Why do pro-life groups only care about fetuses?

Doom

The government have implemented polices which have caused huge stress and maybe the main cause of deaths of many people in the last few years, why are pro-lifers not taking on the government over this? These life's are well established too with husbands, wifes, children and friends. families destroyed everday.
In my opinion this government has blood on its hands, no one should be put under so much stress by its "elected by the people for the people" government to end up taking their lives.

Kold

Same as any of their views. Ill informed naivity as well as an indomitable sense of self righteousness.

Manach

Gosh is this going to a bashing the Pro-lifers thread as if they were a single entity with a single platform without going into the beam of the eye that is the progressives own smug self-worth?

endacl

Manach wrote: »

Gosh is this going to a bashing the Pro-lifers thread as if they were a single entity with a single platform without going into the beam of the eye that is the progressives own smug self-worth?

Yep.

Doom

Manach wrote: »

Gosh is this going to a bashing the Pro-lifers thread as if they were a single entity with a single platform without going into the beam of the eye that is the progressives own smug self-worth?

No. I would like to know why they do not tackle government policys and their possible relations to deaths/ suicides across the country. I would slightly fall more on the side of pro-life myself.

dsmythy

The people who commit suicide do so at their own hand.

John_Rambo

Doom wrote: »

Why do pro-life groups only care about fetuses?

To answer regarding the ones I have met?? It's easy: Head out, scream and shout, make a nuisance, annoy people, get indignant. Head out for a few scoops afterwards and congratulate each other on what a good job you did.

It's not like they are offering to raise the unborn they save? They aren't dealing with hugely problematic children, they aren't making the lives of special needs kids any better, they aren't emotionally investing or even involving themselves in a fragile life that can be changed...

It's easy.

The Corinthian

Why do pro-choice groups only care about women? Not foetuses and certainly not men. Of course, they'll pay lip service to other, related, issues, but then again so will pro-life groups.

Single issue groups tend to be focused; they may attract individuals who have wider beliefs and tendencies, but as umbrella groups the tend to concentrate on the 'core issue' that brought them together.

And pro-life / pro-choice are not alone in this; you'll see it in other single issue groups; feminist groups really only care or represent women, men's rights groups men, eurosceptic groups the nation state, and so on. They're all pretty much the same.

Pretty obvious answer I would have thought.

Of course, if this thread is more about bitching and moaning about pro-life groups, then that's another story - undoubtedly somewhere else there's a thread somewhere else bitching and moaning about pro-choice groups too.

But then you're really just asking a rhetorical question as an excuse to have a bitching session, not having an actual discussion. Maybe After Hours is a better forum for such a thread.

John_Rambo

The Corinthian wrote: »

.but then you're really just asking a rhetorical question as an excuse to have a bitching session, not having an actual discussion. Maybe After Hours is a better forum for such a thread.

And I got sucked right in!!

wolfpawnat

There is a huge lobby against suicide and I would assume those not of a "one track mind" pro-lifers would be very much involved in that too. To assume that every pro-lifer is solely interested in just foetus's is a very generalised and incorrect statement. Many pro-lifers also will be the first to suggest the termination of a pregnancy if there both mother and foetus will die as they are pro-life and as the name would suggest, they want to save who they can and not always is it everyone.

clairefontaine

wolfpawnat wrote: »

There is a huge lobby against suicide and I would assume those not of a "one track mind" pro-lifers would be very much involved in that too. To assume that every pro-lifer is solely interested in just foetus's is a very generalised and incorrect statement. Many pro-lifers also will be the first to suggest the termination of a pregnancy if there both mother and foetus will die as they are pro-life and as the name would suggest, they want to save who they can and not always is it everyone.

The pro life movement make an ass of themselves. What more reasonable pro life person would want to be aassociated with them.

I wont take them seriously until I see them seriously pressuring for maternity care to be cleaned up.

wolfpawnat

clairefontaine wrote: »

The pro life movement make an ass of themselves. What more reasonable pro life person would want to be aassociated with them.

I wont take them seriously until I see them seriously pressuring for maternity care to be cleaned up.

Many pro-lifers wouldn't associate themselves with the groups, especially the ones that you see with signs with terminated foetuses and the like in town most days. Some of those people are just plain insane! There are nutjobs in every argument on both sides, I think the abortion debate shows how extreme some are!!!

The Corinthian

The entire public debate is intellectually bankrupt anyway.

One side desperately seeks to create convoluted definitions of what is a human being so it can define a foetus as a ball of cells, which is emotionally much easier to dispose of.

