The March for Life Is Also a Women’s March
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The March for Life is, at its core, a women’s march.
January 18 marks the 46th annual March for Life held in Washington, D.C. The rally champions life, especially of the unborn, by challenging Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion. Each year, the march boasts high-profile speakers and attracts up to hundreds of thousands of marchers – young, old, men, and, yes, women.
The march calls attention first to the humanity of the unborn. But that’s why it’s also a women’s march: the event values all persons equally from their conception, whether male or female.
It’s a march for women, by women. Women support unborn life regardless of race or sexual orientation. They are Republicans and Democrats, religious and secular, feminists and those who shrug off the label. But this past year’s media coverage disguises women as a rarity – if not an oddity – in the pro-life movement.
Reversing Roe, a Netflix documentary released in September, features 13 women who supported abortion, and only one pro-life woman. That was the filmmakers’ choice: pro-life women confirmed they were interviewed for the project – some for days.
And, when abortion becomes more accessible, many media celebrate it as advancing all women. In May, the networks applauded Ireland’s vote for abortion as a “women’s rights” win. Women’s magazines did similarly.
The media’s narrative echoes abortion activists’: out-of-touch men are the pro-life movement. Just after Christmas, #ShoutYourAbortion co-founder Amelia Bonow blamed her abortion troubles on “old white dudes in the government.”
But pro-life women exist. An Aug. CBS/Refinery29 poll revealed 72 percent of millennial women are likely in favor of abortion restrictions. On Jan. 15, a Marist poll found 75 percent of Americans – including women – agree abortion should be limited to the first three months of pregnancy. Nationally, women lead the pro-life movement, like March for Life president Jeanne Mancini.
“Every abortion harms mother and baby,” she stressed, adding that past marchesaimed to “bring to light the truth that life is the empowering choice for women.” The 2019 theme emphasizes science’s role in the pro-life movement, from revealing the unborn baby’s unique DNA at fertilization to its heartbeat at six weeks.
"It's a scandal that many journalists and media ignore embryology specifically, and medical and scientific reality generally, in order to serve as, in effect, marketers for the interests of the abortion lobby," commented Americans United for LifePresident Catherine Glenn Foster. She agreed the march represented especially “women and the vulnerable.”
Pro-life leader Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood director, will speak at the march she called “inherently pro-women.”
“All women, she said, “deserve to have their stories told, not just those whose circumstances and values align to those of mainstream media.” Those included former abortion workers, represented by Johnson’s group, And Then There Were None.
Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins added the march “is the most pro-woman event in the nation” because “we want help all women, no matter their stage of development.”
As the head of New Wave Feminists, Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa said, each January, she attends two women’s marches: the March for Life and the Women’s March. “We would help so many more women, both born and unborn, if we were able to join forces and work together to better advocate for ALL women,” she stressed.
Unlike the March for Life, the Women’s March is recognized for representing women. The event, which began in opposition to President Trump in 2017, occurs a day after the pro-life march for “all women.” But from its inception, the Women’s March either uninvited or refused pro-life groups led by women as partners. Soon after, it partnered with Planned Parenthood and adopted an abortion-friendly platform.
Instead of seeing disagreement as an opportunity for dialogue, the Women’s March cut itself off from women who are different. There are areas both sides might unite on – from providing resourcesfor women keeping their babies to fighting sex-selective abortion that ends millions of female fetuses simply because they aren’t as valued as males.
Many see those challenging abortion as wanting to control women’s bodies and personal decisions. The difference comes in that pro-lifers see two people, not one, in every pregnancy.
It's time the media and women’s movements acknowledged the pro-life women who march for life because they believe women's rights – and human rights – begin in the womb. They don’t march specifically for women or female fetuses. They march because, from their beginning, women are persons just as much as men.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
40 visitors
“Pro-life leader Abby Johnson , a former Planned Parenthood director, will speak at the march she called “inherently pro-women.”
“All women, she said, “deserve to have their stories told, not just those whose circumstances and values align to those of mainstream media.” Those included former abortion workers, represented by Johnson’s group, And Then There Were None .
Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins added the march “is the most pro-woman event in the nation” because “we want help all women, no matter their stage of development.”
As the head of New Wave Feminists , Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa said, each January, she attends two women’s marches: the March for Life and the Women’s March. “We would help so many more women, both born and unborn, if we were able to join forces and work together to better advocate for ALL women,” she stressed.
