The Faces Of Pro-Lifers

[John Shaw]

A woman knows there is a human life growing inside of her. She knows this.

I notice that you’ve gone out of your way to show blacks in your pictures but the marchers are overwhelmingly white and middle class. A sea of blond, white faces.

The women who are having most of the abortions, are overwhelmingly working poor, married or in a committed relationship, and have one or more children.

By age 40, one woman in four will have had an abortion and, unless they’re sterile, virtually all will have had an unplanned pregnancy. All will have been grateful for having had a choice in the matter. All will understand how deeply and profoundly having a child transforms their lives and how necessary it is to the process to want to carry that child.

Adoption is a poor alternative since there are 100,000 children added to the “available for adoption” roles every single year. All you’re doing is adding to the numbers of children who will grow up in foster care.

But more importantly, countries which have a strong social safety net and mandated maternity leave, health care and subsidize day care, have half the number of abortions that you have.

Unless and until you address these issues, even banning abortions and criminalizing abortions, won’t end them.

Canada has no abortion laws at all. It’s a medical matter between a woman and her doctor and paid for by our health care.

I have never had an abortion. That’s my choice. If you believe abortion is wrong, that can be your choice too. It’s that simple.

A pro abortion woman should think twice before spreading her aloha all over town like a hoe

-Geaux

You have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[Geaux4it]

A woman knows there is a human life growing inside of her. She knows this.

I notice that you’ve gone out of your way to show blacks in your pictures but the marchers are overwhelmingly white and middle class. A sea of blond, white faces.

The women who are having most of the abortions, are overwhelmingly working poor, married or in a committed relationship, and have one or more children.

By age 40, one woman in four will have had an abortion and, unless they’re sterile, virtually all will have had an unplanned pregnancy. All will have been grateful for having had a choice in the matter. All will understand how deeply and profoundly having a child transforms their lives and how necessary it is to the process to want to carry that child.

Adoption is a poor alternative since there are 100,000 children added to the “available for adoption” roles every single year. All you’re doing is adding to the numbers of children who will grow up in foster care.

But more importantly, countries which have a strong social safety net and mandated maternity leave, health care and subsidize day care, have half the number of abortions that you have.

Unless and until you address these issues, even banning abortions and criminalizing abortions, won’t end them.

Canada has no abortion laws at all. It’s a medical matter between a woman and her doctor and paid for by our health care.

I have never had an abortion. That’s my choice. If you believe abortion is wrong, that can be your choice too. It’s that simple.

A pro abortion woman should think twice before spreading her aloha all over town like a hoe

-Geaux

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Of course I do, the issue is you don't have a clue

-Geaux

 

[Dragonlady]

A woman knows there is a human life growing inside of her. She knows this.

I notice that you’ve gone out of your way to show blacks in your pictures but the marchers are overwhelmingly white and middle class. A sea of blond, white faces.

The women who are having most of the abortions, are overwhelmingly working poor, married or in a committed relationship, and have one or more children.

By age 40, one woman in four will have had an abortion and, unless they’re sterile, virtually all will have had an unplanned pregnancy. All will have been grateful for having had a choice in the matter. All will understand how deeply and profoundly having a child transforms their lives and how necessary it is to the process to want to carry that child.

Adoption is a poor alternative since there are 100,000 children added to the “available for adoption” roles every single year. All you’re doing is adding to the numbers of children who will grow up in foster care.

But more importantly, countries which have a strong social safety net and mandated maternity leave, health care and subsidize day care, have half the number of abortions that you have.

Unless and until you address these issues, even banning abortions and criminalizing abortions, won’t end them.

Canada has no abortion laws at all. It’s a medical matter between a woman and her doctor and paid for by our health care.

I have never had an abortion. That’s my choice. If you believe abortion is wrong, that can be your choice too. It’s that simple.

A pro abortion woman should think twice before spreading her aloha all over town like a hoe

-Geaux

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Of course I do, the issue is you don't have a clue

-Geaux

I had five pregnancies. Two ended in miscarriage. I was married when I became pregnant. I was not “spreading my aloha all over town”. Your demeaning and condescending descriptions of women seeking abortions are offensive in the extreme.

It is you who have no idea of what is driving your abortion rates and it is flat out dollars and cents. Poor women have the vast majority of abortions because they cannot afford to raise more children.

