Pro Life Hypocrisy And How To Prevent Abortions While Keeping Them Legal

When I hear people complain about the hypocrisy of the members of the pro life side of the abortion debate, it's usually about three things.

1) “Pro Lifers” are so concerned about saving the lives of “unborn babies”, yet they are ardent supporters of sending our nation's (US) military thousands of miles away to go kill people.

2) “Pro Lifers” are so concerned about saving the lives of “unborn babies,” yet they are the most ardent supporters of the death penalty for people who have been born – (many of whom were born to people who should never have been parents, and some of whom were wrongly convicted.)

3) “Pro Lifers” are so concerned about saving the lives of “unborn babies,” yet when it comes to funding programs to help babies have even half way decent lives, they always are against them. It seems they only care about babies when they are, “unborn.”

I have fourth and fifth statements to add to the hypocrite list:

4) “Pro Lifers” are actually more concerned with cramming their choices down everyone else's throat than they are with actually stopping abortion. If they wanted to stop abortion they would jump on board the reality based prevention train (in addition to their fantasy based, wishful thinking, abstinence train.) They would be passing out free condoms and increasing sexual awareness, even as they continue to pass out their abstinence pamphlets, as opposed to trying to make abortions illegal, so that only women who are of means would be able to get a safe abortion.

5) “Pro Lifers” don't even believe their own rhetoric.

This article will deal primarily with points four and five, since one through three have been covered a lot in many other opinion pieces. I'll start with the fact that the so-called “pro lifers” don't even believe their own rhetoric.

I am going to generalize here. Of course, not everyone who would outlaw abortion will fall into this description, but I believe the vast majority do, especially in the United States. They are religious; mostly Christians, including both catholics & protestants.

They say that abortion is no different than murdering a newborn, or any other, baby. Moreover, it does not matter at what point it is in the pregnancy. It is all the same. They are against the morning after pill because there is no way to tell if conception has already taken place or if the sperm cells are in a holding pattern, waiting for the egg.

They say that murder is murder, and murder is never okay, (although they are usually quick to support killing people via military, drones, etc., but that is another point, altogether.) They say that even if the pregnancy is a product of incest or rape, abortion must be illegal, because murder is never okay.

They say that even if the baby would be born with unimaginable birth defects, possibly even sentencing the child to a life of intense pain and suffering, abortion is not an option. Even if the baby would certainly die almost immediately after birth, abortion still can not be allowed, because it is up to God to make those choices. When humans make it, it is always murder and civilized people can never sanction murder, (even though more times than not, they are huge supporters of the death penalty, but that's another conversation altogether.)

Besides that, they will say that God may provide a miracle for the baby that doctors say will die shortly after birth (if she makes it that far)… and that God can't provide a miracle if humans murder the baby beforehand.

Yet, if a woman who says she believes all of the above – or the wife of a man who allegedly believes all of that – were to have a tubal pregnancy, without the bat of an eyelash, they would have the doctor take care of it. Of course, taking care of it means aborting the fetus. Regardless of all their rhetoric, it's suddenly okay. Their excuse is that the mother could die and the baby can't ever be born. I say, “But so what?”

If, as they say, it is up to God to make all decisions about ending the life of “the unborn,” then they are taking part in murder. They may try to wiggle out of it and say that since the baby isn't going to ever be able to be born, it makes no sense to put the life of the mother in jeopardy. Well, I'm sorry, but that completely belies their alleged beliefs.

Who are they to say that God may not provide a miracle and save both mother and child? Who are they to say that the life of the mother is worth more than the life of the unborn baby? One thing is for certain, if they kill it before God provides the potential miracle, then the miracle won't happen.

If they really believed their rhetoric, they would hospitalize the woman, have pain medication ready and monitor her 24/7. The doctors could open her up and monitor the unborn baby so that once it was medically determined that God had taken the unborn baby, then they could operate on the mother and extricate the unborn baby's body from the womb of the mother.

If the mom died in the process, then it would obviously be the will of God. We don't always understand the way of God, but we know there is a reason and we trust that we'll understand when we get to heaven.

If they are not willing to go that route, then they have some soul searching to do. These individuals not only want to tell women what they can do with their bodies, they often tell them they are scumbag baby murderers. A lot of pro-lifers speak highly of (and actively encourage) the murder of abortion doctors.

I have certainly never heard of a single “pro-lifer” go through with a tubal pregnancy. Have you? They say there is no gray area when it comes to abortion, but they don't walk their talk.

