Praise Jeebus!

Defer to the second half, and defend the dry end of the field.

 

Not "in chains."
Just not in charge of their own bodies and/or sexuality.

 

Not fair. Pretty much all pro-lifers I've encountered (myself included) always saw abortion as an issue involving the protection of the fetus/embryo. And I marched on Washington in my radical days, taking 4-hour bus rides three times to do so, and nobody on the bus dropped the facade among brothers and sisters to proclaim their disdain for women. Or maybe they waited until I got up to go potty.

 

Meat:

How about I phrase it like this: The National Pro-Life movement is about the subjugation of women.

I have no doubt that you, and the average person who thinks abortion is wrong, are well meaning.

But if the national pro-life movement was truly about reducing abortions, why do they oppose nearly every measure that has been PROVEN to decrease abortions?

Emergency contraception? Decreases abortions, especially when it is available over the counter. Pro-life groups blocked it.

A bill that would make insurance companies cover contraception? Would decrease the number of abortions in this country. Right-to-life groups blocked its passage.

Comprehensive sex education, rather than abstinence-only malarkey? Reduced the number of abortions in the European countries that have recently switched. We know where they stand on that.

I'm not talking about the average person, but when it comes to the national political organizations, the pro-choice people are the only ones out there trying to prevent abortions.

That's a fact.

 

Meat --
They don't have to, among their own. It's understood.

 

Before I can respond to that, I'd want to know which specific pro-life groups objected to what specific measures.

Some groups, particularly your conservatively religious types, oppose birth control on the grounds of premarital sex being a sin and birth control helping to faciliate it (not my position, but there's some like that).

Emergency contraception (morning after pill, right?) is opposed by a lot of groups because they believes it can interrupt an existing pregnancy instead of preventing it. If it sounds like straining at gnats, it is to some degree, but one thing I WILL say regarding pro-life activists is they firmly believe in the slippery slope, and they think that anything that ends a pregnancy, even if that's not what it was taken for and it happens within the first few hours, leads us down the path to a Logan's Run society. That's one of the reasons I strayed away from them in college, because I'm not big for hyperbole unless I'm aiming for a laugh, but in this case they're not opposing it because it's birth control, but because they think it actually is abortion because of how it works.

If I remember my little National Right to Life, Inc. Q&A book (lots of dead babies in that sucker for you snuff fans), they don't take a position on birth control yay or nay, unless it's a form of birth control that ends instead of prevents pregnancy, like RU-486.

 

FB -- then they didn't do a good job, because I never heard it once, nor did it ever cross my mind, during two years and three marches on D.C. as an active part of the movement (I drew the line at Operation Rescue, though I admit in my Turkish days to edging close to it)

 

I think it's fairly safe to say that most pro-life groups opposed all of the above, unless you have evidence to the contrary.

And those groups SAY that emergency contraception MIGHT act as an abortofacient, even though they have no credible evidence of this claim. What they have is credible scientists who say that it acts as a contraceptive, though they can't rule out the possibility of it inhibiting the implantation of a fetus. No one has actually shown it to do this.

Again, the pro-life movement is WAY to intertwined with the right-wing, sex-for-procreation-only loons. That's why their agenda is seen as the subjugation of women. Lay down with dogs, you get fleas.

 

This is one of the most grossest offenses that anyone is allowed to get away with in this country.

There are companies that cover Viagra but don't cover the pill. Awful.

 

Ragu --

Their rhetoric is anti-abortion.

Their actions don't do much -- if anything -- to prevent abortions.

They do have a great deal to do with legislating a right-wing Christian morality.

If your true goal was to prevent abortions, why wouldn't you support a bill to get insurance companies to cover the pill?

Because you aren't as much anti-abortion as you are anti-contraception, anti-women's rights, etc, etc.

 

Here's my point. If you can't unprove it, it must be true.

That's fine and well, but we're talking intent. Your belief is that they're opposed to it just for the sake of it being birth control, and also to fueld their black, black hearts towards women. My point is that in my dealings with them, they're opposed to CERTAIN forms of birth control because of the possibilities of their being abortifacents. I don't agree, because I'm of the belief that intent means a lot (intending to prevent a pregnancy vs. intending to end a pregnancy). But those who believe it, in my experience, do so because of the abortion implications, not the birth control element.

Because you say so? Because your political leaders say so? They're seen that way because their opponents elect to paint them that way. It's no different than extreme self-professing Christians who try to judge all of Islam on the sins of their most violent self-professors.