Women who have abortions aren’t wantons looking to dispose of the results of their good times, they’re mostly married women who can ill afford another child. Half were using birth control when they got pregnant.

Not everyone can take the pill. The stated failure rate is 5%. That means for every 100 women taking the pill properly in a given month, 5 will get pregnant.

By age 40, one woman in four in the US will have had at least one abortion. 80% of those who have abortions live below or just slightly above the poverty line. Many are choosing between the children they have and the child they could have.

I love how men are so condescending towards women who seek abortions, dehumanizing and vilifying the women while waxing poetic about the innocent loss of life. Such bullshit. Change the dynamic, change the outcome.

Women in countries where children and women are valued are given maternity care and birth control through their government funded health care. They’re given maternity leave and job security while on leave. They’re given access to affordable child care, family leave, and quality schools for their children.

They have half the number of abortions than the US does, even where abortions are free. So put your money where your mouth is and start offering incentives for women to have these babies.

Instead of putting them through hell for getting pregnant.

 

[whitehall]

If you ever saw the faces of late term abortion victims you might become a pro-lifer. Media types have been video taping everything from electric chair executions in the 20th century to beheadings in the 21st century to horrific animal abuses but you will never-ever see a video of the horrific procedure that takes the lives of full term babies. The liberal media has it's limits.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dear Liberals. You have been parroting a false meme. You have been taught that the pro-life movement is about men who want to control women's bodies. This is a lie, and as long as you continue to parrot that lie, then you will be talking past pro-lifers. They will NEVER hear a word you say.

You see, to pro-lifers, this is about MURDER. It is about the taking of human life. And as long as you refuse to accept that is the ACTUAL point of view of pro-lifers, then you are being deliberately ignorant and obtuse.

You think this is about men controlling women?

Then you need to open your eyes and take a look at who pro-lifers ARE.

Dear Liberals. You have been parroting a false meme. You have been taught that the pro-life movement is about men who want to control women's bodies. This is a lie, and as long as you continue to parrot that lie, then you will be talking past pro-lifers. They will NEVER hear a word you say.

You see, to pro-lifers, this is about MURDER. It is about the taking of human life. And as long as you refuse to accept that is the ACTUAL point of view of pro-lifers, then you are being deliberately ignorant and obtuse.

You think this is about men controlling women?

Then you need to open your eyes and take a look at who pro-lifers ARE.

That was well spoken. You deserve a lot of respect for this thread.

 

[dudmuck]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Dear Liberals. You have been parroting a false meme. You have been taught that the pro-life movement is about men who want to control women's bodies. This is a lie, and as long as you continue to parrot that lie, then you will be talking past pro-lifers. They will NEVER hear a word you say.

You see, to pro-lifers, this is about MURDER. It is about the taking of human life. And as long as you refuse to accept that is the ACTUAL point of view of pro-lifers, then you are being deliberately ignorant and obtuse.

You think this is about men controlling women?

Then you need to open your eyes and take a look at who pro-lifers ARE.

Liberals have an accurate, concise understanding of those hostile to privacy rights: rightist authoritarians who fear dissent and seek to compel conformity through force of law; conservatives who advocate for more government, and bigger government interfering in the private lives of citizens.

Conservatives’ unwarranted hostility to privacy rights is yet another example of their hypocrisy.

 

[night_son]

Abortion used as birth control or for convenience is no different than genocide, legislated selective breeding: eugenics, pogroms, population purges or strategic chemical warfare.

At its root abortion for the above reasons is the decision by one living being that another living being is less important than he or she is. Father expectant shares equal responsibility with mother to be. Abortion is decision by one person to end the fate of another. Murder. Killing. Culling. Sacrifice. Edited existence.

Abortion is also condoned denial of a living being to exist, antithetically, for its own good. Imagine that. Some other sovereign living being deciding you were better off dead than living a life by their definition of cruel and unwanted hardship. In that way, abortion is arrogance, ignorance and denial of the intrinsic value of being alive, and accessory to murder. The very utterers of justification for denying a child his birth for how terrible a world they must face themselves daily celebrate the act of being alive and fear more than most anything else, their own removal from beneath its bright day skies.

Abortion is the many, gathered in a wide circle, knowing they speak of advocating murder of the most helpless stage of human life, and even still patting themselves reassuringly, whispering platitudes while kicking at those who would breech their inner ranks to lay bare a grisly truth. In even the blackest and most funerary complicity sufficient enough numbers can wash away any evident guilt.