One of the most ironic aspects to all this, is the fact that most of these people believe in hell as literal. They believe that unless you accept, Jesus as the only Son of God, and ask God for forgiveness of your sins, you will spend eternity in a nonstop fire, without ever getting a second chance.

The ironic part comes when you ask them what happens to the unborn babies. Do they go to hell? They will tell you they are confident all the unborn babies go to heaven.

Well, that's actually great when you stop to think about it. Compare their fate to the rest of us who were born. The truth is, we all have a pretty good shot at going to hell because of the rules.

Not only do you have to say you believe in Jesus, you have to be telling the truth about it. You can't be unsure. Saying it just for a free get out of hell card, does not work.

On top of that, with the exception of Baptists, you have to ask forgiveness every time you sin, (and you can sin just by thinking or feeling.) If you die suddenly without having first re-asked for forgiveness of your recent sins, you go to hell.

Yes, the chances of you ending up in hell fire, forever and ever, screaming, nonstop in excruciating pain, are really quite good. I don't know about you, but with odds like that, I'm sorry I wasn't aborted.

I have to presume that the overall rate of all people ever born, going to hell, is well over fifty percent. The truth is, I don't care if it's one in a million. The consequence is so severe, I'd much rather opt for the direct route to not only safety, but eternal bliss, to boot. (It's a bonus that the unborn babies also get to completely avoid the following rites of passage; the public school system, getting screwed over by Democrats and Republicans, being injured, getting sick, being bullied, or being betrayed by someone they love, etc., etc.)

Yeah, I'm using humor, but I mean it when I ask, if that is your belief system, how is it sad that all those unborn people got to avoid hell and go to heaven? I don't get it.

OK, if you believe their consciousness is in the fetus and they are feeling the pain of the violent procedure, I get that's not pleasant. However, considering not only what you get, (heaven), but more importantly, what you avoid, (hell), it's still a no-brainer in my book.

It's a valid question to wonder about the relationship between the individual's soul/spirit/consciousness and its developing body. Were our souls created before conception and then put it into the fetus at some point? Was it before, during or after birth? Or is the soul generated piece by piece, in perfect unison with the creation of cell clusters that form the fetus?

We, as humans, have bodies, but we are not our bodies. Millions of people have experienced out of body experiences. They often happen during surgery, and I don't just mean the near death experiences where people are clinically dead and then are revived on the operating table. I think the anesthesia induces non near death, out of body experiences quite a bit.

My grandmother had an operation that went perfectly, but at one point, she woke up and heard the doctor talking to the nurses. She opened her eyes and she was looking at her body from a vantage point slightly above it. As she started floating up toward the ceiling, she felt the warmth of the bright lights that are used in operating rooms, and decided she better get back in her body.

Later she told the doctor what she had heard him tell the nurses. He confirmed it. Let's just say he was rather perplexed & somewhat amused. I wouldn't be surprised if a survey of surgeons was done, and most of them indicate they have had patients report being above their body at some point during surgery, and accurately tell them what they saw and heard, while they were supposed to be unconscious from the anesthesia.

Things like that are possible because our consciousness is who we are, and it is independent of the body. There is a point where, who we are, gets connected to our physical form, and even though it can't be proven, the metaphysical research validates that it is not at the point of conception.

If you read the research of case studies of people who have been regressed hypnotically to recall their earliest memories, you will learn that is not unusual for the individuals involved to remember their birth, (from an interior perspective, passing through the birth canal.) So, if anybody tells you that our spirit essence doesn't enter the body until after our body was birthed, that flies in the face of the research. From everything I have read, the spirit truly connects with the body at the time of birth.

I have yet to have come across anyone who has remembered anything earlier than the actual birth process. Well, that's not completely true. I have come across thousands of hypnosis subjects who recalled past lives, but the earliest memory in any single life that I've learned about, has been the moment of their birth.

A tremendous amount of metaphysical literature concurs that at the soul level, parents and their future children make agreements to be with each other. Parents should arm themselves with this information so when their kids say that they didn't ask to be brought into this world, they can tell them they most certainly did ask. Furthermore, they requested to have them has their parents.

That of course, brings up the question of why anyone would ask to be brought up by abusive parents. Some of the literature says it's karma, but the majority of it (that I have studied, at least) indicates it's not exactly karma, but that at the soul level, the person decides abusive parents will give her the experiences she needs to learn the lessons she needs to learn in that incarnation.

When you start studying the overwhelming evidence of reincarnation, it becomes increasingly more difficult to not believe it, with each book on the subject that you finish. For most people, it affects their perspective on abortion. While I certainly have not done a scientific survey of believers in reincarnation, I'm pretty sure most of them are not focused on trying to outlaw abortion, even if they personally would be unlikely to have an abortion.

