Skip to main content

In the wake of the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision much of the old bitterness, angers, rabid rhetoric and personal views have floated to the surface in a fresh outbreak of angry words and fresh accusations.  Let's face it, abortion, contraceptives and a woman's right to choose are touchy subjects that bring out the ugliest demons in people.  There has never been, unfortunately, any middle ground when it comes to these topics.

Even the very labels used are divisive and make it clear that there will never be a middle ground on this subject:  pro-life and pro-choice.  These labels are so inadequate and so misleading that it is almost criminal ignorance that we still use them.  Furthermore, it is yet another evidence that the mythical "liberal biased media" has allowed the decisively conservative side of the argument to control the conversation.  Pro-life as opposed to pro-death? in women's right to choose what?  Choose a selfish choice of their body as opposed to a "baby's" life?  The entire conversation is one sided and those that are fighting for a woman's right to choose what is done with their body have made the mistake by allowing this one sided conversation to continue.

So let's talk about the "semantics" of the so-called "pro-life" national discussion.

First...let us make it very clear that the people that claim to be "pro-life" are anything but.  The idea would be that they are in favor of protecting and nurturing life.  It seems like a noble pursuit if it were not so completely misleading...

So let's make a new set of rules...

1.  You don't get to call yourself pro-life if you are against the social net programs that too often is the only thing that keeps these kids from starving and being homeless.

2.  You don't get to call yourself pro-life if you are in favor of baseless wars and extended combat in useless, pointless wars.

3.  You don't get to call yourself pro-life if you do not care about the dire results of rape and would instead choose to protect the rights of the rapist instead of the victim.

4.  You don't get to call yourself pro-life and be angry about children coming across the border and prefer to let them die in the desert than take them in and preserve their life.

5  You don't get to call yourself pro-life if you support the death penalty.

6.  You don't get to call yourself pro-life if your right to own guns without any sensible restrictions supersedes the value of our children's lives.  If you put a weapon in your child's hands and promote the gun culture in this country then you are not only an irresponsible parent but you are far from pro-life.

7.  You don't get to force me to use "baby" instead of "fetus" as long as you use "collateral damage" instead of "innocent victims."

8.  You don't get to call abortion "murder" as long as you refuse to acknowledge the "war crimes" and "genocide" we have participated in in Iraq.

9.  You don't get to call yourself pro-life and ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence that our planet is being destroyed by people that only care about their profits.  If you are a climate change denier, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, then you are NOT pro-life.

10.  If you are against healthcare for the children after they are born, if you are against healthcare for the parents that support that child, nurture that child and provide for that child, regardless of their ability to pay, then you do not get to call yourself pro life.

11.  If you recklessly endanger the lives of those healthcare workers that provide services for women by publishing their names, their addresses and inviting violence and murder; if you cheer on this behavior and see the resulting deaths as justice instead of murder...then you do not get to call yourself pro life.

So let's call it what it is...You are pro birth.  Once that child is born you do not care what he or she does or if he or she lives.  As a matter of fact, you don't really care what happens in that individual's life until it is time for them to procreate and add more people to the pool for you to get to join your religious organizations and provide more money for your coffers.  You are a hypocrite.  You are a bigot.  You are using your religious views and religious freedom to force your views and your dogma on others.  You are a puppet.  A puppet in a war waged by religious leaders that are more interested in their wealth and influence then they are in the well being of their parishioners.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  pro-innocent life (0+ / 0-)

    doesn't mean being against the death penalty, nor does it mean that you must believe the welfare state is the best way to tackle poverty.  

    I think you make some good points, especially about publishing names of healthcare workers, but the idea that someone that has a certain ethic that drives them to be against abortion must also mean they would be for a liberal set of solutions is my view wrong.

    •  I'm against the death penalty precisely because... (6+ / 0-)

      ...we execute innocent people all the time when we exercise it.  Ig you are truly pro-innocent life, you should be against the death penalty too.  Look at the number of people who have post-conviction DNA testing performed these days and are found innocent.

      •  I understand that argument. (0+ / 0-)

        I would agree that we should do our best not to execute innocent people, but protecting innocent life sometimes means that the state must execute justices.

        I'm neither strongly for or against the death penalty, but I don't think there is a clear case either way.

        •  If you were wrongfully convicted... (4+ / 0-)

          ...and sitting on death row, I think you'd feel differently.  Would you really be sitting there resigning yourself to being executed for something you didn't do, because society "did its best" in convicting you?

          You do not need to kill a person to mete out justice - the act of killing is final and irrevocable, and the state should not be in the business of doing so, because all too often an innocent person is executed.  

          Do some people deserve death?  Certainly, many who are alive deserve death, but conversely, many who die deserve life, can you give it to them?

    •  Intellectual Dissonance (8+ / 0-)

      I think the argument is less about a "liberal set of solutions" and more about that at the core, these right leaning social solutions are, at their core, in direct contrast to the concept of being in support of the "sanctity" of life.  There is a dissonance at the core of these beliefs.  By choosing to vilify those that support measures to preserve lives while at the same time choosing to sit on some proverbial moral high horse based on religious views regarding the subject of abortion or contraceptives they display a disturbing inability to reason.  To claim that a fetus is an innocent life to be protected but starving children or children butchered by war of any kind, much less baseless wars to enrich the rich even more is a complete display of disconnect.  If our children being butchered in schools by people waving guns and you refuse to take even the most basic and reasonable steps to prevent it in the future then you simply do not get to claim you are pro life...even pro innocent lives, because what is more innocent and more precious then the lives of our children.  If you see innocent children needing to eat, and that it is not your problem, but rather their dead beat parents', then you are not pro innocent lives.  You are hiding behind a resounding dissonance of values and intellect in an attempt to shove your religious and moral views on those around you.

