The fundamental deception behind the ‘pro-life’ movement

[homersapien 11,388]

By Jennifer Rubin

 

As the Supreme Court considers the Mississippi abortion case, pro-choice advocates would do well to expose the fundamental dishonesty in the “pro-life” movement that it is about saving innocent life.

Set aside for a moment all the questions about personhood and the fact that many religious traditions do not recognize personhood at conception. (The arrogance associated with the view that “everyone” agrees when life begins is indicative of a movement that insists that our laws follow one particular religious tradition.)

Instead, focus on the contention from antiabortion activists that a woman’s right to bodily integrity must be sacrificed for the sake of another. This is a rule that is applicable in no other situation.

In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another. There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes. We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves.

The motives behind the antiabortion movement become clear when one recognizes that even though abortion is legal, the incidence of abortion has dropped dramatically. Hence, permissive laws do not mean the procedure happens more often. If we want to reduce abortions, we arguably should be doing precisely what we have been doing over the past few decades.

Moreover, these same voices roundly reject the obligation of self-sacrifice for others’ health when the inconvenience is far more trivial than the emotional, physical and financial burden of a nine-month pregnancy. The “my body, my choice” slogan from anti-mask and anti-vaccine advocates is the most stunning example of their refusal to compel even minor inconveniences to save innocent life. They refuse to apply that same demand for bodily autonomy in the abortion context.

Likewise, the same right-wing advocates for criminalizing abortion reject any slight inconvenience for gun buyers, such as background checks, even if it might save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives. Their Second Amendment rights trump everyone else’s safety. The only ones denied the right of self-determination are pregnant women.

Indeed, in no other context does “innocent life” eviscerate all other liberties and interests. They demand we keep stores open to sustain the economy, even if doing so imperils others. They blithely vote to chop Medicaid funding in the name of fiscal sobriety (even though they are happy to support tax cuts for the wealthy), making lifesaving addiction treatment more difficult to access. And they routinely oppose environmental regulations — economic freedom! — to restrict pollutants that threaten the health and lives of others.

A free society must allow a realm of personal freedom and a sphere of personal autonomy. We recognize the unacceptable price of overriding that zone of personal integrity in certain intimate matters. We dare not give government the right to override bodily integrity even for very good reasons.

The Supreme Court may well uproot decades of precedent on abortion rights. State legislatures may follow with abortion bans. But let us not pretend this is about the noble principle of “saving innocent life.” This is about denying women in particular the power to decide whether to undergo a substantial physical, hormonal, emotional and financial obligation for nine months. Until we are ready to demand commensurate obligations for all Americans in a host of other contexts and severely limit their personal autonomy (at great personal inconvenience and cost), we should be honest enough to recognize this is about controlling women, not about innocent life.

 

[jj3jordan 2,056]

Please tell me you don’t buy all that hooey.

[CoffeeTiger 5,132]

14 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Please tell me you don’t buy all that hooey.

I mean.....Just this week we had another school shooting 3 dead several injured. 

 

The United States looks like a clownshow to other western democracies. Trying to outlaw abortion based  on religious beliefs about sanctity of life, while at the same time finding it perfectly acceptable to have frequent school shootings and children killed all because of an outdated law from the 18th century. 

 

Conservatives will flock to school board meetings and to their lawmakers frothing at the mouth demanding they do something about "Critical Race Theory", but then those same conservatives will just say "Sad...what can you do? Thoughts and prayers" whenever another school shooting takes place. 

 

of course you think it's all hooey, but everyone else finds it incredibly tone deaf and hypocritical. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,132]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/01/supreme-courts-pro-gun-pro-life-problem/

On Tuesday, four high school students — ages 14, 16 and 17 — were fatally shot in Oxford, Mich., by a 15-year-old classmate firing a 9mm pistol with 15-round magazines.

Less than 24 hours later, a Supreme Court majority that seems on the verge of weakening the nation’s gun laws heard arguments in a case that could lead to tougher restrictions on abortion.

Please tell me: What can the words “pro-life” possibly mean when the same people who want to constrain abortion are eager to make it easier for Americans to obtain and carry deadly weapons?

How is it “pro-life” for a nation to accept school shootings as a routine part of our daily news feeds? Can it possibly be “pro-life” to pretend that because no law will ever end all such shootings, it’s not worth trying to pass anything that might at least make them less likely?

We take for granted a conservative ideology rooted not in intellectual consistency but in the politics of culture wars that hold abortion rights as an abomination but gun rights as inviolable. And we wonder why the shootings continue.