Unlike the March for Life, the Women’s March is recognized for representing women. The event, which began in opposition to President Trump in 2017, occurs a day after the pro-life march for “all women.” But from its inception, the Women’s March either uninvited or refused pro-life groups led by women as partners. Soon after, it partnered with Planned Parenthood and adopted an abortion-friendly platform .
Instead of seeing disagreement as an opportunity for dialogue, the Women’s March cut itself off from women who are different.”
Attempts to limit or prohibit abortion in not being for women's rights. Just the opposite. But there are plenty of women who are pro-choice too. So this so called march is not likely to change anything, especially the Roe ruling, which itself has withstood the test of time and multiple challenges, only to be reaffirmed! But hey, people are free to whine about abortion all they want. If they don't like it, they are free to not have it. They simply cannot tell others what to do regarding their choices!
Which is demonstrably and legally inaccurate!
..... “There is strength and passion in the words we echo on this sobering anniversary: every child should be wanted in love and protected in law. I’m intimately familiar with these words.
I grew up with an older brother who was adopted. I watched women I love in high school and post-college struggle with deep feeling of regret for their abortions that eventually led to alcoholism and marital problems. But it was the moment when a fellow student at Liberty University showed me victim pictures of the remains of an aborted baby (Little arms and legs mangled at the hand of an abortionist) that awakened me to the knowledge that abortion is a grievous and horrifying violation of human rights. Yes, this is personal.
HOW THE MARCH FOR LIFE AND THE WOMEN'S MARCH VALUE WOMEN DIFFERENTLY
Concerned Women for America – the nation's largest public policy women's organization – celebrates our 40th anniversary in 2019, so we are almost as old as the Roe v. Wade decision. This issue was paramount in our founding.....”
Laws are already in place to protect children.
And many women who do have children also experience similar problems. Some women have no regrets about abortion either. So what's your point? Other than a flawed argument from some appeal to emotion.
Sounds like you fell for pro-life propaganda then. Can't say I'm surprised.
Unless you are the one getting pregnant and have to make a personal choice about it, then it is not personal! So spare me the sanctimony! Any of your 'personal" issues are yours and yours alone. A woman's choice to continue a pregnancy or not is her personal business and certainly none of yours!
And the Roe decision isn't going anywhere.
You realize that the words you were responding to were those of a woman and not mine don’t you. She’s Penny Nance the elected leader of Concerned Women For America and protecting the lives of preborn baby children is one of their major reasons for existence. Roe vs Wade was wrongly decided and will be overturned with the issue going back to the states.
Yes, but you're the one who seems to support, agree, and parrot her. So my reply is just as much to you as well.
it's also none of their business, especially in regards to what a woman chooses to do.
Keep dreaming. Roe has withstood legal challenges for almost 50 years now.
When these people show a respect for life for the born, regardless of faith, color, place of birth, sex, etc, their opinion still won't matter. Because it's a private concern of the woman and her body. If these women and men really cared about abortion, they would make sure there were no unintended pregnancies. But they do the opposite by trying to stop women from having full health benefits that include contraception, instead preferring to slut shame and blame the woman for being 'irresponsible'. Male or female, stay the hell out of other women's health decisions.
We shall see. It may face it's real challenge in the coming years, but it would seem that at the very least it will become more restricted. BTW, as a Republican, I should thank that Court for it's Judicial overreach, the pro-life movement found it's home in the GOP and they might not like what Trump says, but they know he is their best hope.
I think the ailing Justice Ginsburg said it best:
"Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring un-constitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on...to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force, would there have been the 20-year controversy we have witnessed?"
The Court crossed a line that day.
It's already faced multiple challenges over the years.
Abortion rights was more restricted when Roe was originally decided. Subsequent legal challenges and reviews have only loosened such restrictions and expanded women's right (regardless of certain states attempts to reverse it). Restricting it would only unnecessarily restrict women's rights.
And the pro-life will always be countered by pro-choice. It's been going on for decades now.
That was in 1993 and Justice Ginsburg was referring to the Court's thinking on the Roe matter, not the decision itself. She clarified her statement during her confirmation hearing however: "Abortion prohibition by the State, however, controls women and denies them full autonomy and full equality with men. That was the idea I tried to express ....”
You need to remember the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. In that ruling the Court refused to overturn Roe, BUT significantly modified it. As part of overturning a PA statute (that ordered a married woman to notify her husband of her intent to have an imminent abortion) because the Court said it imposed an "undue burden" on the woman, they created a new standard at odds with Roe's "Fundamental Right" of a woman. Under the "Fundamental Right" standard the early restrictions of a pregnancy were unconstitutional. After Casey some of those restrictions are now valid.