      Carpe Diem! Musing Madman

      by Darkwulfe on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 07:57:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here is the deal... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        There exists a large subset of people that are against the welfare state, are pro-life, and give countless time and money to helping the poor.

        I know many people such as this.

        •  Welfare State... (5+ / 0-)

          I have always found this term to be a fascinating one.  I am not in favor of perpetuating poverty by giving a living to those that are unwilling to work.  Neither am I in favor of leaving the innocent children that these dead beats procreate to starve or live on the street.  If that means I support a "welfare state" then so be it.  There are those that give time and money to helping the poor but they are not as wide spread as your rose tinted glasses of the beauty and well meaning of humanity seems to preclude.  there is a LARGE subset of people that are against the welfare state AND are pro life..but not nearly as big of a subset of people that you seem to think there is of those that are against the welfare state, pro life AND give time and money to helping the poor.

          If these innocent lives are to survive then depending on the generosity of this "subset" is just not going to cut it.  

          Carpe Diem! Musing Madman

          by Darkwulfe on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 08:16:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  We Tried It Their Way for 8-10,000 Years. (10+ / 0-)

          The result has invariably been a few aristocratic rich and everyone else working poor with no opportunity. It was that way here till the 1940's.

          The ONLY thing that does a nickel's worth of good is 20th century liberalism. The only thing that makes any dent in the number of poor and their prospects. It was proven here and across the developed world.

          The people you're talking about take the Golden Commandment to be "The poor you shall always have with you." Whether they believe it or not, what they do is to ensure it.

          Eight millennia for God's sake, the data's in.

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 08:27:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  They're not just liberal solutions... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cjtjc, Prickly Pam

      they're also supposed to be Christian values.  And since so many of the pro-life, pro-birth movement claim to be Christians, it is appropriate in my opinion to call out their hypocrisy.

      Someone brighter than I coined the term "cafeteria Christians" to describe those self-labelled Christians who want to be able to pick and choose which teachings of Christ they agree with and which they will ignore.

      The current uproar on the right about what Pope Francis has been saying since his appointment is a great example.  He's being criticized by many on the right for daring to give voice to the biblical teachings of Christ.

      I guess, just like the President, he' a bit too "uppity" for their liking.

    •  If you are a true Christian (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gfv6800, Prickly Pam

      Then ALL  life is worth preserving, even those on death row. But most conservative so-called Christians actually follow the Old Testament and don't believe in the words of Christ.

  •  Pro Choice (5+ / 0-)


    Allowing the "discussion" to be between forced birth and having a choice is a false paradigm.

    "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

    by blackhand on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 07:59:13 AM PDT

    •  The real problem... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It boils down to the right being allowed to define the position of both sides of the argument.  By defining the "pro choice" argument as the choice of a life or not they have managed to paint the "pro choice" stand as a selfish and irresponsible mom choosing to have sex but not take responsibility.  This is simply not the case.  The so called "liberal media' has perpetuated this dialogue and the Pro Choice side has made the mistake of allowing the right to define their stand and even, to some extent, adopting it.

      Carpe Diem! Musing Madman

      by Darkwulfe on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 08:07:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  They are Forced Birthers (6+ / 0-)

    I just posted this in another diary comment but I will post it here too. They are not Pro Life for all the reasons you wrote about Darkwulfe.  What I call them  are Forced Birthers because that is all they really care about. After a child is born they could care less about the health and welfare of that child.

    Why yes there is a war on women and minorities.

    by karma5230 on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 08:27:25 AM PDT

    •  There's a Planned Parenthood office downtown (6+ / 0-)

      They don't provide abortion care, but the wingnuts are still out there protesting.  I really want to go ask them this question:

      If the fetus you save turns out to be gay, will you still fight for its rights?
      I'm pretty sure I'll get the "innocent life" pablum we saw above, but the look on their faces while they try to reason that out would be priceless!
    •  It's simpler than that. They're Whore Punishers. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Prickly Pam

      They believe any woman having any sex they did not condone should be punished, period. There's the sex they ok, and then all else is whoredom.

      If that sex is rape and she's pregnant, she deserves to have to have, and raise with no help, that baby -- plus the rapist ought to get visitation rights and be able to decide, until the child is 21, how the child is fed, sheltered and schooled, because if she wasn't hot for the rapist she shouldn't have been within his reach. All their gawds know men have no self-control at all.

      They can all go fuck themselves sideways with a rusty chainsaw until they quit making any noise or wiggling at all.

      LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

      by BlackSheep1 on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 11:09:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There's plenty of middle ground. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Bill Clinton called it safe, legal, and rare.  On the one hand you make sure the option is legally protected and maybe make sure access actually exists.  On the other hand you make sure adoption is a realistic option and that those who decide to keep their baby have access to any necessary assistance.

  •  Another issue (4+ / 0-)

        Many government regulations save lives. The massive loss of life in the Bangladesh factory fire is unlikely to happen in America (for now) because our government has set standards for worker safety.

        But I'll bet you that if I draw a Venn diagram with one circle representing anti-abortionists and another one representing those who advocate for these worker protections, the overlap would by tiny indeed.

        There are many, many examples besides this one...

    "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

    by Buzzer on Sun Jul 13, 2014 at 09:59:11 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site