AIBU to ask how much support Pro-Life believers provide for actual children in need? Texas just banned abortion in the US.

[thecranberries]

AIBU to ask what Pro Life 'supporters' do to actually help living children in need? Sparked by Rachel Maddow Show Podcast on MSNBC - which gives a brilliant coverage on what's going on.

PL seems to want to stop a woman's right to choose, even in instances of rape or incest. That's in Texas, US, but as we know, many of the 'trends' that start in the US migrate over here. And as we know, there are lots of Pro-Life (read anti abortion, anti women) believers over here.

So, my AIBU is to ask - what do these PL do to actually support actual living children in need in this country or the world? How much do they give to UNICEF/Save the Children etc charities? How much do they donate time, money and resources to actual children living in poverty, bad housing, experiencing harm or bad schooling to ensure that these actual living children get the best life possible?

Do these PL, who cite religious grounds, actually enable women to obtain proper contraception when they need it? And speaking about religion, how many religious PL turn a blind eye to religious organisations history of child abuse?

I don't understand anyone, especially men, who does not accept a woman's right to chose what happens to her own body.

So, AIBU to ask Pro Life supporters to tell me in detail what they do - as actively as supporting their 'cause' - when it comes to helping living children in need?

But just as there is no situation I can think of where I would advocate killing children, I just cannot see that ending life could ever be an acceptable solution

It’s not a child though, that’s where your argument fails to hold weight. It’s got the potential to be a child but it’s not a child. I can only assume you hold extreme religious beliefs.

You do realise that if emergency services had to deal a heavily pregnant woman, who lets say was knocked over and they either had to save her or the baby, an actual viable baby, her life will always be priority. Of course they would try to save them both but legally the mother is the main patient.

[quote goinggently]@MrsSchrute it's not complex at all.

You have strong beliefs about abortion, so you'd be within your rights not to make that choice if you had an unwanted pregnancy.

Just don't try and inflict your arbitrary beliefs on other women.

See? It's easy! [/quote]
I never have and I never would. Vulnerable woman need support and compassion. Not judgement.

Should one heart beat (person) be allowed a decision to end another?

If that person has to completely give up their own body in order to support that other 'heartbeat' then yes, of course they should be allowed that decision.

The belief that we are all made in the image of God is not confined to Catholics. It's not optional if you are any sort of Christian.

@PlanDeRaccordement it's just a shame they're not a minority religion on the supreme bloody court!!

@BuffyFanForever

Almost all pro life groups have an outreach and support group. They are often well funded and do provide practical support eg clothing, baby essentials and in some cases housing etc in the US. Personally I respect EVERYONES rights, a clear and scientific way of deciding life is a heartbeat.

This is often used to determine death a heart beat can be detected between 3 and 4 weeks after conception. This is the main reason this ban has been put in place. Should one heart beat (person) be allowed a decision to end another?

You do realise at 3 or 4 weeks it doesn't even qualify as a foetus yet?

Why would a heartbeat be of significance in the absence of, say, a central nervous system, a brain or consciousness?

A heartbeat does not a person make.

So, theoretically, you would be fine with killing a baby ten minutes before birth, but not ten minutes after? Why?

That just wouldn't happen. However, my beliefs mean I would be ok with that happening.

The cut off point should be as early as possible, as late as necessary. If, for whatever reason, and, let's face it, it would have to be a pretty horrific reason at that point, it became necessary for a pregnancy to be terminated while the woman/girl is in labour then who the hell are any of us to judge the reasons for such a choice?

10 minutes after birth means it's no longer a pregnancy so is entirely different.

[quote goinggently]@PlanDeRaccordement it's just a shame they're not a minority religion on the supreme bloody court!! [/quote]
Yes. It is strange and a pity.

They don't WANT to keep the baby - that's why they want an abortion. If they wanted to keep the baby there would be no need for the baby to be adopted?!

this shows a dismally poor understanding of the motivations and emotions of a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. Equating a woman terminating an early pregnancy with handing over the baby she gave birth to is horrible - have you no understanding of what a woman like that would feel? I am the child of a 17 year old who had no choice but to hand me over for adoption. It affected her for the rest of her life. I doubt a termination at 8 weeks would have affected her much at all - and I would understand completely why she would have done it.

