“Pro-Life” Is A Lie, Here Are 10 More Accurate Descriptions They Won’t Like

By Matthew Desmond

There’s a lot of terms floating around that people use to describe
themselves when they want to make their position sound more appealing,
even if those terms are a completely (and very deliberately) misleading.
One such lie term is “pro-life.”

John Fugelsang said it best: “Only in America can you be pro-death
penalty, pro-war, pro-unmanned drone bombs, pro-nuclear weapons,
pro-guns, pro-torture, pro-land mines, and still call yourself
‘pro-life.’” Indeed, the term “pro-life” has come to represent a group
of people whose values have nothing to do with protecting life, and
living people, and more to do with protecting unborn fetuses to the
exclusion of all other considerations.

The only way to effectively kill a misnomer, such as “pro-life,” is to
replace it with a more accurate description. I would encourage everyone
to pick one of these terms, and start using it in place of the words
“pro-life,” when discussing abortion.

1. Anti-Abortion: People who call themselves “pro-life” oppose abortion.
Since that’s the only argument the “pro-life’ moniker is applied to we
should just call their position what it is: opposition to a woman’s
right to get an abortion, or anti-abortion for brevity.

2. Anti-Choice: This term works because the people who proclaim that
they are “pro-life” are using that term to describe their position in
regards to whether or not a woman can choose to have an abortion and
absolutely nothing else. See the Fugelsang quote above. Therefore they
are anti-choice. “Life” does not even enter the equation.

3. Pro-Fetus: This term works because a large swathe of the “pro-life”
movement are the same people who support cutting funding to programs
like WIC, food stamps, and other programs which generally help mothers
and children. If they were really concerned with “life,” and not just
the fetus, then they would aggressively commit themselves to make sure
children have enough food to eat, a proper education, and a place to
live. Since their concern for the fetus ends as soon as it is born, they
are clearly pro-fetus.

4. Pro-Birth: Same reasoning as “pro fetus,” this term works because so
many people who consider themselves “pro-life” stop caring about whether
or not the baby is adequately taken care of the instant it’s born.

5. Pro-Controlling Women: It’s irrefutable that the people who would
deny women the right to have an abortion are trying to control women. If
someone thinks they’re more qualified than a pregnant woman to decide
what she does with her body, without her input, that’s control, pure and
simple.

6. Pro-Abuse: Attempting to dominate or control another person in a
relationship is considered domestic abuse, so how is attempting to
control women whom you’ve never met not considered abuse? A woman in
Ireland died last year because she was denied a lifesaving abortion for
a pregnancy that was already ending in an unavoidable miscarrage. How
are the doctors who denied her that life saving procedure any better
than a man who tells a woman how to dress, or what to do? If controlling
what a woman does with her time is considered abuse then denying that
same woman a medical procedure should be considered equally abhorrent.

7. Anti-Sex: My friend Justin insisted for a long time that the people
who oppose abortion do so because they think that a baby should be
punishment for premarital sex, and I was admittedly skeptical, but he
actually proved it, here. I’ll let his words on this topic speak for
themselves, he makes an excellent argument.

8. Pro-Religious Control: A lot of the arguments that fuel the
anti-abortion debate are religious in nature. Since not everyone follows
the same religion, trying to assert your religious beliefs over other
people can be considered nothing less than pro-religious control. Not
all of the “pro-life” movement is opposed to abortion, necessarily, but
they are in favor of controlling people on the basis of religion. Rick
Santorum, for example, who strongly opposes abortion for religious
reasons, had no problem with his own wife having a life saving abortion.
Despite the fact that his own wife needed one, because of his religion,
he continues to insist that it should be denied to other women. What’s
more controlling than that?

9. Misogynist: Misogyny is defined as the hatred of women, and what’s
more hateful to women than treating them like they’re too stupid to
decide what to do with their bodies, by denying them a procedure which
could be life saving, medically necessary or, in many cases, the
responsible choice to make? I can’t think of many things more hateful
than letting women die, or forcing them to carry a rapist’s baby to
term, because you think you’re more qualified to make their medical
decisions than they are.

10. Hypocrite: I thought I’d end with this one, because after the
previous examples it should be glaringly obvious that this isn’t a
debate about “life,” it’s a debate about abortion and what women are
capable of deciding in regards to their own bodies. History, and
extensive studies, have shown that making abortion illegal doesn’t get
rid of abortion; it only makes the procedure more dangerous and
unregulated, which causes more women to die from complications.
According to the World Health Organization, “illegal abortion is usually
unsafe abortion.” Anyone who would call themselves “pro-life,” while
simultaneously trying to outlaw abortions, making them more deadly, is a
hypocrite.