The Court also upheld statutory provisions requiring a woman to wait 24 hours before an abortion. The trimester framework was also repudiated.
I am familiar with the case. Casey expanded women's autonomy and rights in regards to abortion. Being required to notify a spouse (or anyone else for that matter) curtails a woman's autonomy. It also established abortion permissibility at the point of viability, which is a reasonable amount of time. In effect, without getting in too deep with regards to the details or specifics of the case, Roe was not only affirmed, but expanded upon.
Vic, you might want to consider the possibility that lines you (or the anti-choice minority in this country) draw don't really count.
I've always been in favor of letting women decide the abortion issue. Men should have no say in it at all.
Which is why all the pro life beliefs and values in the seeded article and other supporting one are by pro life women.
Lol, so you are in favor of letting women decide the issue too?
Women are women, whether for or against their choices are individual and no likely made after much reflection and should be respected.
Personally I have always thought that all of our body parts fell into the realm of the private (hence privates) domain that only the individual held sway over. Most folks have their own vaginas and penises to do what they will with, apparently one is not enough and some want to poke their noses (hopefully warmed up) and direct others as to what they should or should not be used for.
Pretty much along the same lines.
Unless I wake up tomorrow sporting a vagina, I am entitled to my own opinion on abortion but that's about as far as it goes.
It's the progressive dream.. I Only blacks decide questions for blacks, only males have a say in male issues.
The idea that a black woman could represent a white male is preposterous, per progressive logic.
Segregate everyone into biological groups! So what if we went to war to end such thinking.
Also, and here's the obvious point progressives miss, women's lives are ended by abortion.
Look at China and how many millions of lives were ended, just because they were women. Sad how happy liberals are to kill women.
Well said.
What a stupid statement.
What’s really sad is how true all of Sean’s comments really are.
You never miss an opportunity to make thing's even sadder, though, HA(etc,etc). And this is another one.
They are free to march all they want and have the opinions they have but, they are not free to tell another woman what her choice should be when faced with an unplanned pregnancy.
Plain and simple...NOT your uterus NOT your business.
You should have that slogan copyrighted, there is money to be made on that one.
Kidding to one side, life would have been so simple if the law had been written that way cannot disagree with one word you said.
actually under our free expression and free association rights, we are free to attempt to persuade and to express our beliefs to others, even if that expression leads one to decide to keep their baby.
"Instead of seeing disagreement as an opportunity for dialogue, the Women’s March cut itself off from women who are different. "
There is but one of the differences, the other being the disparity in coverage by the msm
True. Our women’s group yesterday will be 10x the size of theirs today and theirs will get 10x the media coverage of ours. Though Trump will steal some of their thunder with his announcement today.
Another is characterization.....
To the political women's movement, the opposition is characterized as all men all the time. therefore oppressive. In maintaining that characterization, they HAVE to ignore the women that disagree with them and have since the beginning. And If you understand the arguments against bigotry, those that are ignored are a voice that needs to be heard and protected.
Gays were forced into the closet for many many decades, now they are forcing many many women into the closet cause their rights to be heard are not valued.
Also note one thing, the activist court established many laws against the tide of public opinion at the time of pronouncement. Miranda, Escobedo and several others along with Roe.....
You don't hear of those being challenged and argued as Roe has been since it was pronounced, do you?
Why? cause they were just rulings establishing procedural rights plainly spelled out in the constitution.
Roe on the other hand has been challenged since it was issued because it is an unjust ruling. It goes too far it creates a complete underclass of women that disagrees with it and believe that their rights to choose are being trampled by Roe....
And this disparity is plain in the so called "women's movement" completely ignoring the women who are against Roe.......
Roe was a political decision it has held on this long because of the political environment. That environment is changing and we will see changes to Roe if not a complete repudiation.
A good result cause the political charade of Roe has gone on way too long..... It has created a permanent underclass of Women which are having their rights trampled under the rights of those who agree with Roe's dictatorial absolutism.
Just court decisions do not get challenged since there holding is issued. Roe has been cause it is an unjust decision based upon an assumption, that ALL women want the same thing.... We see that assumption made by the political leftists all the time...
Well said in my opinion.
There are 3 choices in dealing with an unplanned pregnancy
Birth and keep
Birth and adopt out
Abortion
One set of women want to take choice no. 3 away from all women and they are free to choose not to have an abortion so how are their right to choice trampled by Roe.