The other side desperately seeks to exaggerate the foetus as a cute little baby so we can better identify with it, which is emotionally much harder to dispose of.

Meanwhile any real debate on the deeper philosophical and moral questions, such as whether a person even has an absolute right to life and in what circumstances, are never actually debated.

It's all lowest common denominator appeals to emotion, for the benefit of the simple folk.

clairefontaine

wolfpawnat wrote: »

There is a huge lobby against suicide and I would assume those not of a "one track mind" pro-lifers would be very much involved in that too. To assume that every pro-lifer is solely interested in just foetus's is a very generalised and incorrect statement. Many pro-lifers also will be the first to suggest the termination of a pregnancy if there both mother and foetus will die as they are pro-life and as the name would suggest, they want to save who they can and not always is it everyone.

This is interesting if its true, suggesting to me that for pro life it's not about right to life, but obligation to life, if they also lobby against suicide.

wolfpawnat

clairefontaine wrote: »

This is interesting if its true, suggesting to me that for pro life it's not about right to life, but obligation to life, if they also lobby against suicide.

There are many of that mindset, many that are not. Some would rather see a mother and child die rather than just one if the case occurs that one will die regardless, that to me is not pro-life. Pro life to me mean save all we can, regardless of the situation, when we can.

clairefontaine

They are also anti euthanasia and I think n the US anti death penalty.

morewrong

because

wolfpawnat

clairefontaine wrote: »

They are also anti euthanasia and I think n the US anti death penalty.

Well a humane death to me is too good for some of those animals, life in a prison knowing you will never get out is a better punishment for the likes of the "Boston Bomber" and the like.

As for euthanasia, that is a more grey matter to me, simply because it becomes quality over quantity. If I am going to suffer horrifically and die, or I could end it quickly, I would choose the latter. It is an informed decision by a sane minded person IMO.

clairefontaine

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Well a humane death to me is too good for some of those animals, life in a prison knowing you will never get out is a better punishment for the likes of the "Boston Bomber" and the like.

As for euthanasia, that is a more grey matter to me, simply because it becomes quality over quantity. If I am going to suffer horrifically and die, or I could end it quickly, I would choose the latter. It is an informed decision by a sane minded person IMO.

Well I sympathise with you on your first point and often have the same reaction, but I'm also aware that is my visceral response and its more complex than that.

Euthanasia is also complex for me too although abortion is the MOST difficult impossible moral question there is.

wolfpawnat

clairefontaine wrote: »

Well I sympathise with you on your first point and often have the same reaction, but I'm also aware that is my visceral response and its more complex than that.

Euthanasia is also complex for me too although abortion is the MOST difficult impossible moral question there is.

I have yet to meet a person who has found themselves in a crisis pregnancy and not actually sat back and thought about the different aspects before going through with their decision.

So many women say they would without a doubt just get an abortion if they got pregnant without even a second thought, but I doubt they are so fast with a decision if it happens. There is so much to weigh up. Can you afford to have the child, can you guarantee you can raise it, some women feel they are too old/young, it is not black and white and never will be.

I just wish there was the ability for women to guarantee no pregnancy if they didn't want to be, and that such a thing did not have to exist, but as long as there is no way to guarantee the first, there will be the latter.

The Corinthian

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I just wish there was the ability for women to guarantee no pregnancy if they didn't want to be, and that such a thing did not have to exist, but as long as there is no way to guarantee the first, there will be the latter.

Well, whenever there's a discussion on the lack of options for men in such scenarios, a typical response is that men should keep it in their pants. Maybe that's the guaranteed solution for women too?

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, whenever there's a discussion on the lack of options for men in such scenarios, a typical response is that men should keep it in their pants. Maybe that's the guaranteed solution for women too?

I've heard that said to women too. Close your legs etc.

wolfpawnat

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, whenever there's a discussion on the lack of options for men in such scenarios, a typical response is that men should keep it in their pants. Maybe that's the guaranteed solution for women too?

But both men and women are prone to "acts of folly". I do think there needs to be more of an allowance for men's input on this issue. I know the slogan is "a woman's right to choose" and yes we are the carriers, but we don't tend to get there by ourselves. My partner and I tend to discuss everything and contraception methods were no different. But as I get too big to tie my shoelaces I like to tell him it's his fault I'm like this!

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

I've heard that said to women too. Close your legs etc.

I know, which I always found it so ironic when said to men nowadays, as suggesting something like that for women is politically incorrect and harks back to a more sexist age; this no longer socially acceptable. Yet it's OK to now say it to men.

wolfpawnat

clairefontaine wrote: »

I've heard that said to women too. Close your legs etc.