Abortion for some advocates is diluted in all its truthful horror by moral juxtaposition with the Death Penalty or the lack of social concern for what becomes of the child after birth. A convicted adult human being condemned for taking another human life shares much more in common with the moral relativist abortion apologist than either the unborn child or the person who recognizes abortion as murder.

An adult killer set to die by the State has survived the womb, grown and lived in the world outside it, was afforded a place on life's starting line, and has failed one key test of that equal starting position life affords all in the act of birth: Responsibility for acts of self. Thus the killer faces consequence of action. The unborn however can know no consequence for he has yet to act at all and has no personal responsibility. In this way when the mother aborts, she brings false consequence against her developing child for her own lack of self responsibility. Much like the convicted killer, she also is a murderer.

Regardless of available foster homes slots or would be parents waiting to adopt, denial of a child to be born for this reason is once again a transposition of parental personal responsibility from self to the unborn. Life is infinite chance and possibility. Life has been proven to vary moment to moment. Predictive outcomes are for statisticians, not the yet to be born or even a percentage of logical certainty for their outcome.

In committing genocide a specific segment of a population is targeted according to intrinsic feature or trait. So it is corporate targeting of the unborn, yet all the more heinous for the inability of the unborn to even flee the hands of their destruction or to recognize them. In wars of the past century attrition was the primary obstacle of complete, on the ground victory. The reduction of enemy numbers was key to forcing enemy surrender. Abortion as industry is identical in its campaigns advertisement and marketing the unborn as enemy of a successful or less burdensome life for his mother. However, unlike war or genocide abortion is a conflict that never ends since the declared enemy can never be completely annihilated.

Or can it?

The end of the human race.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

That is a confused argument by liberals who fail to see that abortion is considered murder by pro-lifers.

I don't know who these liberals are that you're referring to, but how is it their fault or the fault of society if the pro-lifers are making a disengenuous argument or are simply too stupid to understand (and/or just don't care) that murder means the unlawful killing or unlawful taking of the life of another human being. An abortion here in the United States is a lawful medical procedure so irrespective of what they think or feel about the termination of the pregnancy, it's not murder but that will not stop some of them from harassing women who are exercising their lawful and legally protected rights (see Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act violations below), which in fact puts the pro-lifers on the wrong side of the law on this issue. How can you take people like this seriously?

They're no different than individuals who harass lawful gun owners. No one is forcing any of them to own or carry a gun just like no one is forcing any of them to have an abortion and they have made it patently obvious that they do not care that the engaged in activity in both cases is entirely legal. All they know and apparently care about is that it's something that they strongly feel is wrong and they will do whatever it takes to force others to bend to their will, including engaging in unlawful harassment and other tactics.

18 U.S. Code § 248 - Freedom of access to clinic entrances

(a) Prohibited Activities.—Whoever—

(1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or
interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person
is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons
from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services;
(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or
interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or
seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious
worship; or
(3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility, or attempts to do so, because such
facility provides reproductive health services, or intentionally damages or destroys the property
of a place of religious worship,shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsection (b) and
the civil remedies provided in subsection (c), except that a parent or legal guardian of a minor
shall not be subject to any penalties or civil remedies under this section for such activities
insofar as they are directed exclusively at that minor.

(b) Penalties.—Whoever violates this section shall—

(1) in the case of a first offense, be fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than
one year, or both; and
(2) in the case of a second or subsequent offense after a prior conviction under this section, be
fined in accordance with this title, or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both;
except that for an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical obstruction, the fine shall
be not more than $10,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than six months, or
both, for the first offense; and the fine shall, notwithstanding section 3571, be not more than
$25,000 and the length of imprisonment shall be not more than 18 months, or both, for a
subsequent offense; and except that if bodily injury results, the length of imprisonment shall be
not more than 10 years, and if death results, it shall be for any term of years or for life.

(c) Civil Remedies.—
....​

 

[theHawk]

It's an issue that resolves in many ways when we heal families.

Exactly.

Since Roe v. Wade, the illegitimacy rate among black children has DOUBLED to 80 percent.

80 percent!

Blacks are being taught all the wrong messages by liberals, and it is destroying them.

................. such as?

Such as, if you fuck your brains out without using birth control, society will foot the bill and carry you on its back.

Such as, if you drop out of high school, society will carry you on its back for the rest of your days.

