well, not really the mother. Passing through a birth canal changes nothing except that it's time, you're big enough, need to come out. Your almost collapsed lungs inflate with your first cry.

We can stop though. I've made my point to the original poster - and I don't want to argue when I've already stated valid reasons for the stance.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The baby has a body. It's completely separate. From conception on. Separate, developing, human being. The baby simply starts in our womb because that's how we reproduce. The baby is not part of the mother. Most of the nourishment comes from the placenta as well, not really the mother. Passing through a birth canal changes nothing except that it's time, you're big enough, need to come out. Your almost collapsed lungs inflate with your first cry.

We can stop though. I've made my point to the original poster - and I don't want to argue when I've already stated valid reasons for the stance.

It's not completely separate or it could survive without the mother. Would live and grow without being connected directly to her body. If you think the mother's input is unnecessary, then let her remove the fetus and placenta from her body and see what happens.

We can stop if you want. But my reasons for being pro choice are different from others on the thread. Of difference enough that I wanted to give my perspective.

 

[CLee421]

It's not completely separate or it could survive without the mother. Would live and grow without being connected directly to her body. If you think the mother's input is unnecessary, then let her remove the fetus and placenta from her body and see what happens.

We can stop if you want. But my reasons for being pro choice are different from others on the thread. Of difference enough that I wanted to give my perspective.

I appreciate your efforts, a bit.

Being dependent on someone does not mean you are a part of that person. You never were your mother, you were you. Inside her. My baby, my five year old, was always herself. I was a vessel for a while, that allowed her to join us out here. It's the most precious thing...yet being demonized.

 

[CLee421]

Abortion is a little touchy for me. If you can understand, from my statement about my past.

 

[Revoltingest]

If men were capable of pregnancy and childbirth, I would also say it was a men's issue. But it's not.

It's a men's issue in that we have a great stake in the child to be.
The fact that the mother has autonomy over her own body doesn't
mean it's not an issue for us. So it's right for us to advocate for our
interests.
And there are peripheral issues, eg, being legally forced to support
a child for whom we've no rights to care for. If one believes the
fetus is to be accorded the same rights as a baby, then the fact
that some of them are male would make it a men's issue. The
issues just sometimes differ for father & mothers.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I appreciate your efforts, a bit.

Being dependent on someone does not mean you are a part of that person. You never were your mother, you were you. Inside her. My baby, my five year old, was always herself. I was a vessel for a while, that allowed her to join us out here. It's the most precious thing...yet being demonized.

Your baby, once born, was not dependent on you, or your body, specifically. But any caregiving person. A fetus is.
I was not my mother, but I was in her body. And my entire point is that I never had any right to control her body. And neither did anyone else. Her choice to continue the pregnancy was hers alone. And I would have respected that no matter what she chose.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It's a men's issue in that we have a great stake in the child to be.
The fact that the mother has autonomy over her own body doesn't
mean it's not an issue for us. So it's right for us to advocate for our
interests.
And there are peripheral issues, eg, being legally forced to support
a child for whom we've no rights to care for. If one believes the
fetus is to be accorded the same rights as a baby, then the fact
that some of them are male would make it a men's issue. The
issues just sometimes differ for father & mothers.

I disagree that the discussion of abortion, specificslly, has anything to do, or should have anything to do, with the input of men beyond what women ask for.
My husband understands that despite his 'great stake' in my choice that it is still my choice and mine alone. His input is as valuable as I choose to deem it. Hence it's a woman's issue.

 

[CLee421]

So to you it's ok to kill a baby as long as it's inside it's mother. Bottom line.

The baby can't choose to control its body - or what happens to him/her because of the baby's location... the baby has no rights even though the adults responsible allowed a new human to begin life - and even after being born a baby still has no control over its body but is still developing.

We just keep landing there.

 

[Revoltingest]

I disagree that the discussion of abortion, specificslly, has anything to do, or should have anything to do, with the input of men beyond what women ask for.

Speak only if spoken to, eh?
I don't buy that at all.

My husband understands that despite his 'great stake' in my choice that it is still my choice and mine alone.

You're repeating my position as I just stated it. IOW, the one who
owns the body has ultimate say over what is removed from it.

His input is as valuable as I choose to deem it. Hence it's a woman's issue.

That then it becomes his issue too, one which relates to his being male.
But be fully aware that being an issue for both should not lead
to inferring that each has equal control.
Stating it again...I say only the mother can decide whether abort or not.

If you'd say it's not a man's issue because we don't get pregnant,
then would you say the same for women who can't give birth?

 

[God's Avatars]

"I am not a conspiracy nut. But in this case no other word than conspiracy will do. We did what we did covertly, telling supporters one thing, and telling leaders on the inside of the political establishment another thing.