I also believe that if they did have one, they are likely to make sure it was done as early as possible. There is metaphysical literature that says the entity that is going to inhabit the body will check on fetal development and try it on for size, so to speak, at about the end of the first trimester, the 3 month point. The spirit is said to be in the between-life realm, not permanently attached to the body of the fetus until the process of birth, although it does keep on eye on it and go in and out until the time of birth.

There are said to be exceptions to that norm, since not all decisions and agreements are made early on though. There are quite a few almost last minute decisions, and at least some stillborn births can be explained as a fetus was developed but no agreements were ever locked in.

From this metaphysical perspective, abortions are not the same as murdering babies, but it does break the agreement that was made at the soul level. Yet even if the agreement is broken via abortion, they may be made again by the same parties. That is to say, the spirit whose body was aborted, will end up in a future baby body that the mother agrees to create. Sometimes the agreement is broken by the spirit, not the parent.

My mother told me that she believed that I was going to be born a year earlier. She had miscarried at that time and when I was born a year later, she felt a direct connection. She felt there was a good chance that I was the same baby she had miscarried. It's fascinating she would say that because it goes against her fundamentalist Christian programming, which, to me, makes it that much more powerful and convincing that she is onto something.

I remember asking her, at the time she told me, in my childhood, how that could possibly be. She seemed to feel embarrassed when I said that, and quickly dismissed it as silly and basically told me to forget about it.

As an adult I became friends with a gifted psychic who proved to me her uncanny ability on a daily basis. One time she got information that I had given up (committed suicide) in my most recent lifetime. If I did commit suicide, I obviously didn't like it here on earth. I probably was extremely reluctant to come back, so I went back on my agreement, causing my mom to miscarry.

At a very early age, I told my mom, who taught me about living forever in heaven, that I didn't want to live forever. I just wanted life to be over when I died. To this day, I still identify with that. I'm now convinced of the reality of reincarnation, but I'm very much less than thrilled with the idea of having to come back to this place.

I wish those weak minded atheists who believe this is all there is to the game of life, were correct. I even find myself envying their ignorant, blissful state of unawareness and cluelessness of the big picture.

You may ask, if all this is the case, why do I not want fetuses aborted the day before labor would naturally commence. The answer is, I'm not an extremist. Indeed, I want humanity to set the goal of preventing most abortions, which is something that is certainly hypothetically do-able.

Two large parts of the goal are abstinence and adoption. They just aren't the only components. Sexual awareness and contraceptives are two other important aspects. Of the abortions that are not avoided, I wish them to be as early in the first trimester as possible, which is another worthy goal.

I believe that outlawing abortions will hardly make a dent in the number of abortions, while sentencing many thousands of women to painful, tragic deaths every year. I've seen prohibition fail with so many other things. I can't imagine how it would be successful with abortion.

Legal or not, women will still get abortions. If it's illegal, rich women will have various options for safe abortions, but most women will end up putting their life on the line at unsafe options that don't cost as much.

I sincerely believe the “pro life” people are better served by taking action in the hearts and minds department. They are already doing some work in the area. I think that, along with adoption, should be their primary focus. If they simply can not bring themselves to promote sexual awareness and contraception, even as they promote abstinence, it would serve them well to appreciate the individuals in the pro choice side of abortion who are also working to prevent abortion.

Pro choice people tend to consider it extreme to show pictures of the abortion process. While that may be the most extreme aspect to the hearts and mind strategy, if it is not the sole focus, I think it can be not only valid, but very effective – (much like showing images of what happens in a slaughterhouse can be a way to get more people to quit being a part of the massive animal cruelty industry.)

Anybody with even a modicum of an open mind has to admit, that the sooner an abortion is done, the less unpleasant those images are. The very least unpleasant images would be if there was a way to capture what happens when the morning after pill is used.

If the “pro lifers” could step away from the prohibition strategy, and, “murderer,” name calling antics, I think they would be stunned at the level of common ground most of the pro choice people share with them. I'm convinced we all could find ways to work together to prevent millions of abortions within our lifetimes.

The problem with outlawing abortion is there is no way to legally prove when life begins. The problem with having abortions is the later they are performed, the harder it is to argue that life may not have begun.

To be fair, there is no shortage of extremism on both sides of the abortion debate. On the one side you have people who say that at the instant of conception, a human life exists and should be accorded the same protection as a new born baby. On the other side, there are people who have no problem at all if a pregnancy is terminated the day before a baby would have been born.