I got that from the MIL. She told her son to "zip up his mickey" and I got the "close your legs" "could you not control yourself" and a personal favourite "you did it on purpose" which even if we planned a soccer team of children I am not sure how it is her business but anyway. I find those who are most critical of women are other women.

ShelTomato

Well I would assume pro-lifers "only care about fetuses" because the fetuses cannot speak for themselves, whereas people who choose to end their life because their government taxed the life out of them can speak for themselves and make their own decisions regarding life or death. Thought that was fairly obvious now...

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

I know, which I always found it so ironic when said to men nowadays, as suggesting something like that is politically incorrect and harks back to a more sexist age; this no longer socially acceptable. Yet it's OK to now say it to men.

If women did choose abstinence, then I guess men would have to turn to each other, so I don't know if they really mean it. Or maybe those who do say that wouldn't mind so much.

But at some level it is a solution if a person wants to avoid risk and consequence of a child they don't want.

Men can't end a pregnancy because they don't get pregnant, just as a woman cant have a vasectomy because they don't have a male reproductive system.

clairefontaine

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I got that from the MIL. She told her son to "zip up his mickey" and I got the "close your legs" "could you not control yourself" and a personal favourite "you did it on purpose" which even if we planned a soccer team of children I am not sure how it is her business but anyway. I find those who are most critical of women are other women.

Classy.

Sleepy

Because they're not "pro-life": they're anti-abortion but choose to use an incorrect label because it sounds better in press releases.

And it's for the exact same reason that the "pro-legalisation of abortion" side choose to label themselves "pro-choice".

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

If women did choose abstinence, then I guess men would have to turn to each other, so I don't know if they really mean it. Or maybe those who do say that wouldn't mind so much.

That's a rather forced and bizarre stretch at humour.

Men can't end a pregnancy because they don't get pregnant, just as a woman cant have a vasectomy because they don't have a male reproductive system.

Ultimately irrelevant. As wolfpawnat earlier implied social and economic reasons tend to be the most common ones for abortion; if these are the same reasons for men, then focus on those rather than making it about abortion. Eliminate the undesired social and economic reasons and abortion is moot from a male perspective.

However, that's OT and unrelated to my point which was about the reversal of sexism in modern society and wolfpawnat was able to address that.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's a rather forced and bizarre stretch at humour.

Ultimately irrelevant. As wolfpawnat earlier implied social and economic reasons tend to be the most common ones for abortion; if these are the same reasons for men, then focus on those rather than making it about abortion. Eliminate the undesired social and economic reasons and abortion is moot from a male perspective.

However, that's OT and unrelated to my point which was about the reversal of sexism in modern society and wolfpawnat was able to address that.

There are many reasons women have abortion. Some are socio economic and some are not.

Your problem with the discrimination lies in the termination of parenthood, not in pregnancy.

And that is a different topic.

Pro life believes it is saving lives. Its priorities are not reproductive rights for men or women.

clairefontaine

wolfpawnat wrote: »

But both men and women are prone to "acts of folly". I do think there needs to be more of an allowance for men's input on this issue. I know the slogan is "a woman's right to choose" and yes we are the carriers, but we don't tend to get there by ourselves. My partner and I tend to discuss everything and contraception methods were no different. But as I get too big to tie my shoelaces I like to tell him it's his fault I'm like this!

Do you mean some kind of legal rights over the pregnancy?

wolfpawnat

clairefontaine wrote: »

Do you mean some kind of legal rights over the pregnancy?

No, I stated input, as in discuss it. If you are in a long term relationship surely a pregnancy affects both people.

clairefontaine

wolfpawnat wrote: »

No, I stated input, as in discuss it. If you are in a long term relationship surely a pregnancy affects both people.

Ah ok. Well wouldn't that make it a courtesy? And that is outside the parameters of rights.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

There are many reasons women have abortion. Some are socio economic and some are not.

However one would have to be pretty deluded not to admit that the vast majority are socio-economic; essentially that abortion is used as a means to terminate parenthood.

And that is a different topic.

I'm aware of that. All I did was point out the irony of "keep it in your pants" having gone from being an acceptable sexist comment directed at women in the past, to it now being an acceptable sexist comment directed at men. You expanded the argument.

Pro life believes it is saving lives.

Both sides undoubtedly believe they're saving lives. Isn't everyone fighting the good fight?

In practice, however, opposition to abortion is the only consistent pro-life position you'll find. Other than that views vary wildly; for example, many American pro-life supporters and organizations also support capital punishment, which is not a terribly 'pro-life' position, is it?