I consider myself pro-life because I support programs and policies which
help people to thrive, including abortion. There’s nothing “pro-life,”
or noble, about forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term,
especially when that fetus could put her life in danger, was conceived
through rape or incest, or would be subjected to a life of difficulty
and poverty because the mother is unable to provide for a child.

We can’t continue to allow people to pretend that they support life, on
the basis that they oppose abortion. We have to be willing to say, “No,
that’s not what you are, and I’m not going to let you lie about your
position in order to make it sound more appealing. You are not pro-life.
If you were, you would be fundraising for orphanages instead of
protesting at abortion clinics.”


http://tinyurl.com/ckk6a74

On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:43:22 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
A troll.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

On 4/26/2013 4:43 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
We can’t continue to allow people to pretend that they support life, on
the basis that they oppose abortion. We have to be willing to say, “No,
that’s not what you are, and I’m not going to let you lie about your
position in order to make it sound more appealing. You are not pro-life.
If you were, you would be fundraising for orphanages instead of
protesting at abortion clinics.”

The flip side of your nonsense is that you can't be against the death
penalty if you condone killing unborn babies.

On 4/26/2013 4:52 PM, New Leaf wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:43:22 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
A troll.

Harry wants to butter his bread on both sides. It don't work that way.

On Apr 26, 4:43*pm, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
Pro-Life Is A Lie, Here Are 10 More Accurate Descriptions They Won t Like

By Matthew Desmond

There s a lot of terms floating around that people use to describe
themselves when they want to make their position sound more appealing,
even if those terms are a completely (and very deliberately) misleading.
One such lie term is pro-life.

John Fugelsang said it best: Only in America can you be pro-death
penalty, pro-war, pro-unmanned drone bombs, pro-nuclear weapons,
pro-guns, pro-torture, pro-land mines, and still call yourself
pro-life. Indeed, the term pro-life has come to represent a group
of people whose values have nothing to do with protecting life, and
living people, and more to do with protecting unborn fetuses to the
exclusion of all other considerations.

The only way to effectively kill a misnomer, such as pro-life, is to
replace it with a more accurate description. I would encourage everyone
to pick one of these terms, and start using it in place of the words
pro-life, when discussing abortion.

1. Anti-Abortion: People who call themselves pro-life oppose abortion.
Since that s the only argument the pro-life moniker is applied to we
should just call their position what it is: opposition to a woman s
right to get an abortion, or anti-abortion for brevity.

2. Anti-Choice: This term works because the people who proclaim that
they are pro-life are using that term to describe their position in
regards to whether or not a woman can choose to have an abortion and
absolutely nothing else. See the Fugelsang quote above. Therefore they
are anti-choice. Life does not even enter the equation.

3. Pro-Fetus: This term works because a large swathe of the pro-life
movement are the same people who support cutting funding to programs
like WIC, food stamps, and other programs which generally help mothers
and children. If they were really concerned with life, and not just
the fetus, then they would aggressively commit themselves to make sure
children have enough food to eat, a proper education, and a place to
live. Since their concern for the fetus ends as soon as it is born, they
are clearly pro-fetus.

4. Pro-Birth: Same reasoning as pro fetus, this term works because so
many people who consider themselves pro-life stop caring about whether
or not the baby is adequately taken care of the instant it s born.

5. Pro-Controlling Women: It s irrefutable that the people who would
deny women the right to have an abortion are trying to control women. If
someone thinks they re more qualified than a pregnant woman to decide
what she does with her body, without her input, that s control, pure and
simple.

6. Pro-Abuse: Attempting to dominate or control another person in a
relationship is considered domestic abuse, so how is attempting to
control women whom you ve never met not considered abuse? A woman in
Ireland died last year because she was denied a lifesaving abortion for
a pregnancy that was already ending in an unavoidable miscarrage. How
are the doctors who denied her that life saving procedure any better
than a man who tells a woman how to dress, or what to do? If controlling
what a woman does with her time is considered abuse then denying that
same woman a medical procedure should be considered equally abhorrent.

7. Anti-Sex: My friend Justin insisted for a long time that the people
who oppose abortion do so because they think that a baby should be
punishment for premarital sex, and I was admittedly skeptical, but he
actually proved it, here. I ll let his words on this topic speak for
themselves, he makes an excellent argument.

8. Pro-Religious Control: A lot of the arguments that fuel the
anti-abortion debate are religious in nature. Since not everyone follows
the same religion, trying to assert your religious beliefs over other
people can be considered nothing less than pro-religious control. Not
all of the pro-life movement is opposed to abortion, necessarily, but
they are in favor of controlling people on the basis of religion. Rick
Santorum, for example, who strongly opposes abortion for religious
reasons, had no problem with his own wife having a life saving abortion.
Despite the fact that his own wife needed one, because of his religion,
he continues to insist that it should be denied to other women. What s
more controlling than that?