I have a problem with both extremes, and while I am pro choice, I want to live to see the day when most abortions are prevented. It's a tall order, but absolutely do-able. I've lived long enough to know that making them illegal is not going to stop them from occurring.

I believe that “pro-lifers,” not only don't truly believe their own rhetoric; a great percentage of their efforts are self defeating to their alleged goals. I say, “alleged,” because sometimes I'm not sure of the level of their sincerity.

Do they want to save the lives of, “unborn children,” or do they mostly want to cram their beliefs down the proverbial throats of the rest of the world? If they really would like to stop abortions, they are going about it in the wrong way.

They want to outlaw abortion, as if that will stop abortion. Let's see how the legal process works with prohibition of alcohol, marijuana, street drugs, prostitution, gambling, and the like. This just in… Making things illegal doesn't stop them from happening. In fact, there is evidence indicating that often times, ironically, outlawing something increases the activity that the pushers of the prohibitive laws are trying to curtail.

The truth is the vast majority of abortions could be prevented. It would require an openness and awareness on matters of sex throughout society at every level, especially in families. There should be places nearby in every community or neighborhood, where people could go to get condoms, whether or not they had the money to pay for them.

This, of course, is the last thing most anti-abortion people would want to bring about; and that is why I have to wonder if they really are sincere about curtailing abortions. It seems to me, that if I believed that a human life is instantly created the moment of conception, I would be bending over backwards to prevent the murder of millions of babies, even if it meant making condoms available for people to engage in sex, in circumstances that go against my morals.

It's the same with drug addicts who shoot their drugs with dirty needles, wreaking all kinds of havoc on society with the spread of deadly diseases. When enlightened countries start programs that provide a place for people to get clean syringes, most religious people are up in arms over it, despite the fact that these programs are successful. The spread of disease is drastically curtailed, and help is made available for people when they are ready to try to kick their habit.

Generally speaking, it's these same people seeking to make abortion illegal who are horrified by the prospect of decriminalizing drugs. The evidence is overwhelming that drug prohibition causes many fold more problems than it prevents. It's a failed policy of the worst degree. Criminal elements of government, especially the US, manufacture and distribute the drugs and all the major banks launder the money.

The only sensible thing to do is to stop creating the black market and all the crime that comes with it – not to mention breaking up the institution of family by incarcerating more people than even China. But the same people who want to take away the reproductive rights of women, are against reason and sanity when it comes to drug policy. By and large, they tend to claim to be for small government, yet they want to control how everybody else lives.

The irony is if the two sides would find some middle ground, they could work together to curtail abortions. I think most of the members of the anti choice group would be happy if they realized the percentage of those who are pro choice who would almost never take part in abortion, personally. I can't give you data to prove this, but from what I've observed in people and from what I know about human nature, I'm convinced that in the United States alone, there are millions upon millions of pro-choicers who would never even consider having an abortion, or ask their partner to have one, except in a rare or extreme circumstance.

Indeed, there are probably millions who, regardless of the circumstance, would never have an abortion, yet they want everyone to have the right to make their own decision. That's because they are reasonable and they know that they can't force others to have the same beliefs that they do. It's also because they are not extremists who believe that a single celled zygote, at the instant of conception, is a human being that should be protected by the rights outlined in the constitution, and enforced by the state.

If the anti choice folks are ever able to outlaw abortion, not only will it not stop abortion, but it will be the cause of untold thousands of deaths of women due to botched black market abortions done by “unlicensed practitioners”. It is estimated that 10,000 women in the United States died that way annually before Roe v Wade was decided.

The Supreme Court in Roe v Wade recognized that there are gradients of fetal development, which is something lost on most of the anti choice individuals. It's easy to read into the decision the understanding that the sooner an abortion is done, the better. I know I'd prefer it if abortions were done early in the first trimester.

To be more precise, I'd love to see virtually all abortions prevented, and of those not prevented, the first part of the first trimester would be better than later abortions. The reason that the time frame matters to me is because I'm not an extremist who believes that aborting a fetus the day before labor is the same as terminating a pregnancy at the zygote level.

If the morning after pill was easily accessible whether or not individuals could pay for them, abortions could be prevented even after the would-be mother engaged in sex. It takes time for conception to take place. It could be several days later. In many, if not most cases, the morning after pill (if really taken the morning after) would not even be terminating a pregnancy at that point, since the pregnancy did not yet actually begin.

