| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 pro life??Why I Am Pro-Life By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: October 27, 2012 HARD-LINE conservatives have gone to new extremes lately in opposing abortion. Last week, Richard Mourdock, the Tea Party-backed Republican Senate candidate in Indiana, declared during a debate that he was against abortion even in the event of rape because after much thought he “came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” That came on the heels of the Tea Party-backed Republican Representative Joe Walsh of Illinois saying after a recent debate that he opposed abortion even in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, because “with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance” in which a woman would not survive without an abortion. “Health of the mother has become a tool for abortions anytime, for any reason,” Walsh said. That came in the wake of the Senate hopeful in Missouri, Representative Todd Akin, remarking that pregnancy as a result of “legitimate rape” is rare because “the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down.” These were not slips of the tongue. These are the authentic voices of an ever-more-assertive far-right Republican base that is intent on using uncompromising positions on abortion to not only unseat more centrist Republicans — Mourdock defeated the moderate Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana in the primary — but to overturn the mainstream consensus in America on this issue. That consensus says that those who choose to oppose abortion in their own lives for reasons of faith or philosophy should be respected, but those women who want to make a different personal choice over what happens with their own bodies should be respected, and have the legal protection to do so, as well. But judging from the unscientific — borderline crazy — statements opposing abortion that we’re hearing lately, there is reason to believe that this delicate balance could be threatened if Mitt Romney and Representative Paul Ryan, and their even more extreme allies, get elected. So to those who want to protect a woman’s right to control what happens with her own body, let me offer just one piece of advice: to name something is to own it. If you can name an issue, you can own the issue. And we must stop letting Republicans name themselves “pro-life” and Democrats as “pro-choice.” It is a huge distortion. In my world, you don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and be against common-sense gun control — like banning public access to the kind of semiautomatic assault rifle, designed for warfare, that was used recently in a Colorado theater. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, which ensures clean air and clean water, prevents childhood asthma, preserves biodiversity and combats climate change that could disrupt every life on the planet. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and oppose programs like Head Start that provide basic education, health and nutrition for the most disadvantaged children. You can call yourself a “pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life conservative.” I will never refer to someone who pickets Planned Parenthood but lobbies against common-sense gun laws as “pro-life.” “Pro-life” can mean only one thing: “respect for the sanctity of life.” And there is no way that respect for the sanctity of life can mean we are obligated to protect every fertilized egg in a woman’s body, no matter how that egg got fertilized, but we are not obligated to protect every living person from being shot with a concealed automatic weapon. I have no respect for someone who relies on voodoo science to declare that a woman’s body can distinguish a “legitimate” rape, but then declares — when 99 percent of all climate scientists conclude that climate change poses a danger to the sanctity of all life on the planet — that global warming is just a hoax. The term “pro-life” should be a shorthand for respect for the sanctity of life. But I will not let that label apply to people for whom sanctity for life begins at conception and ends at birth. What about the rest of life? Respect for the sanctity of life, if you believe that it begins at conception, cannot end at birth. That radical narrowing of our concern for the sanctity of life is leading to terrible distortions in our society. Respect for life has to include respect for how that life is lived, enhanced and protected — not only at the moment of conception but afterward, in the course of that life. That’s why, for me, the most “pro-life” politician in America is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. While he supports a woman’s right to choose, he has also used his position to promote a whole set of policies that enhance everyone’s quality of life — from his ban on smoking in bars and city parks to reduce cancer, to his ban on the sale in New York City of giant sugary drinks to combat obesity and diabetes, to his requirement for posting calorie counts on menus in chain restaurants, to his push to reinstate the expired federal ban on assault weapons and other forms of common-sense gun control, to his support for early childhood education, to his support for mitigating disruptive climate change. Now that is what I call “pro-life.” |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
I didntd like it Where it gets confused is putting the crimes of others on the backs of republicans or conservatives. That is stupid and a twisted way to satisfy those who want to be witty. Its not even that intelligent and the fact that it entertains some is saying a lot. Conservatives don't like people dying from guns as they don't like abortion. This article says basically that conservatives are ok with it all. Just unintelligent to me. |
||
|
stinky |
||
|
|
||
|
jdh pro choice people are exactly that. we are for allowing women to have a choice. i am pro choice, but i do not like abortion. not 'pro abortion' at all. i just do not feel it is within my rights to deny abortion to a woman who feels that is her best option. |
||
|
You clearly do think it is within your rights to deny a new life it's right to live. How is that not "pro-abortion"? |
||
|
jd it really is about choice. i want my nieces, students, and friends' kids to be able to make their own choice. i would not tell them what to do in the event of pregnancy. hence, pro choice, not pro abortion. anti abortion folks would make that decision for them, by making safe legal abortion unavailable. hence, anti abortion, not pro life. |
||
|
|
||
|
josh |
||
|
|
||
|
sure but if i am fighting to keep cig s legal, or to decriminalize pot, i could accurately call myself a pro-choice person - because that is truly what i am fighting for - the freedom to chose one's own form of poison... or not. "what do you read m'lord? words, words, words." |
||
|
Jeff I guess since libs don't like the death penalty they are pro life? Its just a completely different argument. You might as well ask us to prove we exist. Its just a class in philosophy. |
||
|
stinky |
Log in 