Such as, all your problems are caused by society.

Much of the blame goes on feminism. They teach that women can and should be sluts, and to use men and dispense of them when a better economic opportunity presents itself. Our courts reward these skanks with free wealth redistribution from men, even if they are the ones totally at fault in a failed relationship. If they can’t find a man to drain wealth from, they use the state welfare system to leech wealth off of, and of course most taxes are paid by men.

 

[Montrovant]

It's an issue that resolves in many ways when we heal families.

Exactly.

Since Roe v. Wade, the illegitimacy rate among black children has DOUBLED to 80 percent.

80 percent!

Blacks are being taught all the wrong messages by liberals, and it is destroying them.

................. such as?

Such as, if you fuck your brains out without using birth control, society will foot the bill and carry you on its back.

Such as, if you drop out of high school, society will carry you on its back for the rest of your days.

Such as, all your problems are caused by society.

Much of the blame goes on feminism. They teach that women can and should be sluts, and to use men and dispense of them when a better economic opportunity presents itself. Our courts reward these skanks with free wealth redistribution from men, even if they are the ones totally at fault in a failed relationship. If they can’t find a man to drain wealth from, they use the state welfare system to leech wealth off of, and of course most taxes are paid by men.

You sure do pack a lot of misogyny into a short post!

 

[Pogo]

It's an issue that resolves in many ways when we heal families.

Exactly.

Since Roe v. Wade, the illegitimacy rate among black children has DOUBLED to 80 percent.

80 percent!

Blacks are being taught all the wrong messages by liberals, and it is destroying them.

................. such as?

Such as, if you fuck your brains out without using birth control, society will foot the bill and carry you on its back.

Such as, if you drop out of high school, society will carry you on its back for the rest of your days.

Such as, all your problems are caused by society.

Much of the blame goes on feminism. They teach that women can and should be sluts

Just when we thought we knew what the word "clueless" means --- along comes in innovator to expand its horizons beyond the imaginable.

 

[saveliberty]

We know. We also know that early in the pregnancy, it is insensate tissue, a flicker of potential. At times it is more merciful to end that potential rather than expose it to unnecessary suffering. In a world as advanced as ours, the last thing we should celebrate is unwanted children.

"Liberals" are actually one person at a time, and I have never met a woman yet who had an abortion that hasn't felt grief and sorrow and guilt for it. Never. It is a hard choice, but I believe it is up to responsible women to make that choice.

I saw this Requiem Mass a year or two ago (not this particular one) and it knocked my socks off. It is about respect for life and sorrow for the loss of potential. At least the year I saw it, the homily was gentle and moving. That is how to approach an abortion discussion. No one can possibly argue, imo. Maybe it would at least move a few more women to REMEMBER TO TAKE YOUR PILL.

Responsible adults don't have unprotected sex. Unwanted...terrible word to attach to a child.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Responsible adults don't have unprotected sex. Unwanted...terrible word to attach to a child.

Birth control has only been legal in the U.S. for a little over 50 years. Everyone who couldn't use it prior to that time was "irresponsible" in your opinion?

1960s and after - Sexual revolution and 'The Pill'
See also: Sexual revolution and Sexual revolution in 1960s America
In the early 1950s, philanthropist Katharine McCormick had provided funding for biologist Gregory Pincus to develop the birth control pill, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1960.[31] The pill became very popular and had a major impact on society and culture. It contributed to a sharp increase in college attendance and graduation rates for women.[32] New forms of intrauterine devices were introduced in the 1960s, increasing popularity of long acting reversible contraceptives.[33]

In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that it was unconstitutional for the government to prohibit married couples from using birth control.

Also in 1965, 26 states prohibited birth control for unmarried women.[34] In 1967 Boston University students petitioned Bill Baird to challenge Massachusetts's stringent "Crimes Against Chastity, Decency, Morality and Good Order" law.[35] On April 6, 1967 he gave a speech to 1,500 students and others at Boston University on abortion and birth control.[36] He gave a female student one condom and a package of contraceptive foam.[36] Baird was arrested and convicted as a felon, facing up to ten years in jail.[37] He spent three months in Boston's Charles Street Jail.[38] During his challenge to the Massachusetts law, the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts stated that "there is nothing to be gained by court action of this kind. The only way to remove the limitations remaining in the law is through the legislative process."[39] Despite this opposition, Baird fought for five years until Eisenstadt v. Baird legalized birth control for all Americans on March 22, 1972. Eisenstadt v. Baird, a landmark right to privacy decision, became the foundation for such cases as Roe v. Wade and the 2003 gay rights victory Lawrence v. Texas.