Let me stipulate: I know people opposed to abortion rights who are, in fact, consistently “pro-life.” They fight for tougher gun laws, oppose the death penalty and support far more help for poor women when they bring children into the world. Even if you disagree with them on abortion, you should bless them for their witness and their moral consistency.

But this group is a small minority of the political movement trying to outlaw abortion. The conservatives on the Supreme Court — judging from oral arguments last month on a New York law restricting handguns and the arguments Wednesday on a Mississippi abortion ban — seem quite comfortable with being pro-gun and antiabortion. Against all the evidence from countries with stricter gun laws and far lower gun homicide rates, the pro-gun, antiabortion crowd insists that a massively armed citizenry protects life.

Yes, a few of the court’s conservatives expressed qualms during the November argument about guns at Yankee Stadium or in Times Square. But the core conservative commitment to a gunfight-at-the-O.K.-Corral approach to public safety was outlined with great clarity by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

“There are a lot of armed people on the streets of New York and in the subways late at night right now. Aren’t there?” Alito asked at oral argument. “All these people with illegal guns, they’re on the subway, they’re walking around the streets. But the ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding people I mentioned, no, they can’t be armed.”

Have at it, everybody.

In her recent Opinions Essay on the dangers posed by a 6-to-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, my Post colleague Ruth Marcus pointed out archly that justices who tout their devotion to a theory they call “originalism” were happy to ignore many decades of state laws, upheld by the courts, regulating weapons.

“The court’s originalists,” she wrote, “seemed not at all troubled by abundant historical evidence of states restricting guns in public places.”

The disconnect between warm, life-embracing rhetoric about abortion and indifference toward the loss of innocent life furthered by our nation’s uniquely permissive gun laws moved Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) to call out this moral scandal on Tuesday night.

“I listened to my Republican colleagues come down here one after another today and talk about the sanctity of life at the very moment that moms and dads in Michigan were being told that their kids weren’t coming home because they were shot at school, due to a country that has accepted gun violence, due to Republicans’ fealty to the gun lobby,” Murphy declared on the Senate floor. “Do not lecture us about the sanctity, the importance of life when 100 people every single day are losing their lives to guns, when kids go to school fearful that they won’t return home because a classmate will turn a gun on them.”

Murphy’s point is amply justified by Republican blockades in the Senate against even modest gun laws, including bills on background checks passed by the House in March. But let’s not ignore Democrats who counsel caution on gun legislation for fear of losing further ground in rural areas.

The Michigan shootings are another reminder of the lethality of our political deadlock on guns — a powerlessness the Supreme Court majority seems eager to aggravate.

Here’s what we’re facing: conservative jurists ready to expand states’ rights when it comes to limiting or banning abortion but equally prepared to block states from enacting gun laws aimed at protecting the right of their people to live beyond their teenage years.

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

7 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Trying to outlaw abortion based  on religious beliefs about sanctity of life, while at the same time finding it perfectly acceptable to have frequent school shootings and children killed all because of an outdated law from the 18th century. 

I believe that abortions will not be outlawed if Roe is overturned, they will just go back to the jurisdiction of the states.  As to religious beliefs, I don’t think that is a left wing argument that holds water.  Is it a religious belief that murder should be against the law or also a secular belief?

When has it ever been acceptable to break the law and murder someone?  The shooter broke the law by possessing the handgun and bringing it to a school.  Please let us know what law would have prevented this tragedy?  If people are bent on killing people, they have many tools at their disposal to carry out their evil.

An automobile was used as a weapon in Wisconsin that killed 6 people just last week.

Edited December 2, 2021 by I_M4_AU

[autigeremt 6,643]

I swear this argument is lost on those who are immune to self protection and self preservation. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,132]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I believe that abortions will not be outlawed if Roe is overturned, they will just go back to the jurisdiction of the states.  As to religious beliefs, I don’t think that is a left wing argument that doesn’t hold water.  Is it a religious belief that murder should be against the law or also a secular belief?

 

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

When has it ever been acceptable to break the law and murder someone?  The shooter broke the law by possessing the handgun and bringing it to a school.  Please let us know what law would have prevented this tragedy?  If people are bent on killing people, they have many tools at their disposal to carry out their evil.

An automobile was used as a weapon in Wisconsin that killed 6 people just last week.

From the article:

How is it “pro-life” for a nation to accept school shootings as a routine part of our daily news feeds? Can it possibly be “pro-life” to pretend that because no law will ever end all such shootings, it’s not worth trying to pass anything that might at least make them less likely?