And as for "this isn't a ban on abortion in Texas". You can argue the semantics all you like but the prolifers believe it is a ban on abortion in Texas and are celebrating it as such. Abortion clinics in Texas have stopped performing abortions.

The majority of people in Texas don't agree with this law by the way (or the open carry law). There is minority rule in this and other states. Any republican/prolifer who has a crisis pregnancy in their family will simply hop on a plane to one of the godless states that will clear up their mess for them. this will disproprtionately affect poor women and poor children.

They are only pro life when the foetus is inside a woman.
Once it's born they don't give a fuck and are anti-welfare, anti-state support etc

Obviously, not all. But the vast majority.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

It’s not as simple as a heartbeat.

A foetus cannot survive independently. It’s the mother’s body that sustains life in a foetus.

That is true but if you use that argument against what counts as “life” then the same would ring true for someone who had a heart attack for example...without cpr they could die. Someone has to give up the time to give them cpr, run to get a defibrillator....

@Jaysmith71

The belief that we are all made in the image of God is not confined to Catholics. It's not optional if you are any sort of Christian.

True. Out of curiosity I looked it up, while 90% are Christians, the dominant religious denomination in Texas is Evangelical Protestants at 64.4%. Catholics are the largest minority at 21.2%. So obviously it can’t just be the Catholics pushing this.

I also found this interview with Andrew R. Lewis, assistant professor in the department of political science at the University of Cincinnati, an expert on evangelicals and politics, church-state relations, conservative legal activism, and rights politics.

He says in it

“In the 1970s, the pro-life position was predominantly Catholic. Before Roe, there were some liberal Protestant elements to the pro-life movement, as Daniel Williams’s book shows, but the Catholic Church was the dominant force. By the early-mid-1970s, there was a bit of growing concern within evangelicalism. Carl F. H. Henry took a strong pro-life stance in 1971, and the National Association of Evangelicals asserted its opposition to abortion in 1971 and 1973. But on the mass level, evangelicals were slow to join the pro-life movement. Even as late as 1979, the Baptist Joint Committee argued before a federal court that the Hyde Amendment, which restricted federal funds from being used to pay for abortions, violated the Establishment Clause because it established the Catholic religion. It really was not until the end of the 1970s and early 1980s that conservative Christians moved decidedly in the pro-life direction. More popular groups like Baptists for Life and Christians for Life were created in the mid- to late-1970s, for example. I draw attention to Francis Schaeffer’s books and documentary films, which were popular among churches, pastors, and lay leaders. Schaeffer’s works also influenced Jerry Falwell, who helped elevate abortion activism on the national political stage. In 1980, the SBC passed an unequivocally pro-life resolution.

At the rank-and-file level, however, we see the bigger trends come later. Evangelicals were always more pro-life than non-evangelicals, but those divisions are more stark in the 1990s and 2000s.

All of this is to say that that I would not point to one specific moment, but rather an evolutionary change within evangelicalism. You had

some elite and institutional leadership,
some grassroots advocacy,
a growing comfortability between evangelicals and Catholics,
an emphasis on how pastors and lay leaders were educated on the issue,
improved medical technology (such as ultrasounds), and
a re-framing of the debate to be focused on the rights of the unborn.”

You can put in every type of financial and community support but some women will still need abortions. Women like me. Who, after a contraceptive failure, find themselves so ill from pregnancy that their life is at risk. So I'm interested to see what BuffyFanForever and MrsShrute think people like me should do? Die along with a 7 week foetus? Leaving 2 small children motherless? Ironically I had previously asked my GP to refer me for sterilisation and was refused due to my young age. Had no problems getting sterilised after the abortion.

That is true but if you use that argument against what counts as “life” then the same would ring true for someone who had a heart attack for example...without cpr they could die. Someone has to give up the time to give them cpr, run to get a defibrillator....

