?

Log in

No account? Create an account
athgarvan



We hear much talk about Trump endangering women's rights without actually naming any rights he will be endangering. What rights does he want to take away? OK, many will say: abortion ... but abortion is not a human right. So why the total hysteria? Some places have declared it to be a legal right . . . but on what grounds can they do this?

As we draw closer to the 44th annual March for Life in Washington DC, on Friday, it is important to remember that the pro-life movement is not something reserved to the Catholic Church, but is a universal cause based on the inalienable right to life that we all have. It doesn’t matter if a person is Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist or agnostic; men and women of every religion, race and political party are invited to defend the rights of all people from conception to natural death.

Here are some quotes from "celebrities" (we seem to consider such people important nowadays), but people one may not expect to be pro-life and who have been outspoken about the right to life.

“For me, the number one issue is right to life.” – Ben Stein, lawyer, political speech writer and actor.

“I do, as a humanist, believe that the concept ‘unborn child’ is a real one and I think the concept is underlined by all the recent findings of embryology about the early viability of a well conceived human baby… I feel the responsibility to consider the occupant of the womb as a candidate member of society. – Christopher Hitchens, anti-theist, author, journalist, friend of famous atheist Richard Dawkins.

“I find it impossible to subscribe to a philosophy that believes that the destruction of human life is a legitimate solution to a problem that is mostly social, economic and psychological. In reality, most women ‘choose’ abortion because they believe they have no other choice.” – Patricia Heaton, Emmy Award winning actress.

“I’m very contra my constituency in terms of abortion because I’m positively against it. I don’t have the right to any other view.” – Jack Nicholson, Academy Award winning actor.

“I’m considered a liberal except for that unaccountable heresy of recent years that has to do with pro-life matters.” – Nat Hentoff, jazz critic, atheist and author.

“As a scientist I know, not believe, know that human life begins at conception. Although I am not a formal religionist, I believe with all my heart that there is a divinity of existence which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity.” – Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), former abortionist who performed 75,000 abortions.

Comments

A woman has every right to decide whether or not to carry a child and in those areas where they don't allow abortion, many areas practice infanticide. How is that any better?

I support a women's right to abortion and I always will. As a man, you can't really understand what goes into that decision from a woman's point of view and can't defend your stand on any moral high ground because you're not in the trenches fighting the individual and very personal battle between biology and quality of life.

- Erulisse (one L)
How has a woman a RIGHT to abortion? What kind of RIGHT?
On what is the RIGHT based?
A woman has the right at all times to dictate and direct what happens to her own body. Period.

- Erulisse (one L)
all the people you quote have a right to their opinion and belief
their names are recognizable
this list could be countered with equally recognizable names that are pro-choice

if that is your belief you have a right to express it and live it
you do not have the right to force me or others who do not share that belief to have our lives limited by your belief

i do NOT believe life begins at conception
i believe as rational human beings we have the right to end our life when we so choose

a woman has a human right to her health
she has the right to control her own body
no pro-choice woman would deny another woman contraceptives or insist she have an abortion
but anti-choice women (and certainly men) would deny a woman a medical procedure that could save her life or make her life and the lives of her children better

What right do you have to impose your beliefs on those who do not share them?
I do not impose anything on anyone.
I state what I believe.
Others have other beliefs.
Unfortunately, the poor child can't state his/her position.
but in Ireland a woman died because the hospital would not give her the necessary abortion

here the trump just signed an executive order prohibiting any UA foreign aid to be given to any organization in any way involved with abortion- even talking about it
and all of that because anti choice people demand their view be preferred

here funds are denied to organization that promote woman's health because they do abortion counseling - not even performing the procedure - just talking about it
as long as anti choice people try to influence the law women are at risk

would you support a woman's right to chose and a law that supports that right and choice?
You are very obsessed with abortion, aren't you? It is, in fact, darkening the glass you look through.

Women are concerned with abortion among a laundry list of complaints, much like men. We are concerned with access to health care in general: cancer screenings, cancer care, menopausal care, hormonal-based medicines that may be used for birth control but are also medically proscribed for a great deal of other issues, including things like PCOS and managing menstruation.

You know. The fundamental basics.

Maybe women concerned because he's a serial abuser who demeans and belittles women because they are women. That he has been caught bragging about committing assault. His favorite country Russia is attempting to decriminalize domestic abuse, usually focused on women, something that is already ridiculously difficult to prosecute in the US. Maybe it's because he perpetuates the issue of paying women less for the same work.

Or maybe, just maybe, that it's all of these things and significantly more. Women are not exempted from worrying about the environment, the economy, intellectual and religious freedoms. Maybe we're worried because African Americans-- men and women-- are being targeted by people in authority. After all, white women aren't faced with a $25,000 fine for protesting, and if they're stopped by a police man they aren't immediately concerned they might not survive the encounter. Maybe it's because he's threatened to refuse an entire religion from entering the country and his official followers have wondered out loud if internment camps are a good thing.