One set of women want to retain all 3 choices and leave it up to the individual woman to decide which choice is best for HER
So who's choice is always threatened to be taken away, not the women who oppose choice no. 3
BTW, conservative christian women have abortions too you know.
I've already expressed my opinion on the abortion issue, and it is no different than what you have expressed here.
Legally there are issues with the Roe decision, Unjust issues.
I believe that a right to have an abortion is not inopposite of a right to life for a mother or child
The real test of the rightness or justness of a position is will it stand the test of time. Will the right to have your own choice survive Roe is the real question.
I think it will cause it is just, without the extreme legal positioning the Supreme Court made to justify their decision.
Hence, even without Roe, I think the right to choice survives challenge. With maybe some limitations and protection for those children that make to birth.
I view this as the reasonable, middle of the road, decision/position.....
You and I are not that far apart and our differences are I feel mostly political in nature lady in black.
Such as?
What if a woman chooses to have an abortion because she simply does not want to be pregnant?
Well, it's already stood for nearly half a century.
If Roe were to be overturned (highly unlikely), then women would effectively lose their choice, or be at the mercy of individual states regarding abortion.
Abortion is already prohibited after the point of viability, unless there are medical issues. That seems reasonable.
Plessey vs Ferguson lasted about 60 years. Both it and roe vs Wade were wrongly and unjustly decided and are complete moral equivalents. One has rightly been reversed and the other soon will be.
You're trying to compare abortion with segregation? Really?
Morality is irrelevant, as morality is subjective and cannot be legislated.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. Not likely to happen though. Reversing Roe would effectively limit or remove established rights for women. There is not one instance, in the entire history of the court, where rights have been revoked once granted. But it's clear you think women should have their rights forcibly removed.
Then there is the asinine state of New York and it’s ridiculous Governor Abortion. He’s refusing to sign a budget until the state assembly and senate pass laws making all abortions for any reason right up until the second before birth legal with no questions asked.
Sounds like the governor knows abortion is a woman's personal decision and choice, and no one else's. Good for him.
Every human has the right to life which the idiot governor is trampling upon.
Sure, once they're born. The unborn do not have rights. And giving the unborn rights would only diminish the rights of the woman. The governor seems to understand that. Too bad there are some who do not.
So a right to abortion extends right into 3rd trimester 9th month delivery as long as the baby’s head hasn’t emerged from the vaginal opening yet and can breath without exception or reason? Is that your position? It is Cuomo’s.
Is that a serious question? or do you not know the current law and limits on abortion?
Maybe it is you who doesn’t know the extent of what the idiot governor of the stupid state is trying to do regarding that issue. He is pressing the state to remake current law in that state into exactly as I described. That in his state a woman will have the right to an abortion for any reason no questions asked right up to the very second the child is born.
Speak for yourself! Gov. Cuomo wanted to utilize existing federal protections for abortion into state law and allow licensed healthcare providers to provide abortions under the Reproductive Health Act. It also decriminalizes abortions.
Wrong! Gov. Cuomo wants to allow late term abortions when the woman's health or life is at risk. He was pushing to bring NY law up to speed with the Roe decision. It seems you have no clue as to what the governor was trying to do!
Here is the bill, and no where does it say anything remotely what you are implying. Just stop with the falsehoods.
BILL NUMBER: S2796 TITLE OF BILL : An act to amend the public health law, in relation to enacting the reproductive health act and revising existing provisions of law regarding abortion; to amend the penal law, the criminal procedure law, the county law and the judiciary law, in relation to abortion; to repeal certain provisions of the public health law relating to abortion; to repeal certain provisions of the education law relating to the sale of contraceptives; and to repeal certain provisions of the penal law relating to abortion PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL : Relates to access to reproductive services. SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS : Section 1 of the bill establishes the legislative intent. Section 2 of the bill creates a new Article 25-A of the Public Health Law (PHL), which states that an abortion May be performed by a licensed, certified, or authorized practitioner within 24 weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or at any time when necessary to protect a patient's life or health.