 

You can literally look at ANY-FING-WHERE in the world other than the United States and 3rd world countries and see that they DO NOT have anywhere even remotely close to the same number of murders, shootings, and school violence in general that the US has. The proof and evidence that more guns = more shooting's and more deaths is right in front of you. 

No other first world nation on this planet has school violence and deaths anywhere even remotely close to the US. They aren't committing school massacre's with steak knives, they aren't driving cars though the hall ways running kids over, they aren't punching kids to death on a regular basis.  This shooting in Michigan would be considered a historic, national tragedy in most European nations...In America...its just another Tuesday....why does the US accept this as normal? 

Guns are the most effective and easy means of killing and harming other people that modern society has. The United States has uniquely decided that most citizens should have easy access to guns with few restrictions, conditions, or training. The result is that the United States has a gun violence epidemic.

It's absolutely insane to me how people can be ok with how our SCHOOLS need metal detectors, police guards, clear backpacks, shooting drills. Like every public school has to be set up like a prison to try and prevent our depressed, unhappy youth from grabbing daddys gun out of the nightstand and shooting everyone up. 

 

 But no...CRT, transgenders, science that contradicts the bible....these are the issues that Republicans obsess about and view as the real danger to our kids.

American society is so screwed up in the head its unbelievable. 

[autigeremt 6,643]

Death is death. 

Murder Rate by Country 2021 (worldpopulationreview.com)

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

34 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

How is it “pro-life” for a nation to accept school shootings as a routine part of our daily news feeds? Can it possibly be “pro-life” to pretend that because no law will ever end all such shootings, it’s not worth trying to pass anything that might at least make them less likely?

The goal of Mississippi in the SCOTUS is not to end all abortions, just to have reasonable limitation on abortions and the each state can regulate the criteria.

How do you work around taking rights away from citizens that is expressly given in the U. S. Constitution?  Abortion in not a right expressly given in the U S Constitution, it was contrived by lawyers as an interpretation.  This is much different.  Why is it the left wants to be run by bureaucrats who are not elected?

34 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

It's absolutely insane to me how people can be ok with how our SCHOOLS need metal detectors, police guards, clear backpacks, shooting drills. Like every public school has to be set up like a prison to try and prevent our depressed, unhappy youth from grabbing daddys gun out of the nightstand and shooting everyone up.

This is the problem in bold.  From the WaPo article embedded in you OP:

Police said Wednesday that school officials had met with the suspect, sophomore Ethan Crumbley, on Monday and had brought his parents into the building for a face-to-face meeting Tuesday morning — shortly before the shooting — to discuss “concerning classroom behavior.”

Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald said that additional charges were possible and that her office is also considering charging Crumbley’s parents.

My comments:  The school knew about the shooter’s behavior and, I would assume, the parents did too.  When does his behavior escalated to the point he needs help?  That is a tough question to answer.  It is interesting to note that the DA is considering charging the parents in this case.  This might be the next step to curb violence.

[CoffeeTiger 5,132]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

My comments:  The school knew about the shooter’s behavior and, I would assume, the parents did too.  When does his behavior escalated to the point he needs help?  That is a tough question to answer.  It is interesting to note that the DA is considering charging the parents in this case.  This might be the next step to curb violence.

Give an automatic death sentence to the parents of school shooters if you want. Its not going to make a difference. 

Many school shooters with end up with life in prison or being shot to death themselves...doesn't matter...doesn't stop anyone. 

 

We need to focus more on stopping the situations and opportunities that cause school shootings in the first place, just dealing with the aftermath through arresting parents, school administrators, lawsuits, etc aren't  going to stop the next shooting. 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,857]

Just now, CoffeeTiger said:

Give an automatic death sentence to the parents of school shooters if you want. Its not going to make a difference. 

Many school shooters with end up with life in prison or being shot to death themselves...doesn't matter...doesn't stop anyone. 

 

We need to focus more on stopping the situations and opportunities that cause school shootings in the first place, just dealing with the aftermath through arresting parents, school administrators, lawsuits, etc aren't  going to stop the next shooting. 

 

 

The fact that school authorities knew of this kid’s behavior is evidence that they knew there could potentially be issues.  What will have to happen is to get those type of kids help before it escalates, similar to a suicide prevention strategy.  It will be difficult to do.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 hour ago, autigeremt said:

Death is death. 