"There was one agenda in public, another one behind closed doors. And we changed America for the worse." -- Frank Schaeffer​

Most of us today no longer remember back when abortion was opposed, mostly, only by Catholics. Indeed, there was a time when it was condoned even by some of the most religiously conservative denominations in America. For instance:

In 1968, Christianity Today published a special issue on contraception and abortion, encapsulating the consensus among evangelical thinkers at the time. In the leading article, professor Bruce Waltke, of the famously conservative Dallas Theological Seminary, explained the Bible plainly teaches that life begins at birth:

“God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: ‘If a man kills any human life he will be put to death’ (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense… Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.” [Source]​

Southern Baptists were on record supporting abortion rights as late as 1976, and they did not officially reverse themselves until the 1980s. [Source]

So what caused the reversal? Why did abortion become the huge issue it is today for so many religious folks?

By most accounts, the one person who had the most to do with the reversal was Francis Schaeffer. He was Frank Schaeffer's father. Francis was also the Protestant theologian most responsible -- not only for creating the notion that abortion violated biblical teachings -- but for propagating it. He, along with other people, did everything they could to make sure it became a popular issue.

Francis' son, Frank, was heavily and intimately involved in his father's efforts. And, according to Frank, those efforts crucially involved conspiring with Republican leaders to turn abortion into a means of creating a reliable, Republican-voting block out of America's Evangelicals and other fundamentalists.

The deal was this: The Republicans would get the Evangelicals, etc delivered to them by the religious leaders in exchange for the religious leaders getting power and wealth.

So, in a vital way, the abortion issue boils down to the ancient story of political elites and religious elites finding reasons to be in cahoots with each other. That story has been a constantly recurring theme in human history since the first civilizations were founded 5,500 years ago.

Beyond that, I wonder how many of us are genuinely surprised by this? I know some of us will dismiss it and the evidence for it, but that's only human nature. I'm not all that interested in them. But I am interested in knowing if anyone has been genuinely surprised to hear that the anti-abortion movement had its origins more in politics, than in unquestioned biblical principles?


_______________________________
A Little Further Reading:

The Actual "Pro-Life" Conspiracy That Handed America to the Tea Party & Far Religious Right (An Insider's Perspective)

The Not so Lofty Origins of the Evangelical Pro-Life Movement

Also see posts #27 and #28 in this thread for the Catholic take on abortion.

"The deal was this: The Republicans would get the Evangelicals, etc delivered to them by the religious leaders in exchange for the religious leaders getting power and wealth."

This is indeed a very, very old story. The following is an excerpt from the Conclusion of GOD'S AVATARS: THE BETRAYAL OF BELIEF:

Down through the ages of man, the avatars of many different gods have cynically leveraged the power of their faiths in the quest for wealth and power. Always the avatars have known full well that the mayhem necessary to acquire their obscene wealth would not occur absent the fervor that only religion seems to inspire. Be that as it may, religion has almost never been the cause of humanity's atrocities. It has consistently been the lust for power and wealth that presaged our wars and our democides.
https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Avatars...&qid=1418144491&sr=1-3&keywords=God's+Avatars

 

[Sunstone]

I disagree that the discussion of abortion, specificslly, has anything to do, or should have anything to do, with the input of men beyond what women ask for.
My husband understands that despite his 'great stake' in my choice that it is still my choice and mine alone. His input is as valuable as I choose to deem it. Hence it's a woman's issue.

I see points on both sides of that particular issue, but I think the points on the side of its being a woman's decision alone to make outweigh anyone else being necessarily involved. You could say a dozen things in favor of that, but one I find particularly compelling is the fact that no one else can fully suffer any consequences to an abortion but the woman herself.

No matter how much I love someone, no matter how empathetic I am with her, no matter how much compassion I have, I will not suffer, say, the toll a pregnancy has on her body or mind. Any feelings of loss I might have from having "my child" (that is, even if I think of it as not only mine, but as a "child") aborted pale in significance to what she herself might feel.

The significance here is that most of the arguments for necessarily involving the man come down to arguments for necessarily taking into consideration his feelings. But that begs the question of whether the man's or the woman's feelings should count for more.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So to you it's ok to kill a baby as long as it's inside it's mother. Bottom line.

The baby can't choose to control its body - or what happens to him/her because of the baby's location... the baby has no rights even though the adults responsible allowed a new human to begin life - and even after being born a baby still has no control over its body but is still developing.

We just keep landing there.

I didn't get this reply in my inbox so sorry if you meant for me to reply and I missed it earlier.
What I actually said is it's okay to end the pregnancy whenever the mother no longer wants to be pregnant. And if it's actually reached the stage of viability to do so live. And that nobody, fetus, baby, adult, has the right to dictate use of a woman's body (or anyone's body) against their continued expressed consent. No matter what they've done.