So you admit that "Pro-Life" ONLY refers to the fetus? That's what I've been saying all along After it's born the "Pro-Lifers" don't give a damn about it...
It appears to me that the Pro-Life stance is very narrowly defined as Pro-Fetus, not really Pro-Life itself. With such a narrow definition, they are being super myopic & damaging to the rights of millions of adult or young women all for the sake of nonviable fetuses. That seems to me a morbid & poorly thought out trade off. I think the rights of my teen or young adult daughter should take precedence over the rights of an unborn, unviable fetus, incapable of even sustaining its own life on its own.
You're getting close. Pro-life of the unborn. But, good of you to recognize you error in taking a term out of context and then arguing against it.
Many who volunteer for the military do so because they were pressured to join by friends or relatives. Those who join must realize they are placing their lives in a lower category of value than the hypothetical freedoms guaranteed (but not always lived up to) by the Constitution. Those who pressure others to join the military should recognize the same value system at work within themselves, for they are advising others they know & respect, to risk their lives for an ideal. My question for everyone is, which is more important--which takes precedence--our Constitutional freedoms or our lives? From my perspective, conservative Pro-Life supporters want to have it from both directions. When discussing abortion, no rights or no one's rights are important except the rights of the nonviable fetus. But when discussing almost every other issue, the right to life for every citizen must be set aside in the effort to protect & preserve the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I hope I'm not the only one seeing hypocrisy in the Pro-Life stance.
Here's the UNcherry picked part: XploreR"""It appears to me that the Pro-Life stance is very narrowly defined as Pro-Fetus, not really Pro-Life itself. With such a narrow definition, they are being super myopic & damaging to the rights of millions of adult or young women all for the sake of nonviable fetuses. That seems to me a morbid & poorly thought out trade off. I think the rights of my teen or young adult daughter should take precedence over the rights of an unborn, unviable fetus, incapable of even sustaining its own life on its own.""" Why do Anti-Choicers say , "ALL life is precious" when they don't mean it?
"Life" itself, connects all my posts relating to abortion &/or life vs freedom issues. Personally, I believe Constitutional rights apply to any newborn instantly, but I don't agree that fetal rights are equal to the rights of the mother before viability is reached. I also believe strongly, that Constitutional rights should apply to every American equally, so no one's rights overwhelm another person's. In my opinion, the Pro-Life group has concluded that fetal rights are to be more valued than the rights of anyone already born. I disagree. I would argue that in the first trimester of a pregnancy, the fetus has no rights not given it by the mother. I would also argue that by the third trimester, abortions should be restricted to only when the mother's life is at risk, or the fetus is diagnosed with some serious genetic disorder that would potentially devastate the quality of life for that fetus once born, or if the fetus itself is already dead. I believe both rape & incest should always be legal grounds for an abortion up thru the 2nd trimester. I also want to state how totally unfair I feel it is for conservative Pro-Life supporters to close down OB-GYN medical centers that serve the vast majority of lower economic class women, & provide many more services during pregnancy than just abortions. It's extremely unfair to stop all medical care for the mother & fetus during those months of gestation, just to get at that one single source of irritation--abortions--while never showing any concern for the general healthcare loss those actions result in. That's NOT being Pro-Life. It's simply being Pro-Fetus, which nullifies their whole Pro-"Life" argument.
I would just remind you once again that we have an all volunteer military today. They all made a choice and it's true some will pay for it with their lives. An aborted baby gets no voice, no options. Only mama gets to decide but at least she won't have to send her baby to war. There's that.
I remind you that the mother is also a human being & an American with Constitutional rights that must be considered. The Pro-Life likes to disregard the rights of the mother in favor of the fetus, but during the first trimester, that's reversed. The compromise in all this is to give the mother all the rights during the first trimester, and the fetus the predominate rights during the third trimester. But I don't see the concept of compromise popping up often in the conservative Pro-Life clan. Sadly. Clearly. So, for the Pro-Life side using it, it's a misnomer.
Pro-Life is only Pro fetal life as they do not even seem to consider the "Life" of anyone or anything else.
Because the term was not created to include a broader context; trying to apply that term to the broader context - that is, deliberately taking it out of context - is dishonest. "Pro life", when used in a discussion about abortion describes a position with respect to the lives of the unborn.
Thank you for clearing that up, because without your explanation, it's easy to interpret the term in a broader sense, which certainly doesn't describe the "Pro-Life" clan accurately. Truly, the "Pro-Life" group is myopically "Pro-Fetus," but completely oblivious to the rights of American citizens--especially women--already born. I find their extremely narrow views on the subject of abortion deeply disturbing. But I am encouraged by the news this week that the extremist Pro-Life antics in GA, LA, MO, & especially AL these past few weeks, are having a real impact on the thinking of all Americans still capable of thought. The polls are showing an increase of support for keeping Roe v Wade as the national standard for resolving abortion issues, from barely over 50% to a new national high of 77%, since February of this year. I suspect (& hope) the Supreme Court will be more hesitant to kill Roe v Wade while it has such a high public popularity rating.
How & where are the Pro-Life supporters acknowledging the rights of the pregnant mother in the new abortion laws in GA, LA, MO or AL?
You say the SCOTUS goes by popular opinion? Damn, I always thought they followed the law as defined in the Constitution and it was Congress that made law based on popular opinion.
In theory, you are right. In practice, I'm no longer sure. But if SCOTUS actually DOES go by law, RvW is well established law.
Removing the rights of half our population to their bodily freedom would cause a revolt and they know it.
Yes, I'm painfully aware of that. I don't know if the Roberts Court is sensitive to public opinion or not, but reversing Roe v Wade would not only go against 77% favorable public opinion, but would go against 45 years of consistent SCOTUS rulings in its support. One must ask, is the now 13% minority public opinion on this issue to be regarded as the final spokesmen for a new ruling? Or, does the court try to remain in the 21st century with its rulings? History will record the outcome, & judge the Roberts Court accordingly.