Section 3 of the bill repeals § 4164 of the Public Health Law. Section 4 of the bill repeals § 6811 of the Education Law. Section 5 of the bill repeals Penal Law §§ 125.40, 125.45, 125.50, 120.55 and 125.60 and amends the article heading of Article 125. Section 6 of the bill amends Penal Law § 125.00. Section 7 of the bill amends penal law § 125.05. Section 7-a of the bill repeals subdivisions 2 and 3 of § 125.05 of the penal law. Section 8 of the bill repeals subdivision 2 of § 125.15 of the Penal Law. Section 9 of the bill repeals subdivisions (3) and (4) of § 125.20 of the Penal Law. Sections 10, 11, and 12 of the bill make conforming changes by removing references to the crime of abortion in the Criminal Procedure Law, the County Law, and the Judiciary Law. Section 13 sets forth the effective date. JUSTIFICATION : In 1970, New York legalized abortion in some circumstances, thereby recognizing that a woman has a fundamental right to make medical decisions about the course of a pregnancy. Three years later, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its landmark decision in (Roe v. Wade), 410 U.S. 113 (1973), holding that this fundamental right is protected by the United States Constitution. During the decades since (Roe v. Wade) was decided, there have been numerous court decisions clarifying the scope of the right to abortion but, unfortunately, New York's laws have remained outdated. Furthermore, it is clear that some provisions of New York law are unconstitutional and have proved burdensome to women seeking to assert their constitutionally protected right to an abortion. This bill updates New York's abortion statutes to address constitutional flaws in our laws and recognize a woman's fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY : This is a new bill.He's just parroting conservative talking points or outright lies, without actually researching the issue itself. It's intellectually lazy at best, and dishonest at worst. Thanks for providing a copy of the bill lady. Looks like you conclusively proved him wrong again.
[deleted]
[This ink has already been locked as a seed for inflammatory language]
[Please do not repost anywhere else.]
[Quote is from the same article (already blocked) and contains inflammatory language.]
[deleted]
[language specifically prohibited in the CoC.]
[Deleted.]
[Both the headline and the quote from the article are prohibited regardless of the source of the "journalism".]
It’s sad that the pro abortion crowd gets special exemptions to prevent their exposure to the real life and death consequences of what they advocate for.
The idiocy is that the real life and death consequences are individual consequences...
And those facing said issues HAVE THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO MAKE THOSE CHOICES!
Your brand of fascist totalitarianism is just as repugnant to me as the socialists/neo-nazi's/corporatist's/antifa/ etc etc etc, brand...
Hate for Hate's sake is WRONG!!!!
Where is your professed libertarian ideals in all this hate?
There you go, once again labeling us pro abortion....for the umpteenth time NO ONE IS PRO ABORTION.
Special exemptions like saving their own life...carrying a dead fetus.....are you for real.
Lying about our position is antagonistic.
I already told you that I don’t oppose all abortions. See my comments at the end of the comments. I’m not a hardline Catholic who opposes abortion even to save the life of the mother.
Like I said to Perrie on that matter earlier. I can see and support the pro life movement including me no longer using that term the moment the people who prefer the pro choice name cease calling us in the pro life movement anti choice instead of our preference, pro life. I’m all for toning down rhetoric. So if there is ever agreement on the side of those who prefer to be called pro choice to always call us by our preferred term pro life, we will reciprocate and stop the use of the pro abortion term. Getting rid of both the terms pro abortion and anti choice seems fair but it has to be both or neither. You think that the pro choice movement will go for that? We pro lifers simply choose life.
So is the lie of calling us anti choice. I’m all for ending the use of both terms quid pro quo. We pro life people choose life.
So, you think women should choose whether they have an abortion or not, without consulting your morals about it?
If you can't answer "yes", you're anti-choice. You want to deny them a choice, based on your beliefs.
I'm talking about using it on this site, not the whole world. It is offensive and antagonistic so for common courtesy sake please stop using it here.
How about we outlaw abortions around the same time we outlaw privately owned weapons? We all want to support "life", right? Personally I think I'd rather keep both things legal and let people choose for themselves.
It’s a lot easier for us to get a Supreme Court to reverse and repeal Roe than it is for you to amend the constitution to repeal the 2nd amendment. Besides, repealing Roe would not outlaw abortion. It would return the issue to the 50 states.
Yeah, because that worked sooo well the first time around. >sarc<
Roe will not be reversed
Actually it did. Although the butchers in the NY legislature and governors office won’t be happy until they impose what they did to their barbaric state upon the rest of us.
The failure to reverse it and the imposed legalization of same sex so called marriages is simply evidence of the moral decay that we were told would be present in the last days. As it was in the days of Noah and Sodom so will it be at the end so failing reform we at least have the end of the age to look forward to.
Blah, blah, blah.....how is same sex marriage affecting your life and marriage....it doesn't.....too bad, deal with it. Equal rights and all. Your bible and religion have NO bearing on anyone else's life but your own.
NY legalized abortion 3 years ahead of Roe. Once again, how is a woman choosing what she should do with an unplanned pregnancy affecting your life. It's not your medical decision, it's not YOUR business.