In fairness, pro-choice groups are much the same; they share an overall desire for abortion to be a legal choice for women, but that's the only 'choice' they all support. Their aims are every bit as narrow as those of the pro-life side.

In essence both pro-life and pro-choice organizations are really one-issue umbrella groups, so named only because it's more marketable that being called pro or anti abortion organizations. Beyond that one-issue they vary wildly in their views.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ah ok. Well wouldn't that make it a courtesy? And that is outside the parameters of rights.

I see what wolfpawnat is saying, but would have to agree that this is essentially all she's hinting at. The right to be consulted is not really a right.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

I see what wolfpawnat is saying, but would have to agree that this is essentially all she's hinting at. The right to be consulted is not really a right.

Perhaps in Ireland rights a regularly confounded with courtesies, perhaps because the legal system is so unreliable.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Perhaps in Ireland rights a regularly confounded with courtesies, perhaps because the legal system is so unreliable.

The reason is probably more simple than that. A person may think that something is unjust, that probably something should be done about it, but they're not really all that bothered about it in reality so they just say something off the top of their head and they've shown sympathy. A bit like when the relative of a co-worker dies and you feel obligated to say "I'm sorry for your loss". I wouldn't hold it against wolfpawnat though, at least she cares enough to say that much.

'Consultative rights' are a bit of a joke though. They're not enforced and in this area would amount to little more than a call from the airport at best.

And speaking of which, the last government's proposal for 'reforming' guardianship, allowing unmarried fathers to automatically become one, removes the previously held rights of a guardian to determine the educational, medical and religious upbringing of the child and turns it into a 'consultative right', whereby the custodial parent can choose unilaterally.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

The reason is probably more simple than that. A person may think that something is unjust, that probably something should be done about it, but they're not really all that bothered about it in reality so they just say something off the top of their head and they've shown sympathy. A bit like when the relative of a co-worker dies and you feel obligated to say "I'm sorry for your loss". I wouldn't hold it against wolfpawnat though, at least she cares enough to say that much.

'Consultative rights' are a bit of a joke though. They're not enforced and in this area would amount to little more than a call from the airport at best.

And speaking of which, the last government's proposal for 'reforming' guardianship, allowing unmarried fathers to automatically become one, removes the previously held rights of a guardian to determine the educational, medical and religious upbringing of the child and turns it into a 'consultative right', whereby the custodial parent can choose unilaterally.

I remember once it was suggested that clinics be required to demand a signature from a husband acknowledging he had been informed. That was in the US.

Saying sorry at a funeral is obliging protocol in a circumstance in which language fails. I don't agree with your metaphor and I'm glad you find sympathy in tokenising gestures, but I would see it a bit differently,more like a big gap between speech and action, you know....lip service.

My theory is that where law is unreliable you end up working in practise on goodwill. And people then feel vulnerable.

I'm not really sure I understand your last paragraph.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Saying sorry at a funeral is obliging protocol in a circumstance in which language fails. I don't agree with your metaphor and I'm glad you find sympathy in tokenising gestures, but I would see it a bit differently,more like a big gap between speech and action, you know....lip service.

Actually, I agree with you on the lip service. Then again saying sorry to a co-worker (I never mentioned a funeral) is often lip service too.

My theory is that where law is unreliable you end up working in practise on goodwill. And people then feel vulnerable.

I agree there too. Enforcement of parental rights, especially if one is not the custodial parent, are a joke in Ireland.

I'm not really sure I understand your last paragraph.

Just something related to 'consultative rights'; in essence, should the reform come in, fathers with guardianship - married or not - will lose their right to have any actual say in the religious and educational upbringing of their child. They'll only have a right to be consulted... informed.

All of which is totally OT.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, I agree with you on the lip service. Then again saying sorry to a co-worker (I never mentioned a funeral) is often lip service too.

I agree there too. Enforcement of parental rights, especially if one is not the custodial parent, are a joke in Ireland.

Just something related to 'consultative rights'; in essence, should the reform come in, fathers with guardianship - married or not - will lose their right to have any actual say in the religious and educational upbringing of their child. They'll only have a right to be consulted... informed.

All of which is totally OT.

Enforcement overall in Ireland's adhoc and often personal.

In fairness no one has any say in the educational and religious upbringing of their children as long as schools remain church run.

I've argued before that in Ireland if you look through the wider and historical lense, it would appear no one has rights over their children. It ultimately lies with the theocracy.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

In fairness no one has any say in the educational and religious upbringing of their children as long as schools remain church run.

You're confusing a poor choice with no choice.

