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?

@goinggently

It's not a baby

So when does it become one?

@MrsSchrute because if you don't support women's access to safe and legal abortions then you are de facto acknowledging that you're ok with dangerous illegal abortions existing. And if you deny that then you are just not engaging with reality - that desperate women will always seek abortions regardless of whether the law supports them.
You can't indulge in the charming fantasy that abortion gets banned and women's lives are just fine as a result. Many women will die as a result of these laws and an enormous amount of suffering will be inflicted on women and their families. That is infinitely worse than abortions from any angle.

Going back to the original point of the tweet and this Twitter thread seemed relevant.

mobile.twitter.com/TuttleSinger/status/1128739808178843649

At the end of the day though nothing that pro-life (or anti-abortion; I'm happy to own that description) people say is ever going to be good enough and threads like this are usually a thinly-disguised opportunity to put the boot in.

Why should women have to accept the situation they are in when there are solutions to change that situation. Not wanting a baby is a valid reason whether you approve or not.

Bodily autonomy.

@goinggently

It's a real struggle to see how catholics can claim to have any sort of moral highground in any way. Child sexual abuse is institutionalised and covered up. Human rights abuses inflicted on young mothers in ireland... absolutely barbaric. The thought of a charity, aka an institution, adopting babies makes me cold to my core. The legislators of this new law have blood on their hands.

6 out of 9 members of the Supreme Court in the US are catholic. It's nothing short of a religiously extreme takeover and a dystopian nightmare.

And yes, encouraging people to inform on women... a 21st century witch hunt

Yes I can’t get my head around how blinkered some people are about their religion. And turning people into Stasi spy snitches is terrifying.

@Jaysmith71 yes exactly, not a baby

@Jaysmith71

It is also interesting that US Pro-Lifers are also invariably enthusiastic about the death penalty, even the RC ones where the Pope has made it clear this double standard is not on.

"Sanctity of Life," not really.

This is a bit of false equivalence. The death penalty is reserved for criminals who have committed serious crimes usually involving murder of multiple people. An unborn fetus has committed no crime whatsoever. So it is very possible and not odd at all to be pro-life and pro-death penalty or pro-choice and pro-death penalty or any combination really.

At the end of the day though nothing that pro-life (or anti-abortion; I'm happy to own that description) people say is ever going to be good enough and threads like this are usually a thinly-disguised opportunity to put the boot in.

I prefer the term 'forced birther', presumably you are happy to own that description as well?

@MrsSchrute at birth

Its so sickening, i think u can totally be against abortion but to feel that ur opnion should be forced on to a woman in that situation is sickening to me. I think it boils down to control and a way of keeping the poor in poverty. Disgusting.

This is a bit of false equivalence. The death penalty is reserved for criminals who have committed serious crimes usually involving murder of multiple people. An unborn fetus has committed no crime whatsoever. So it is very possible and not odd at all to be pro-life and pro-death penalty or pro-choice and pro-death penalty or any combination really.*

The same demographic also tends to be very pro-gun in America. In fact almost all of the very same people who think a woman shouldn't be allowed an abortion, also think that a load of kids being massacred in their own school are acceptable collateral for the 'freedom' to own a gun.

So yeah, 'sanctity of life my arse'.

Sorry the first part of my post was supposed to be a quote.

Because also all them rich woman or daughters of rich people are not going to keep a pregnancy, they just have the money to get it else where, which just makes whole so dam Hypocritical

[quote goinggently]@MrsSchrute because if you don't support women's access to safe and legal abortions then you are de facto acknowledging that you're ok with dangerous illegal abortions existing. And if you deny that then you are just not engaging with reality - that desperate women will always seek abortions regardless of whether the law supports them.
You can't indulge in the charming fantasy that abortion gets banned and women's lives are just fine as a result. Many women will die as a result of these laws and an enormous amount of suffering will be inflicted on women and their families. That is infinitely worse than abortions from any angle.[/quote]
I disagree.
I don't support the legalisation of prostitution, does that make me a supporter of the sex trade? I don't support the legalisation of drugs, does that make me a supporter of drug trafficking?

I don't indulge any kind of fantasy. I know that there will always be people who will exploit anyone who is vulnerable in anyway. And quite obviously back street abortions are absolutely horrendous.

It is an incredibly complex situation. 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.

@Passmeamenuatthetottenham

It's true, that the foetus wouldn't survive outside of the mother's body, but then a newborn wouldn't survive without an adult to take care of it. So one is of value and the other isn't, even though neither could survive independently?

It's not about 'value' - it's about a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body.

Do you believe in forced organ donation to preserve life as well?

No I don't. The conflict comes because we are not just talking about the woman's body, we are also taking about the babies body. Both are of value.

If every life is sacred, as the RC Chruch says, then what part of "every" do you not understand.

No false equivalence if you are arguing for the Sanctity of Life. We are all made in the image of God, including murderers.

(If you believe in that sort of thing.)

@Passmeamenuatthetottenham

This is a bit of false equivalence. The death penalty is reserved for criminals who have committed serious crimes usually involving murder of multiple people. An unborn fetus has committed no crime whatsoever. So it is very possible and not odd at all to be pro-life and pro-death penalty or pro-choice and pro-death penalty or any combination really.*

The same demographic also tends to be very pro-gun in America. In fact almost all of the very same people who think a woman shouldn't be allowed an abortion, also think that a load of kids being massacred in their own school are acceptable collateral for the 'freedom' to own a gun.

So yeah, 'sanctity of life my arse'.

They are also very 'my body, my choice' when it comes to vaccines

[quote goinggently]@MrsSchrute at birth[/quote]
So, theoretically, you would be fine with killing a baby ten minutes before birth, but not ten minutes after? Why?

@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!

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?

And it is simply not true, whatever you believe to say that human life 'begins' at conception. The egg and the sperm are human. The mother and father are human. Ditto the grandparents, etc.

All sing "The Circle of Life!"

And if you talk to an obstetrician such as Lord Robert Winston, they will confirm that there is no such thing as a 'moment of conception.' Conception does not take place in a moment. It is a process, not an event.

@MrsSchrute you simply asked me when it becomes a baby and I answered. In law, it is at birth.

The conflict comes because we are not just talking about the woman's body, we are also taking about the babies body.

But the foetus's body can only survive by the woman giving up her body. The foetus needs the woman's body in order to survive (if the mother died, the foetus would die, once a baby is born this is not the case).

The woman has to willingly give up her body to support the foetus and if she does not want to do that, you believe she should be forced to anyway, against her will? That her role as nothing more than 'incubator' for another life is more important than her own autonomy about whether she actually wants to play the role of 'incubator'?

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.

@Jaysmith71

If every life is sacred, as the RC Chruch says, then what part of "every" do you not understand.

No false equivalence if you are arguing for the Sanctity of Life. We are all made in the image of God, including murderers.

(If you believe in that sort of thing.)

Yes the RC church is currently opposed to the death penalty, but the people who voted the death penalty into law were not practicing Roman Catholics. Roman Catholics are a minority religion in the US.