Murder Rate by Country 2021 (worldpopulationreview.com)

Don’t bring facts to a debate with liberals….

[TitanTiger 20,499]

5 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I mean.....Just this week we had another school shooting 3 dead several injured. 

 

The United States looks like a clownshow to other western democracies. Trying to outlaw abortion based  on religious beliefs about sanctity of life,

Secular Pro Life would like a word.

While I agree with you on our handling of gun violence, it's a misnomer that the only rationale for believing that preborn human beings deserve basic human rights is religious in nature.

 

Quote

Conservatives will flock to school board meetings and to their lawmakers frothing at the mouth demanding they do something about "Critical Race Theory", but then those same conservatives will just say "Sad...what can you do? Thoughts and prayers" whenever another school shooting takes place. 

I was thinking the same thing.  If only the same people blathering on at school boards about an academic concept maybe 1% of them actually understand, much less could recognize correctly would devote that same energy to this problem.  SMDH.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Give an automatic death sentence to the parents of school shooters if you want. Its not going to make a difference. 

Many school shooters with end up with life in prison or being shot to death themselves...doesn't matter...doesn't stop anyone. 

 

We need to focus more on stopping the situations and opportunities that cause school shootings in the first place, just dealing with the aftermath through arresting parents, school administrators, lawsuits, etc aren't  going to stop the next shooting. 

 

 

Most of these mass shooters make plans to either shoot themselves as the police close in, or decide on suicide by cop.  They don't value any human life, not even their own.  

That said, there should be penalties for parents who own guns but do not properly secure them so that their children can't get them.  This dad bought the pistol used in MI last Friday and apparently stored both the gun and ammo together unlocked.  That should be a felony.

[autigeremt 6,643]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Most of these mass shooters make plans to either shoot themselves as the police close in, or decide on suicide by cop.  They don't value any human life, not even their own.  

That said, there should be penalties for parents who own guns but do not properly secure them so that their children can't get them.  This dad bought the pistol used in MI last Friday and apparently stored both the gun and ammo together unlocked.  That should be a felony.

I don't have a problem with a law that makes it illegal to improperly store a firearm when there's children in the household as long as storage is defined in a away that allows someone to access the firearm if needed for personal protection (hideaways). 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 minute ago, autigeremt said:

I don't have a problem with a law that makes it illegal to improperly store a firearm when there's children in the household as long as storage is defined in a away that allows someone to access the firearm if needed for personal protection (hideaways). 

 

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That said, there should be penalties for parents who own guns but do not properly secure them so that their children can't get them.

Texas already has laws and penalties addressing this situation.

[CoffeeTiger 5,132]

27 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Don’t bring facts to a debate with liberals….

uh.....why? Because liberals will actually "read" the facts and data presented and point out how it supports their argument like this one does? 

The link shows the United States with a 4.95 Homicide rate, which ranks in the upper half of the world. Yes, There are a lot of African, south American and Middle East nations that are higher, but the United States is the highest ranked, western first world nation.

Most of Europe has a less than a 1.00 homicide rate and several poor African and South American nations are actually better and safer than the United State according to this data

 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by CoffeeTiger

[wdefromtx 3,159]

8 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

uh.....why? Because liberals will actually "read" the facts and data presented and point out how it supports their argument like this one does? 

The link shows the United States with a 4.95 Homicide rate, which ranks in the upper half of the world. Yes, There are a lot of African, south American and Middle East nations that are higher, but the United States is the highest ranked, western first world nation.

Most of Europe has a less than a 1.00 homicide rate and several poor African and South American nations are actually better and safer than the United State according to this data

 

 

 

So your argument is to ban guns unless they are for hunting purposes only? 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

41 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

I don't have a problem with a law that makes it illegal to improperly store a firearm when there's children in the household as long as storage is defined in a away that allows someone to access the firearm if needed for personal protection (hideaways). 

I have a pistol safe that is biometric and has keypad entry, plus a manual key as a backup.  That should be sufficient protection.  I put a reminder on my phone to check the safe every month to make sure the batteries are good and it opens properly.  The manual key is hidden where only my wife and I know to find it.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

39 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

So your argument is to ban guns unless they are for hunting purposes only? 

Where did he say that?

[wdefromtx 3,159]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Where did he say that?

Most of the countries that he is trying to compare the US to that have such low rates practically have gun laws that are so restrictive that unless you have provided proof that it is for hunting purposes or some other dire need (that usually aren't approved) you essentially can't own one. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by wdefromtx

[WalkingCarpet 1,379]

"This is about controlling women, not about innocent life."