Poor choice is having only religiously run schools in your area to choose from. No choice is when someone else chooses the worst of those schools for you.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're confusing a poor choice with no choice.

Poor choice is having only religiously run schools in your area to choose from. No choice is when someone else chooses the worst of those schools for you.

In most of the country people don't have a choice. It's Catholic or bust. And you are going to whichever school is in your bus route, which will of course be Catholic.

So you have no choice but to send them to a catholic school, whether you choose the better or worse from them your child will still end up having a catholic education and upbringing.

pwurple

clairefontaine wrote: »

In most of the country people don't have a choice. It's Catholic or bust. And you are going to whichever school is in your bus route, which will of course be Catholic.

So you have no choice but to send them to a catholic school, whether you choose the better or worse from them your child will still end up having a catholic education and upbringing.

How is that in any way on -topic?

You have plenty of choice
-Set up your own community school with like-minded people. See steiner schools etc for that.
-Send to any of the boarding schools, most of which are non-catholic.. being set up originally to accomodate the dispersion of chuch of ireland and other protestant groups.
-Move to an area with the schools which suit you, as many people (including myself) have done.


On-topic... as others have said, pro-life, pro-choice are effectively slogans, because no-one wants to actually say the "abortion" word out loud. Political poison.

clairefontaine

pwurple wrote: »

How is that in any way on -topic?

You have plenty of choice
-Set up your own community school with like-minded people. See steiner schools etc for that.
-Send to any of the boarding schools, most of which are non-catholic.. being set up originally to accomodate the dispersion of chuch of ireland and other protestant groups.
-Move to an area with the schools which suit you, as many people (including myself) have done.


On-topic... as others have said, pro-life, pro-choice are effectively slogans, because no-one wants to actually say the "abortion" word out loud. Political poison.

I was addressing TCs assertion about discrepancies in rights over educational and religious upbringing. Ask him how it's anyway in topic.

There are some pro life groups who do only care about foetuses. Like the RC church. They obviously don't care about kids or women,,when you look at their history.

I can't stand pro life groups. How many kids have you adopted I want to ask? How many kids have you helped raise I want to ask. But they say their main concern is saving lives. They think of it like a holocaust.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

I was addressing TCs assertion about discrepancies in rights over educational and religious upbringing. Ask him how it's anyway in topic.

Hey, don't point the finger at me; I said it was off topic and was happy to let it go - you're the one who decided to run with it and take us even more off topic

pwurple

clairefontaine wrote: »

I was addressing TCs assertion about discrepancies in rights over educational and religious upbringing. Ask him how it's anyway in topic.

There are some pro life groups who do only care about foetuses. Like the RC church. They obviously don't care about kids or women,,when you look at their history.

I can't stand pro life groups. How many kids have you adopted I want to ask? How many kids have you helped raise I want to ask. But they say their main concern is saving lives. They think of it like a holocaust.

The RC church seems to be struggling with the ethics of this in Ireland. Certainly at a local parish level at least. I'm catholic, and I go to mass (albeit not every week). Our parish priest's sermons have been about his own uncertainty in this area. How cruel it is in particular to force women carrying unviable pregnancies to continue to term. The impact on womens lives of rape, etc. He's not the only one, I understand from speaking to others that this is contentious within the church.

The church's whole raison d'etre is to provide ethical guidance, and the basic guideline of Love One Another doesn't sit well with 'force women through physically and emotionall painful experience for no greater good'.

Pro-life groups can often be .... misguided holy joes... for lack of a better word, rather than representative of all christians.

wolfpawnat

pwurple wrote: »

The RC church seems to be struggling with the ethics of this in Ireland. Certainly at a local parish level at least. I'm catholic, and I go to mass (albeit not every week). Our parish priest's sermons have been about his own uncertainty in this area. How cruel it is in particular to force women carrying unviable pregnancies to continue to term. The impact on womens lives of rape, etc. He's not the only one, I understand from speaking to others that this is contentious within the church.

The church's whole raison d'etre is to provide ethical guidance, and the basic guideline of Love One Another doesn't sit well with 'force women through physically and emotionall painful experience for no greater good'.

Pro-life groups can often be .... misguided holy joes... for lack of a better word, rather than representative of all christians.

Very true, also many pro-lifer's are not even church goers or Catholic at all. I know a priest like that too, he cannot understand why people think he should give marriage advice when he can never know the in's and out's of marriage, etc.

clairefontaine

This is a little OT but I think the Israeli abortion laws are fascinating. You can have an abortion under certain circumstances and have to meet with a panel. So they recognise life, but life is not absolute.