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?

[quote UpstreamSwimmer]@PlanDeRaccordement

Why? Why is the state obligated to pay for someone's choice on whether to keep their baby or not?[/quote]
Apart from the moral argument for the State paying for abortions, there is also a financial argument. It costs the State less money to provide abortions to women who want them, than it does subsidising the raising of all those resultant children if the women are forced to go through with childbirth. For awhile the US was even making welfare benefits dependent for many mothers on the mother having the contraceptive implant put in...to prevent her getting pregnant and having more children on benefits. They did this to save money.

So it follows, they’d actually save money by letting poor women who want an abortion to have it for free. It’s not going to cost tax payers any additional money.

@Tubbytenbums

Are these pro life supporters not the first to support the death penalty?????

I'm not even pro life but you can't compare abortion to executing a murderer or rapist, necessarily

For people who believe in capital punishment and not abortion, it's because execution is the ultimate punishment. They have their life taken away because they took someone else's whereas a fetus hasn't had a chance to live yet

Pro life doesn't mean pro every single life, I think it's a bit disingenuous to assume that. Most people would say it's acceptable to kill in self defence but most people aren't 'pro-death'. Just means death is acceptable for them in one scenario

@VulvaTeeth
Snap! I was writing same argument at same time :)

Anti abortion is not anti women. It's clear that many people are both, but many others are pro-life partly because abortion is such a damaging experience for many women.

To pretty much ban abortion on the grounds that some women have a bad time is anti-woman, hiding behind those people as an excuse. Like banning any other healthcare procedure because some people don't take to it well

But there should be more balance, because some women do regret it. Both sides should be allowed to be heard and counselling always encouraged. I hate that anyone who questions anything is labelled anti straight away

With any decision, a certain % will always experience regret. There is no decision in life that is ever regret free.

This includes both deciding to have an abortion AND deciding to have the baby. Yes some women do regret having a child.

So basically counselling is just needed no matter what anyone chooses.

You can believe what you want. If you want to believe in fairies and unicorns, you’re free to. Science doesn’t back up your belief though because no life begins at conception. Only a blastocyst, then an embryo and finally a foetus. It isn’t a life, is isn’t alive and before 22 weeks it has no hope in hell of surviving without the human host it lives in. The woman is, however, alive and should have autonomy over her own body

Human life begins at conception and that's ok. It's ok to end that life, but it's still life. I don't get the parasite thing people go on about. Parasitic organisms are still alive.

Also, 20 years ago, a 22 wheeler wouldn't survive. Hell, decades before that, a 35 seeker wouldn't survive. Your comment implies 'life' is dependent on whatever technology we have at present.

(If you were to admit conception were the bar for life would that make abortion wrong for you?)

The only universal marker for human life can be conception. It's ok to end that life, just like euthanasia and assisted suicide are ok, as it's in everyone's best interest.

[quote EKGEMS]@TableFlowerss Do you realize there are 50 states in the USA and there's millions of citizens who don't agree with this new TX law including many, many Texans? You are smearing a lot [/quote]
Of course most people don’t agree with, because it absolutely horrific. What’s that get to do with the price of chickens?

The point is, Texas is a state in the US. The land of the free…. So of course it’s astonishing that even one state has passed this ridiculous law….

@EKGEMS

Sorry I hit post too soon-of Americans who absolutely are more progressive than TX? I could use stereotypes to describe the UK and it would only showcase my ignorance like you do *@TableFlowerss*

What you getting yourself all stressed about?

You’re point about being ignorant makes no sense at all.

The fact a law has been passed is barbaric. The fact it’s been allowed to happen is barbaric.

@2kl4skl

I agree. Idk why some people insist an embryo or fetus “isn’t alive or a life”. It absolutely is a life and alive, it’s just not a person with rights. The only person with rights is the pregnant woman.

Excellent point @2kl4skl

It’s bizarre that some make the case that there is only “life”, or life worth protecting, when it can survive independently and unsupported. Imagine applying this to people in comas, on life support, kidney dialysis etc.?
Do they lose their right to life?

BTW I am not arguing that it is wrong to end embryonic life; I’m totally pro choice, but am puzzled by the life beginning at x stage position.

An unfertilised egg is alive, but it is not a life. Left to its own devices, it cannot survive. Ditto a sperm.

A fertilised egg is no different until it reaches some point where it can survive independently of the host mother. Once it reaches this point where it can be said to be a living organism in itself, then it can have rights, which it does not lose until death.

This is not holy writ. Just pragmatic ethics.

@Jaysmith71

An unfertilised egg is alive, but it is not a life. Left to its own devices, it cannot survive. Ditto a sperm.

A fertilised egg is no different until it reaches some point where it can survive independently of the host mother. Once it reaches this point where it can be said to be a living organism in itself, then it can have rights, which it does not lose until death.