A woman isn’t going to respond to an unplanned pregnancy by waiting until the moment before delivery to take the life of her child in the manner described regarding the late term abortions the satanic acting governor of New York demanded without question.
First off it's NOT without question, it is viability of the fetus and life and health of mother. Just stop with the prolifer falsehoods.
And second a pregnant woman in her 7-9th month is NOT going to wake up one day and say I want an abortion.
Here is an example of why:
This is my post about late term termination. I'm sorry if this upsets my loved ones but I have to get this off my chest. I want to thank NY for the update in law.
Here is the ugly truth about choices.
Yes in color so you can see our pain.
This is our grandson Xander Ramone Borges stillborn on April 4th 2017. He did not survive the birth and we knew he wouldn't since January 2017.
Our daughter was 1 week past the allowed # of weeks to terminate the pregnancy. Albany Medical Center said it wasn't ethical but that we could go to Colorado or New Mexico at a cost starting at $30,000. I even offered to speak to the ethics board.
My daughter SUFFERED for 4 months carrying a baby that we knew wouldn't survive. We cried, we prayed we did it all but the outcome was not changed. There is nothing I wouldn't do to take away our daughter and future son in law's pain. I am a Momma bear so I mean I would do anything.
So as you all post about how disguted you are about this law
Please know that some of us are not angry and I bet there are others who agree but are not yet strong enough to share. This late term termination law needed to change for the health of women who need the choice.
We will always love Xander but I sure wish my daughter could have had the choice that women in NY will now have.
Unfriend me if you can't have compassion.
And that doesn't happen as common place. The situation would have to be extreme. No doctor here would do that as it is considered to be murder, unless absolutely necessary.
The silence from the immoral anti-choice hypocrites will be deafening and any responses will be mere platitudes. Thank you for sharing this painful experience.
Of course I won't get an answer, I found the story on Facebook.
Specify where in the law it is stated!
Spare us the hyperbole. NY can do what it wants. What it does has no effect on any of the other states.
Morality is subjective and cannot be legislated.
Your silly religious myths have no bearing in law, government, or rationality.
You clearly do not understand how late term abortions are performed or why. Neither do women suddenly decide they want to abort in late term pregnancy. How a woman responds to pregnancy is her choice, not yours, and none of your business either! Perhaps you should actually research the topic before you spew pro-life propagandist rhetoric and misinformation or sensationalism. Your ad hom attack also shows how irrational and weak your argument really is.
Well, then, thank you for sharing it by proxy.
I empathize..... Same situation, My step daughter went thru the same thing, Tina Louise Walla, 11/15/97, lived for about 5 minutes before passing. We all knew it from the 6th month on..... the law even here in Washington doesn't allow for such.....
Carrying a child you know is dead or going to die is a special kind of pain.....
So sorry....and that is why NYS passed the law they did.
I'm sorry, NWM.
Watching my Daughter go thru that reminded me in many ways why my mother would get this pained forlorn expression on her face when talking about the brother I don't have. She had a stillborn boy...... That was back in the days you HAD to wait till birth to find out....
I'm sure she would have liked the ability to have made that decision herself....
And it's a good law, one of the nuances that blanket laws like Roe doesn't consider.....
My daughter went on to have five, four girls and a boy, all wonderful grandchildren.
But it took a while to get over her first....
Eighteen weeks into my 2nd pregnancy, my ob couldn't hear a fetal heartbeat at a routine prenatal visit. An immediate ultrasound confirmed there was no fetal heart activity. I was induced a few days later, went through a hellish labor, and ended up in the OR when the placenta wouldn't deliver and I hemorrhaged. I remember watching my BP fall on the monitor, and I remember the ob and anesthesiologist consulting in pre-op about how best to anesthetize me. The ob didn't think I had the 10 minutes necessary for an epidural.
Childbirth is a hard, sometimes dangerous business. It usually goes right, but a lot can go wrong, and there need to be options for dealing with the times it goes wrong. Women's health should not be sacrificed to the altar of someone else's god.
There are women who have been in similar situations as me, but who were denied abortions because there was still a weak fetal heartbeat. That's dangerous to the mother, and puts her life and health at risk for a fetus which can't be saved. That's not pro-life.
I'm sorry, MUVA.
Amen sister! I'm glad you had the choice.....
That was one of the points of us marching back in the 70's.....
It's wasn't only about sexual equality, that is lost on many today.....