As a religious person yourself, how can you possibly ignore that? Your mono-focused refusal to listen to or understand the many issues the march encompassed is your failing, and yours alone. Maybe you ought to wonder why.
what a splendid reply!!!
three cheers and thank you ladycat for telling what women are concerned about and why we march

it brings to mind an old union song Bread and Roses
This!

And I wish our friend would either engage in a reasoned debate with the women (and we are nearly all women) he friends or leave it alone!
As one of the pro-choice men on his page, I wish he'd do this as well.
Of course all these can be very real problems - but abortion is not the solution.
Correct! Abortion is not the answer to general healthcare issues! It is not the answer to pay gaps, physical abuse, attacks on religious freedoms, the environment, or the ability to not be prosecuted or persecuted for having a different color skin!

That is not, however, what you asked.

You asked why the protestors protested, and then answered your own question with an assumption. I answered that question and corrected the assumption.

So yes, congratulations, abortion is not the answer. I'm so glad you finally understand how many different issues the marches were about.

Also, how wonderfully dismissive to say these *can* be problems. As a male in the dominant race and religion in your country, it's truly impressive that you think you still need to grant permission for people not like you to have problems, either like or unlike your own.

But again, I am left to wonder. Why are you so obsessed with abortion? Doesn't your faith teach you to value the actual along with the potential? Because millions of women just said there are real problems going on, of which abortion is merely one. Why do you refuse to listen? Why do you refuse to grant them the same stalwart defense you grant merely a potential?

I'll be shocked if you answer the question, I should add. You've proven yourself as a misogynist time and time again. You'll instead change the goal posts. Any one want to put money on it?

Edited at 2017-01-24 17:42 (UTC)
I obviously have touched a button!
And lo, there we have it! You once again did not answer the question.

But hey, I'm angry, so let's continue. Why did that touch a nerve? Because women are more than our ability to gestate babies. The fact that you focus so heavily on abortion to the exclusion of all else is why I called you a misogynist. To you, based on the way you present yourself here, women are not people. We are not thinking, creative beings with needs and wants of our own. We are not worthy of respect or, if necessary, protection.

To you, we are simply the thing that babies get carried in.

Yeah. You are a misogynist.

And I guess the lingering question I have is why on earth I'm arguing with you? You can't be reasoned with, you don't want to be. You're just a troll.
He knows I have six lots of letters after my name and he knows we all think what we think yet he persists in mansplaining the issues over and over.

Heigh ho- as well we're a patient and respectful bunch.

It'd be nice to get the same in return.
I don't think I was patient or respectful? But then I don't find his "oh, but I'm an old bewildered man" shtick something I can tolerate very well. It's the worst sort of gaslighting and I tend to pop in really unflattering ways when that happens. Witness... pretty much this whole thread.

But I really don't understand why he persists in friending predominantly women, predominantly and obviously pro-choice people and then acting so surprised when we disagree. I'm pleased he doesn't want to live in an echo chamber and I wish I was better at it myself, but seriously, don't act surprised when everyone you know disagrees with you disagrees with you.

This!

I mean come on, I'm a miner's granddaughter and a soldier's daughter and the first from a working class family to attend uni.

I was brought up to be respectful to elders, but really!
* applauds *
Bravo - excellently stated!

- Erulisse (one L)

please stop being so judgemental against women!

Abortion is not a solution. Solutions must be sought elsewhere.
Yes, but solutions to what? What do you think people are using abortions to solve?
Abortion is pretty obviously a solution to an unwanted or problematic pregnancy. Just because you don't like it as a solution doesn't make it any less of a solution.

The abortion rate in the US is actually down due to things like the rise in contraception, the ACA, etc. Even with that, it still is a basic human right.
Abortion is 'a' solution, one that goes back to biblical times, and beyond.
So why the total hysteria?

The total hysteria? You missed the fact that there is now an anti-choice ultra-right President with an ultra-right Congress? Or that the other day he despicably decided to enforce the global gag rule, which likely will mean worse health care in general for women since it will prevent money going to organizations that even talk about abortion?

Not to mention that people don't like their long-held civil rights threatened? We can add that Trump and the Republicans have essentially taken a seat on the Supreme Court which President Obama should have appointed by unprecedented means? There are a lot of reasons for people to be upset.

Some places have declared it to be a legal right . . . but on what grounds can they do this? By law and court. Abortion is a right. Actually a fair number of Catholics in the US are ok with abortion; I've seen in years past where the number is around 50%.

Cherry picking a few people who are anti-choice isn't helping your argument.

I see you didn't actually read my comment to your post yesterday - or if you did you didn't understand it.

I believe in life after birth... I believe in health care for women with new born babies, I believe in health care for those infants, I believe in an society that ensures babies are loved, fed, clothed, and then get the chance to become toddlers and children who are loved, fed, clothed, and educated.

Your current posts imply that actually you only believe in life up to the point of the first breath being important and thereafter you actually don't care.