This is not holy writ. Just pragmatic ethics.

True, but that is just an arbitrary view. The argument can just as well be made that left to its own devices, a fetus will eventually develop into a 90 year old human. And on the other extreme, why not argue that poor woman who will struggle to raise their child etc should have the right to 'abort' their baby up to a month after birth?

The whole pro-abortion movement is just about choosing an arbitrary point, up to which they allow termination of (at the very least potential) human life. To pretend that anyone disagreeing with that arbitrary point is an oppressor of women is simply disingenuous.

@Lycanthropology

Excellent point *@2kl4skl*

It’s bizarre that some make the case that there is only “life”, or life worth protecting, when it can survive independently and unsupported. Imagine applying this to people in comas, on life support, kidney dialysis etc.?
Do they lose their right to life?

BTW I am not arguing that it is wrong to end embryonic life; I’m totally pro choice, but am puzzled by the life beginning at x stage position.

But we pull the plug on people on life support all the time. That invalidates your argument.

The problem is that the question of when life begins is not a scientific one, it is an ethical question. There is no objectively correct answer. It depends on how you define 'life' and more specifically 'human life'.

I don't think anyone in this debate picks an arbitrary time point. Anti-abortion people say either at conception or at fertilization. Pro-choice people tend to say either after the first trimester or the point of viability.

You can make an ethical argument for any of those time points.

The problem is when you want to enforce your ethical interpretation on everyone else. That is in fact oppressing women because you are taking away their ability to make their own ethical choices.

There is a solid basis for outlawing, say, murder because murder has been taboo in most societies throughout history. There is a consensus that it is bad. But this consensus does not exist for abortion and so it is wrong to impose your own ethics on everyone else.

True, but that is just an arbitrary view.

It is arbitrary. Not in a flip-a-coin way but based on a pragmatic calculation of what we can do.

It is not unlike the evolving concept of what constitutes death. Certainly not an absence of breathing or a heartbeat, both of which can be remedied. Death is an arbitrary point after which the patient cannot be revived, given the availability of assistance wherever they happen to be, and/or how long it would take to bring that assitance to the patient or the patient to the assistance.

Viability is also a moving target. It's the best we can do.

But we pull the plug on people on life support all the time. That invalidates your argument

I obviously didn't make my point clear, because it wasn't that all life should be protected. I'm not pro-life at all.
I was asking how those who think that life is defined by its being independent and unsupported view those cases. I gave no opinion of my own.

BuffySummersReportingForSanity

"That's nice and everything, but free nappies are a drop in the fucking ocean of having to raise your rapist's child, or raise a child while still a child yourself, or not be able to go back to work/school because of a child you didn't want, or just purely go through having to bear and raise a child that you don't want to bear and raise.

If women are genuinely contemplating abortion because they don't know how they'll keep a baby in nappies and formula and otherwise want to keep it and that helps them, great. But a few free nappies and formula are nothing on the scale of what it takes - financially, emotionally, physically, logistically - to have a child, and forced-birthers shouldn't fool themselves that they've made it aaaaaaall better."
Sorry I don't know how to tag on the phone app. I was responding to the op's original post of do PL people actually provide any real support. I was never asserting that this would be enough to change someone's mind, simply stating what I have observed the pro lifers in my town doing to provide practical support.

Many US states have been trying and had these type of laws repealed for decades. I'm not sure how its surprising to anyone at this point. This has little to do with Texas and all to do with another run at the Supreme Court. It would be laughable if it wasn't so fucked up.

In America a lot of the Christian pro lifers will actually provide and/or find homes for the babies.

It may be a lot, but it is no where near the majority and the efforts described are largely only apply to single women. Married women are treated very differently and while they may get some items, are largely ignored.

A married woman cannot legally adopt out a child on her own -- which may be why married women make up a significant proportion of those who get abortions. More than 1 in 4 abortions in the US last I read, with some places having far higher stats but not everywhere collects that data.

No one would want that. But why is the answer to kill them?

Because abortion has less risks to the pregnant woman or pregnant girl.

It's constantly discussed how pregnancy and childbirth related complication can end up with lifelong consequences that are often ignored. I think that promoting an ideology that speaks against having available a less risky option is to dismiss those risks as unimportant - that those who choose to risk them aren't doing anything really of value because it's just something we should do.

And with no crystal ball, we cannot always determine risk to life and long-term health beforehand to enable legislative exceptions to be used.

Why isn't the answer to ask why women are so disadvantaged in society in so many way?

Women of all backgrounds get abortions. Disadvantaged women are just most likely to be harmed if abortion is hard to obtain legally which is why many focus their concern there. Those well to do will get around the rules.

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.