So sorry
Next years March for life should take place in New York City in Manhattan Island instead of DC.
I couldn't agree more. The pro-choice counter march would dwarf the anti-choice hypocrites by at least a factor of 10 there.
The March draws people from all over America every year on the anniversary of the vile and wrongly decided 1973 court decision. Why would the counter protesters show up in New York that don’t in Washington DC?
So, you know nothing about NY then.
Why do you think it would cause a riot? And the pro-choice counter march wouldn't necessarily be the same day.
We have never had anything resembling a conflict at a pro life rally. Protesting at. PP abortuaries has caused some difficulties mostly stirred up by PP people leaving the designated separation safe zones to go after pro lifers on public property.
Unless you don't call harassment of the people going into PP a problem. I have personally witnessed this first hand since there was a PP right next door to Forest Hills Cat Hospital, and they would yell at me, too, even though I was walking in holding a cat.
You mean like leaving the PP clinics and getting shot to death by one of your "pro-lifers?" Name one "pro-lifer" who's ever been killed by a pro-choice person.
Why do you try to antagonize?
Why do you consider all points of view differing from yours to be antagonizing to the point of censoring wide spread multi platform Christian media that does my point of view instead of yours? Holding strongly a position in total disagreement with everything that you believe in or stand for is merely free expression, not antagonism. It’s sad that those who call themselves pro choice find those of us who choose life to be antagonistic for merely expressing our view point
And how is suggesting a change in venue for our annual March for Life being antagonistic in your opinion since that is what you responded to?
Not all points of view (especially yours) is valid, factual or even rational.
But when you present disagreement with false information, then it's not so much a disagreement as it is a lie! Or just plain ignorance of the actual topic!
Express all you want, including your so called "choose life." You just don't get to "choose" for anyone else!
Here is the difference.
First I am pro-choice. Recently, some people have coined the term "pro-abortion". I resent that. Pro-choice is an inclusive term. It means that I accept you and your beliefs, but don't force them on others. Your term ( and yes I have seen you use it) means that I want people to have abortions, which isn't true.
So actually it is you that is the intolerant one. I can accept you as you are, but you can't accept me. That is antagonism.
And that's what extremist religious zealotry does.
The blood lust of the state of New York as expressed by the Christian Post, One News Now, Town Hall and many other Christian based news sources is right on and one hundred percent right in my opinion and belief system. The locked article still visible here and now at heated discussions is my personal opinion on the issue and of the state and its lawmakers and what I personally think of all the above. That is me and you can know it every time you see my name and anything I express on any subject. Repeal the New York law!
Just stop, no one has blood lust that I know of. Fat chance of ever repealing the law. Again, NYS was 3 years a head of the Roe decision. And aren't you one who spews States Rights, and want to create a state all of your own. Don't like what is going on in NYS too bad.
And you wonder why I say your commentary is antagonistic. That is a perfect example. Blood lust. Like New Yorkers are a pile of insane murders. Yet for a city of 8 million, we are very peaceful. Do what you like with your beliefs and let others do what they want with theirs.
Well, for one thing, NYC is not the nation's capital where to anti-choice movement has the ear of sympathetic politicians as opposed to NYC where it would have virtually no political audience so it would obviously be simply an "in-the-face" move--maybe in hopes of actually provoking some violence that you could later parlay into some kind of advantage. In other words, a blatantly aggressive action for some kind of political gain. And your pretense of innocence of that being the underlying motive for such a move is entirely consistent with the complete lack of credibility you're famous for here as it was on Newsvine for so many years.
When the so called pro choice side cease and desist from calling pro life anti choice is when we will stop calling pro choice pro abortion. A quid pro quo. When the pro choice people stop referring to us as anti choice I will stop calling pro choice pro abortion. The opposing side also has feelings. Deal?
I have never used any of those term. To me it's always been pro-choice /pro-life. And I am not trying to push my agenda on you, but you are trying to do so on those who want a choice (I am far past those days, but I still support choice).
Since NY is an actual state with a state government and all the necessary things that help improve their citizens lives I find your comments re NY to be hilarious. You, claiming to live in the mythical state of Jeffersonia are the last person that should be commenting on actual states and their laws...
That was the consensus headline regarding the issue all across Christian news media that used commentary on the issue. I’m not antagonistic. I’m standing by and supporting my fellow believers in what I/ we think of the issue. Nothing more. And that was one of the more moderate headlines and articles on the topic there.
It is true that California is every bit as stupid a state in general as New York and it’s majority of elected leaders every bit as moronic as our majority is.