9. Misogynist: Misogyny is defined as the hatred of women, and what s
more hateful to women than treating them like they re too stupid to
decide what to do with their bodies, by denying them a procedure which
could be life saving, medically necessary or, in many cases, the
responsible choice to make? I can t think of many things more hateful
than letting women die, or forcing them to carry a rapist s baby to
term, because you think you re more qualified to make their medical
decisions than they are.

10. Hypocrite: I thought I d end with this one, because after the
previous examples it should be glaringly obvious that this isn t a
debate about life, it s a debate about abortion and what women are
capable of deciding in regards to their own bodies. History, and
extensive studies, have shown that making abortion illegal doesn t get
rid of abortion; it only makes the procedure more dangerous and
unregulated, which causes more women to die from complications.
According to the World Health Organization, illegal abortion is usually
unsafe abortion. Anyone who would call themselves pro-life, while
simultaneously trying to outlaw abortions, making them more deadly, is a
hypocrite.

I consider myself pro-life because I support programs and policies which
help people to thrive, including abortion. There s nothing pro-life,
or noble, about forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term,
especially when that fetus could put her life in danger, was conceived
through rape or incest, or would be subjected to a life of difficulty
and poverty because the mother is unable to provide for a child.

We can t continue to allow people to pretend that they support life, on
the basis that they oppose abortion. We have to be willing to say, No,
that s not what you are, and I m not going to let you lie about your
position in order to make it sound more appealing. You are not pro-life.
If you were, you would be fundraising for orphanages instead of
protesting at abortion clinics.

http://tinyurl.com/ckk6a74

Too bad you and Gumby weren't terminated before birth.

In article m, hank57
@socialworker.net says...

On 4/26/2013 4:43 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
We can?t continue to allow people to pretend that they support life, on
the basis that they oppose abortion. We have to be willing to say, ?No,
that?s not what you are, and I?m not going to let you lie about your
position in order to make it sound more appealing. You are not pro-life.
If you were, you would be fundraising for orphanages instead of
protesting at abortion clinics.?

The flip side of your nonsense is that you can't be against the death
penalty if you condone killing unborn babies.

Where did Harry say he condoned killing babies?

On 4/27/13 10:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article m, hank57
@socialworker.net says...

On 4/26/2013 4:43 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
We can?t continue to allow people to pretend that they support life, on
the basis that they oppose abortion. We have to be willing to say, ?No,
that?s not what you are, and I?m not going to let you lie about your
position in order to make it sound more appealing. You are not pro-life.
If you were, you would be fundraising for orphanages instead of
protesting at abortion clinics.?

The flip side of your nonsense is that you can't be against the death
penalty if you condone killing unborn babies.

Where did Harry say he condoned killing babies?


Nowhere, of course.

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:58:48 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 4/27/13 10:55 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article m, hank57
@socialworker.net says...

On 4/26/2013 4:43 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
We can?t continue to allow people to pretend that they support life, on
the basis that they oppose abortion. We have to be willing to say, ?No,
that?s not what you are, and I?m not going to let you lie about your
position in order to make it sound more appealing. You are not pro-life.
If you were, you would be fundraising for orphanages instead of
protesting at abortion clinics.?

The flip side of your nonsense is that you can't be against the death
penalty if you condone killing unborn babies.

Where did Harry say he condoned killing babies?


Nowhere, of course.

With all due respect, they forgot one.

In article , says...

In article m, hank57
@socialworker.net says...

On 4/26/2013 4:43 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
We can?t continue to allow people to pretend that they support life, on
the basis that they oppose abortion. We have to be willing to say, ?No,
that?s not what you are, and I?m not going to let you lie about your
position in order to make it sound more appealing. You are not pro-life.
If you were, you would be fundraising for orphanages instead of
protesting at abortion clinics.?

The flip side of your nonsense is that you can't be against the death
penalty if you condone killing unborn babies.

Where did Harry say he condoned killing babies?

He, Harry, is a proponent of free and available abortions in order to fix problems he induces
in young women.

In article ,
says...

In article , says...

In article m, hank57
@socialworker.net says...

On 4/26/2013 4:43 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
We can?t continue to allow people to pretend that they support life, on
the basis that they oppose abortion. We have to be willing to say, ?No,
that?s not what you are, and I?m not going to let you lie about your
position in order to make it sound more appealing. You are not pro-life.
If you were, you would be fundraising for orphanages instead of
protesting at abortion clinics.?

The flip side of your nonsense is that you can't be against the death
penalty if you condone killing unborn babies.

Where did Harry say he condoned killing babies?

He, Harry, is a proponent of free and available abortions in order to fix problems he induces
in young women.

So? That doesn't mean he condones "killing babies".