Which is very sad as you were a teacher.
To be totally honest it may be to a post from the day before - but it was to your last post and it was there when I looked a few minutes ago. But I do know I have had that very problem with comment not showing up; sometimes they suddenly appear a day or two later, but in case that one remains hidden here is the content;



Posted on 22nd Jan, 2017 23:09 (local) | Link | Thread | Reply | Track This

curiouswombat

I really don't think you quite got it. Some of the marchers were pro-abortion, but many of them had no obvious feelings about it one way or the other.

They are unhappy about the withdrawal of free health screening for breast cancer and for cervical cancer.

They are unhappy about a position of power being given to a man who sees it as his right to force his sexual attentions on women because he is rich and they can be frightened off taking him to court.

They are unhappy about the plans to remove their health care for long term conditions such as endometriosis. They are unhappy about the withdrawal of funding for treatment for infertility...

If I had been younger and American I would have been marching, because the new president would believe that I should either have to risk death by another pregnancy against medical advice, or no longer be able to have 'marital relations', as provision of contraceptives are also being put at risk - which you are required to be pleased about, I realise - but I was very glad that it was available to me.

Some of the marchers are unhappy about abortion being forced back to illegality and the provision of untrained people with knitting needles - and I would expect you to differ with them. But then you are fortunate enough never to have been a thirteen year old raped by her father, whose body will then be damaged so badly by giving birth to the resultant offspring that she becomes infertile and can never have children with her future husband.

I personally do not believe in abortion 'on demand', but I do feel there is a time when it is the best option. However I also believe that all those people who stand outside medical facilities, calling themselves 'pro-life', should be legally required to sign papers guaranteeing that they will personally adopt the child of any woman who changes her mind about aborting a baby after talking to them. If they are not willing to do this they are, of course, only pro-pregnancy for they, too, should take full responsibility of their actions.

But that has little to do with the women who chose to walk to show their disapproval of the new President of the USA.
I certainly sympathize with you in your personal problems with child-bearing and am totally with you when you say that society in general must be fully responsible and active in finding other ways of preserving the lives of innocent unborn children.

Thank you. But the whole point of my comment was really that the women marching were not on a 'Pro-abortion' march - they were marching for all those other things as well - or in many cases exclusively.

If all you see is the women worrying about having control over their own bodies whilst pregnant when they have good reasons not to be able to cope with that, then your field of vision has become very limited by your sole attention on an embryo or a fetus and not on anyone outside the uterus. And when Jesus said to love one another I believe he meant the born as well as the unborn, female as well as male.

And, bearing that commandment in mind, I do not think anyone has the right to bully the poor women, who sadly feel they cannot continue with the pregnancy, unless they are willing to become personally responsible for the child. Not by giving to a charity, but by bringing that child up as their own. If the protestors refuse then they care no more about the child that fetus could become than they say the woman carrying it does. Probably less, for very few women abort a pregnancy on a whim.

So please try to see past this one issue and see why women were marching, world wide, to complain about a man whose whole attitude to women is endangering them and their daughters by making sexual assault acceptable, and also by making health screening and treatment for 'women's illnesses' less available so that they will be more likely to die young. Not to mention that by withdrawing funding for Affordable Care and Planned Parenthood those with fertility problems will not be able to have children no matter how much they may want them.

I too believe in all those things you mention provided the child is allowed reach that point.
I can't anymore with you. Good-bye.
Sorry about that. I am simply reflecting on a very serious problem in life today.
Actually, you're not! For one thing, male who does not and cannot carry babies, abortion doesn't affect you.

And second of all, you're also still conflating. Your post yesterday was at least nominally about abortion so fine, abortion it is. Here's the thing: I'm actually perfectly okay with you having a different opinion from myself, if only because hey, you aren't a lawmaker or even in my own country.

But that's not what your post was about.

Your post was about why women marched against Trump, which you assumed was because we're all bra-burning, pro-abortions-on-demand women. That is so factually incorrect that I'm about to start calling you Kellyanne Conway, and in case you've missed the finer points of US politics, that is about as egregious an insult as I know. I could curse at you for weeks and not come to the depths of disgust and loathing her outright lying evokes.

You want to not like abortion? Fine. Not like it away. But don't you dare assume that millions of women marched against him for one reason only. Women are not a monolithic entity, there are plenty of women who are as anti-choice as you are who loathe Trump for all the reasons I mentioned above.

Stop. Conflating. The issue. You wanna rail against abortion, stop using the very real, very complex terror of millions of women (and men), many of whom don't have a fraction of your rights and comforts and securities to do it. Or mine, for that matter.
I'm about to start calling you Kellyanne Conway, and in case you've missed the finer points of US politics, that is about as egregious an insult as I know.

I have to remember that one! That is a pretty terrible insult at this point. :)
Right? Even the Father of Lies would be impressed with her audacity.

Or maybe that's just George Orwell.

(Note: I'm not Christian, so if that was offensive, please let me know and I will both apologize and not do that again.)