I don't think most people who vote for pro-life legislators are part of pro-life groups. I know churches with hundreds of people who vote for these types of politicans and maybe a handful will actively be part of those groups who do these actions. For most, it's just being part of the group - we are X so we believe Y. The work done to make it part of the Evangelical identity has a lot written on it - it didn't used to be that way, it was cultural shift and backlash to the '60s to get them useful for political groups. It's had some nasty ramifications.

The whole pro-abortion movement is just about choosing an arbitrary point, up to which they allow termination of (at the very least potential) human life. To pretend that anyone disagreeing with that arbitrary point is an oppressor of women is simply disingenuous.

No, the whole point for most of it is that the pregnant woman's or girl's life that actually entirely exists should be what we consider rather than any potential - what are her risks? Is she happy accepting those risks for the potential benefit? If not, how do we lower her risks to an accepted level? In the late-term abortions which are vanishingly small amount and pretty much always involves the news that the desired benefit is not going to be reality, how does she want to handle that? Unwanted pregnancies have a higher risk rates for nearly everything for a whole host of reasons, why would we want anyone to take risks they didn't choose if there is a less risky alternative?

@BiBabbles That is the most sensible post I have seen on this issue so far. Anti-abortionists don't care if women die or end up disabled from giving birth. The "vessel" matters very little to them as long as she is not free to live her life the way she wants.

@Jaysmith71
A fertilised egg is no different until it reaches some point where it can survive independently of the host mother. Once it reaches this point where it can be said to be a living organism in itself, then it can have rights, which it does not lose until death.

Currently, in most countries, legally you are not person with rights until after you are born. Even a fetus at 24weeks (point where they can survive outside the womb with medical assistance) is not a person and has no rights. It’s ok that this is your personal ethical line as to when a fetus gains personhood.

@Urghhhhh
But we pull the plug on people on life support all the time. That invalidates your argument.

Actually it doesn’t invalidate @Lycanthropology argument at all. They were just saying that having the right to life as a person doesn’t include all that is a human life.

So when it’s a person capable of consent, they consent to maintaining or ending their life (dialysis, transplants, assisted suicide, etc). But when the person cannot consent, there is always next of kin who do have to consent to end that life. Embryonic or Fetal life is also life, but they are not a person, and so the consent always automatically reverts to the pregnant woman carrying that embryo or fetus. She decides to maintain or end that life.

@dreamingbohemian

Great post.
I agree people don’t arbitrarily draw those lines, they do use both moral and scientific information when making that choice for themselves about the ethics of abortion. I agree can’t impose personal ethics on all women.

@BiBabbles
Excellent post. You wrote
“I don't think most people who vote for pro-life legislators are part of pro-life groups. I know churches with hundreds of people who vote for these types of politicans and maybe a handful will actively be part of those groups who do these actions. For most, it's just being part of the group - we are X so we believe Y. The work done to make it part of the Evangelical identity has a lot written on it - it didn't used to be that way, it was cultural shift and backlash to the '60s to get them useful for political groups. It's had some nasty ramifications.”

I did post earlier in the thread about this as many were blaming “the Catholics” for the law in Texas, when Catholics as you know are a minority so couldn’t have done all this by themselves. I posted an interview question response from a Professor that studies the rise of prolife amongst evangelical Protestants. It was a fascinating read to see how they began to shift from prochoice to prolife in the 1970s.

I am glad you have corroborated that because it is important to know WHO exactly is behind these laws and WHY they are getting them passed.

@Mummyford

Yes the law disproportionately affects disadvantaged women. Well off women will have no trouble just buying a plane ticket. Ok off women can drive or take a bus. But poor women are truly stuck.

I was just correcting the prior poster who said anyone anywhere can be prosecuted for helping a Texan woman, which isn’t true. It’s only anyone in Texas who knowingly helps that can be prosecuted. Texas law doesn’t apply to anyone outside Texas.

Its very easy to say in a safe little westernised bubble that it's wrong. But girls In other countries are maried off as children. Thrown in the trash at birth. Left to die in menstruation huts. They die of treatable diseases because if having no male family member to agree their treatment. There are countries where domestic violence is the norm. They are shunned by their husbands and their families when their under developed immature bodies don't cope with pregnancy and child birth and they suffer complications. They are trafficked and raped repeatedly. Denied education. Rights to bodily autonomy and god knows what else in this world. If I lived somewhere where these things happened. I'm sure I'd think twice about whether i wanted to bring a girl into this world.

I'm struggling to understand how you think women subjected to oppression and abuse would be better off if there were proportionately fewer of them and proportionately more men. Sounds like a way to make Gilead a reality because I don't think the men that make laws and influence culture in those countries are going to have a sudden change of heart about the value of women.

Sex selective abortion is eugenics, opposing it does not change the fact I am pro choice just because some people may think an abortion at anytime for any reason should be a right.

I'm trying to understand if some posters believe that terminating a healthy foetus at near full term just because the mother demands it is OK?