I can't take anyone seriously who says this. A 30 second conversation with anyone who is pro-life will tell you it's nonsense. It also discounts the tens of millions of women who are pro-life. Oh wait, Jen Rubin wrote this crap. Not surprising. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

Most of the countries that he is trying to compare the US to that have such low rates practically have gun laws that are so restrictive that unless you have provided proof that it is for hunting purposes or some other dire need (that usually aren't approved) you essentially can't own one. 

France has much lower gun (and other) homicide rates than we do and doesn't restrict gun ownership to hunting.  To obtain a handgun or rifle permit there you just need to:

- Be older than 18 (or over 12 with permission for shooting sports);
- Be affiliated with a shooting range;
- Have followed at least three shooting sessions with an instructor;
- Submit a medical certificate stating you are physically and mentally fit.

In Norway, gun licenses are issued for hunting and sports shooting only to “responsible and sober” individuals. Concealed and open carry are prohibited, but after a test and a qualifying course to obtain your permit, you might be eligible to own semi-automatic rifles with a special permit.

Switzerland has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the world after the US.

Most of continental Europe as well as Canada allows handguns for reasons of sport/target shooting or a demonstrable "threat to life."  All one needs to do is join a shooting club and log a small number of target practice sessions to qualify, and perhaps go through a gun use and safety certification course.

Israel allows for many kinds of guns to be owned and still has a rate 1/4 as big as ours per 100,000 people.  Canada and Norway have relatively high gun ownership rates but exceedingly low gun homicide rates.

It's a gross overgeneralization to say that most countries have lower rates because they restrict them only to hunting and make other permits next to impossible to get.  

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

10 minutes ago, WalkingCarpet said:

"This is about controlling women, not about innocent life."

I can't take anyone seriously who says this. A 30 second conversation with anyone who is pro-life will tell you it's nonsense. It also discounts the tens of millions of women who are pro-life. Oh wait, Jen Rubin wrote this crap. Not surprising. 

My retort to that is, that there are all sorts of medical procedures women get that no one makes any attempt to restrict or "control" - tubal ligation, hysterectomies, breast reduction or augmentation, various cosmetic surgeries.  You don't hear boo from conservatives about this stuff.  The difference is, all of these other surgeries only affect the woman getting them, but abortion involves the life of a separate human being.  If it was about "controlling women," you'd see the same level of energy devoted to restricting or banning these other procedures.  You don't because the "controlling women" answer is lazy.  It's red meat for progressives with little relation to facts or logic.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

34 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

France has much lower gun (and other) homicide rates than we do and doesn't restrict gun ownership to hunting.  To obtain a handgun or rifle permit there you just need to:

- Be older than 18 (or over 12 with permission for shooting sports);
- Be affiliated with a shooting range;
- Have followed at least three shooting sessions with an instructor;
- Submit a medical certificate stating you are physically and mentally fit.

In Norway, gun licenses are issued for hunting and sports shooting only to “responsible and sober” individuals. Concealed and open carry are prohibited, but after a test and a qualifying course to obtain your permit, you might be eligible to own semi-automatic rifles with a special permit.

Switzerland has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the world after the US.

Most of continental Europe as well as Canada allows handguns for reasons of sport/target shooting or a demonstrable "threat to life."  All one needs to do is join a shooting club and log a small number of target practice sessions to qualify, and perhaps go through a gun use and safety certification course.

Israel allows for many kinds of guns to be owned and still has a rate 1/4 as big as ours per 100,000 people.  Canada and Norway have relatively high gun ownership rates but exceedingly low gun homicide rates.

It's a gross overgeneralization to say that most countries have lower rates because they restrict them only to hunting and make other permits next to impossible to get.  

 

I didn’t think I needed to spell it out to you that I don’t literally mean it’s limited to hunting. All the countries you listed essentially make my point. 
 

These countries make it way more difficult (good or bad isn’t the point here) to have a gun. Also, the reason Canada and Norway has high rates of ownership is for protection living in such primitive areas. 
 

So which is it? Do we need massively more restricted laws? 
 

Or perhaps the countries that high ownership rates and low homicide rates have other safety nets in the social system such as proper mental health care? If Switzerland has laws close to the us, logic suggests they should have a high homicide rate as well. 
 

People on the left are quick to try to blame it all on the guns or lack of laws in the US, but in reality the focus should be on things such as mental health, enforcing the laws we already have.