So you and the other Jeffersonian's are governed by morons..Doesn't say much for Jeffersonian's that they allow themselves to be governed by morons.
BTW, have you ever got that Jeffersonia thing on the ballot?
I didn't mention California, I said Jeffersonia and those that believe that it is an actual state....LOLOL
[deleted]
Until we free ourselves from those morons who rule over us, anytime you refer to the State of Jefferson and it’s promoters you are sadly talking about California, the state tied with New York as being our two worst states and not because of their rural and mountain foothill portions.
Yet here you are, being ruled over by morons. You have been for years and you will be well into infinity..
Sad when you can't best a moron.
You're free to consume all the christian news media you want. But please stop trying to puke it all up on NT.
I’m not talking about you or me personally. We are in the unpersuadable crowd on this issue on separate sides. Many of us on the choose life side began using pro abortion in our rhetoric after having the anti choice label thrown in our collective faces. It would not have occurred to me to use the term pro abortion to describe pro choice people before the anti choice invective was hurled our way. I’m fair minded enough to stop using pro abortion in my discussion of the issue if the other side collectively agreed to stop using the anti choice label. I’m sure that some other pro life people don’t use pro abortion or anti life and some pro choice don’t hurl anti choice. Maybe we could have the coc in the future ban both the terms pro abortion and anti choice as perjoratives as we do seem to like to engage in censorship to suppress the expression of certain viewpoints?
I agree with the first part. That seems totally fair. I would have to disagree that anyone is trying to suppress anyone's viewpoints. Proof of that, is that this is all still here, right?
You do know that New York State is NOT just New York City. I live in Western NY it's about a 6 hour drive to NYC from where I live. The governor resides in Albany, NY which is a 3 hour drive to NYC.
I would find Albany an acceptable location in front of the capital near the Governor’s mansion but it’s not as easily reached by all Americans from across the country as NYC or DC is.
You know there is this thing called an airport and Albany, NY has one.
Oh, well. Go ahead with Albany then. I'm all for your cause wasting it's money and time.
And getting a flight there is just as cheap as getting to NYC or DC? Virtually every city of any size has an airport.
Google is your best friend to look up airlines and airfare....
I had no clue. Upstate and Western New York should be like Jefferson and attempt to secede from NYC and the Hudson up to Albany with Long Island being divided between the two. Then Westerners wouldn’t have to drive to Pennsylvania to get good fracking jobs.
Well first off personally I am glad in regards to no fracking. Yes, we joke sometimes about breaking away from NYC and saying they should call it NYC State, but no need to break away from NYC, we would lose a HUGE tax base. I just laugh at the misconception that when you say you're from NY people automatically think NYC,
Great. You can petition NYC to do just that. Let us know how that works out for you.
The Roe decision was a wise one. What makes you more qualified to interpret the Constitution or decision than a SCOTUS justice?
Seven of them decided stupidly.
Only in your opinion. For most women they decided correctly
Too bad the legal world (not to mention public opinion*) disagrees strongly with that "idea." The polling on this subject has been very stable for the 45+ years since Roe was decided. Here's a sample of the last 15 years:
As usual with the public, the biggest fluctuations of opinion are in the people who never can seem to make up their minds about anything.
On what legal grounds would the city of New York deny a free speech and assembly permit to the pro life movement.
Abortion is an absolutely necessary medical procedure XXX, I do not understand your abhorrance to it....
Pro-choice is NOT in-opposite of Right-to-life......
If all life matters, then choice is the only answer......
Should Roe be overturned, ABSOLUTELY! not because of what it effectuates but because of the way it did it.
I would rather give up a few undefined pre-persons than give up the life of the woman.
A society is somewhat graded on it's ideals of the sanctity of life. And I find it hard to accept that the life of a woman is less than the potential life it can create.....
Your bloodlust is unwarranted.....
I completely agree that the Government should not be in the abortion business in any manner whatsoever. That is not a life issue, but as a society I for one do not want to go back to an age where women are dying cause of a mistake made when they were less than coherent....
The law is correct, fix the underlying irrationality in justifying the creation of it and leave the rest be.......
I actually support abortion in the event of severe enough deformity to cause no quality of life at all after birth and to save the life of the mother. I do not oppose choice of abortion in the event of incest or rape. While it is visiting capital punishment upon the Child for the sin of his or her father, it is at least understandable considering everything involved. So, no I’m not totally opposed to all abortion in all circumstances.
So, you're pro-abortion?
So, then your pro choice.....
Good for you....