However you hear stories about anti abortion pharmacists refusing to sell the morning after pill even though it is in stock. How ironic that such action actually leads to conception and then several days later, the emergence of the fetal cell clusters – which no doubts leads to actual abortion, sometimes months later, well into the second trimester.

The earlier that a woman terminates a pregnancy, the better it is in every way. It seems downright criminal that anti abortion activists can be so blind that their efforts actually stop the prevention of abortions. In other words, they are causing abortions to happen that did not have to occur.

There are also a lot of cases where the parents teach abstinence, but to no avail. If the teaching had included other possibilities, pregnancies and/or abortions could be prevented. For instance, the parents could say that in the event the daughter violates the rule of abstinence, they will be open to her coming to them and telling them whatever the situation my be.

Many parents do this about drinking. They tell their kids if the no-drinking rule is violated, they are open to call them so that they will not have to drive home. Some parents understand that while it can sound almost like they are giving their child tacit permission to drink, (even though it is not), this policy is preferable to having their child drink and drive.

Yet many times though, the same parents won't employ that same protocol when it comes to dealing with sex. What ends up happening as a result is the girl never tells her parents, and ultimately gets an abortion, which might have been prevented in a couple different ways.

If after having sexual intercourse, the girl knew that she could tell her parents, without fear of them freaking out and causing major drama and psychic pain, she would call them and they could show her love and help her to go through with the pregnancy, and make the keep or adopt choice about the baby. (Or if they were not extremists they could help her get the morning after pill, to either terminate the early pregnancy at the single cell / zygote stage, or prevent it altogether if her egg had not yet been released.)

And, of course, if her abstinence training had the clause that if she ever did break her abstinence agreement, she must never, under any circumstances, have unprotected sex, and never trust a boy to pull out, the pregnancy could be avoided. (Or if they taught her that mutual masturbation is a better alternative to sexual intercourse, then again, pregnancy could be averted.)

Of course, the most ardent anti abortion individuals almost never raise children in such a reasonable manner. This is because they are more concerned with controlling their kids than they are in preventing abortions.

And that leads me to my next point. Just as it has been discovered there have been closeted gay (usually Republican) lawmakers with a track record of voting against gay rights, there are people who protest to make abortions illegal, who secretly go on to have an abortion, or to help their daughter get an abortion.

It reminds me of all the congressmen (in both houses) who vilified Bill Clinton for having an extramarital affair, who were later found out to be in the midst of extramarital affairs at the time they were condemning him. There is an incredible amount of hypocrisy in politics.

People who say they want to stop abortion should cease their effort to make it illegal, because prohibition won't work. They should focus instead on changing hearts and minds, as well as educating people about the importance of birth control.

Extremists in the “pro life” crowd who encourage people to kill abortion doctors (by publicly praising the people that do that), and who also taunt women who have had abortions, by calling them baby killers, should realize these activities are detrimental to their stated goals.

NOTE: After this was originally written, the Hobby Lobby case against Obamacare came before the Supreme Court. The owner of the company does not want to help his employees having access to any of the morning after pills that Obamacare requires to be made available as contraceptive options.

This is a perfect example of what I was referring to. If the man who owns the company is successful, he will end up bringing about a lot of late term abortions, that could have been prevented at the pre-fetus (zygote) stage. In fact, as stated earlier, in a significant percentage of instances, fertilization does not happen until days after sexual intercourse. In those cases, the pills do not stop a life. They prevent the actual conception from ever even beginning.

If Hobby Lobby's case is successful, not only will his employees end up aborting fetuses as late as the end of the second trimester (and some, no doubt, in the third trimester), as a direct result of his desire to control their reproductive options, but it would mean that women who are not employees of Hobby Lobby will also be getting late term abortions that could have been avoided.

You can also rest assured that if his wife ever has the misfortune of having a tubal pregnancy, they will sign off on the surgical proceduce to have doctors end the life of their unborn baby, even though, ending life, is what he claims he will never voluntarily take part in.

As I said toward the beginning of this post; most pro-lifers really don't want to prevent abortion. They want to control the lives of other people. They make choices and take action that actually helps to bring about abortions; and on top of it all, they truly don't believe their own rhetoric.

That said, I hope he is successful in challenging this aspect of Obamacare. Why is that? Simple: It's because Obamacare is a train wreck, and I support anything that can chip away at its unconstitutional authority.

[For more articles from this Devtome wiki contributor, click here now.]

Politics | Abortion

QR Code
QR Code pro_life_hypocrisy_and_how_to_prevent_abortions_while_keeping_them_legal (generated for current page)

Advertise with Anonymous Ads