Are you comparing 9 months of pregnancy and then birth and post partum issues.... To a few minutes of CPR?

That is true but if you use that argument against what counts as “life” then the same would ring true for someone who had a heart attack for example...without cpr they could die. Someone has to give up the time to give them cpr, run to get a defibrillator....

Boding those things does not put you at risk and lasts a short time and if for some reason it does put you in danger then you are advised not to put yourself at risk. You cannot compare giving first aid to someone to pregnancy, birth and all that come with it.

That is true but if you use that argument against what counts as “life” then the same would ring true for someone who had a heart attack for example...without cpr they could die. Someone has to give up the time to give them cpr, run to get a defibrillator....

A defibrillator or any other medical equipment is not a human body, a person in their own right.

@Passmeamenuatthetottenham

That is true but if you use that argument against what counts as “life” then the same would ring true for someone who had a heart attack for example...without cpr they could die. Someone has to give up the time to give them cpr, run to get a defibrillator....

Are you comparing 9 months of pregnancy and then birth and post partum issues.... To a few minutes of CPR?

Yes, I think they actually are!! Crackers but yes!

Boding those things does not put you at risk and lasts a short time and if for some reason it does put you in danger then you are advised not to put yourself at risk.

Yes, in any first aid training you are always told not to give CPR if it will put your own life a risk, and you are told not to do the breaths if you don't want to as well, even though obviously doing the breaths will help. Same as in water lifesaving lessons - you are always told not to put your own life at risk in order to try and save someone else.

And yet, women are supposed to put their own lives at risk from pregnancy and birth in order to sustain a foetus?

Bit of a crap example that poster has chosen really....

@Tevin

You can put in every type of financial and community support but some women will still need abortions. Women like me. Who, after a contraceptive failure, find themselves so ill from pregnancy that their life is at risk. So I'm interested to see what BuffyFanForever and MrsShrute think people like me should do? Die along with a 7 week foetus? Leaving 2 small children motherless? Ironically I had previously asked my GP to refer me for sterilisation and was refused due to my young age. Had no problems getting sterilised after the abortion.

I am sorry that you had to go through that. What a heartbreaking situation. If a friend of mine was in your situation I wouldn't advise them at all. I would do everything I could to support them through such an incredibly difficult decision.

@Tevin,

If you were in Texas, you’d still be able to get an abortion as there is an exception for the mothers life or health. (That’s because abortions weren’t banned, but rather, heavily restricted.) So not even the pro-lifers who voted this bill into law are in favour of letting women die of pregnancy related complications.

[quote goinggently]@MrsSchrute at birth[/quote]
So you'd kill an 8 and a half month old unborn child? If you would then I hope people don't even bother to reason with you any further.

This is my main issue with people who are pro-choice. They all draw some imaginary line somewhere where one day it's not a baby, and the next day it is.

I understand people who support abortion, but I will never, ever understand people who support it up to birth. It honestly makes me ill to think about.

What I would or wouldn't do is not relevant

@goinggently

What I would or wouldn't do is not relevant

Why isn't it? You used that as your argument but then you won't accept that that's what it means.

@Mrgrinch
This is my main issue with people who are pro-choice. They all draw some imaginary line somewhere where one day it's not a baby, and the next day it is.

I think everyone, prolife or pro choice does this drawing of a line between fetus and baby or unborn and personhood. There are simply extreme ends of that spectrum. The prolife extreme is drawing the line at conception, the prochoice extreme is drawing the line at birth.

I had seen a survey, will try and find it, but it was basically saying that while at conception through first trimester, the majority of people support elective abortion, this % decreases through the second trimester, and by 3rd trimester most people do not support (late term) elective abortion.

• elective abortion means by choice on a healthy fetus with healthy adult mother and not due to fetal abnormalities or endangerment of the mothers health/life or an abortion for a minor.

I was asked when a fetus becomes a baby and the answer (as written in law) is birth.