In 1970, Congress removed references to contraception from federal anti-obscenity laws;[40] and in 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy.[41]

Birth control pills
Also in 1970, Title X of the Public Health Service Act was enacted as part of the war on poverty, to make family planning and preventive health services available to low-income and the uninsured.[42] Without publicly funded family planning services, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in the United States would be nearly two-thirds higher; the number of unintended pregnancies among poor women would nearly double.[43] According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, publicly funded family planning saves nearly $4 in Medicaid expenses for every $1 spent on services.[44]

In 1982, European drug manufacturers developed mifepristone, which was initially utilized as a contraceptive, but is now generally prescribed with a prostoglandin to induce abortion in pregnancies up to the fourth month of gestation.[45] To avoid consumer boycotts organized by anti-abortion organizations, the manufacturer donated the U.S. manufacturing rights to Danco Laboratories, a company formed by pro-choice advocates, with the sole purpose of distributing mifepristone in the U.S, and thus immune to the effects of boycotts.[46]

In 1997, the FDA approved a prescription emergency contraception pill (known as the morning-after pill), which became available over the counter in 2006.[47] In 2010, ulipristal acetate, an emergency contraceptive which is more effective after a longer delay was approved for use up to five days after unprotected sexual intercourse.[48] Fifty to sixty percent of abortion patients became pregnant in circumstances in which emergency contraceptives could have been used.[49] These emergency contraceptives, including Plan B and EllaOne, became another reproductive rights controversy.[50] Opponents of emergency contraception consider it a form of abortion, because it may interfere with the ability of a fertilized embryo to implant in the uterus; while proponents contend that it is not abortion, because the absence of implantation means that pregnancy never commenced.[51]

In 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided insurance for prescription drugs to their employees but excluded birth control were violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[52]

President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) on 23 March 2010. As of 1 August 2011, female contraception was added to a list of preventive services covered by the ACA that would be provided without patient co-payment. The federal mandate applied to all new health insurance plans in all states from 1 August 2012.[53][54] Grandfathered plans did not have to comply unless they changed substantially.[55] To be grandfathered, a group plan must have existed or an individual plan must have been sold before President Obama signed the law; otherwise they were required to comply with the new law.[56] The Guttmacher Institute noted that even before the federal mandate was implemented, twenty-eight states had their own mandates that required health insurance to cover the prescription contraceptives, but the federal mandate innovated by forbidding insurance companies from charging part of the cost to the patient.[57]

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), is a landmark decision[58][59] by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest. It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief,[60] but it is limited to closely held corporations.[a] The decision is an interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. For such companies, the Court's majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by a 5–4 vote.[61] The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative was being provided for religious non-profits, until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later, effectively ending said alternative, replacing it with a government-sponsored alternative for any female employees of closely held corporations that do not wish to provide birth control.[62]

Zubik v. Burwell was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate. Churches were already exempt.[63] On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam ruling in Zubik v. Burwell that vacated the decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals and remanded the case "to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits" for reconsideration in light of the "positions asserted by the parties in their supplemental briefs".[64] Because the Petitioners agreed that "their religious exercise is not infringed where they 'need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception'", the Court held that the parties should be given an opportunity to clarify and refine how this approach would work in practice and to "resolve any outstanding issues".[65] The Supreme Court expressed "no view on the merits of the cases."[66] In a concurring opinion, Justice Sotomeyer, joined by Justice Ginsburg noted that in earlier cases "some lower courts have ignored those instructions" and cautioned lower courts not to read any signals in the Supreme Court's actions in this case.[67]

In 2017, the Trump administration issued a ruling letting insurers and employers refuse to provide birth control if doing so went against their religious beliefs or moral convictions.[68] However, later that same year federal judge Wendy Beetlestone issued an injunction temporarily stopping the enforcement of the Trump administration ruling.[69]
​

 

[Montrovant]

We know. We also know that early in the pregnancy, it is insensate tissue, a flicker of potential. At times it is more merciful to end that potential rather than expose it to unnecessary suffering. In a world as advanced as ours, the last thing we should celebrate is unwanted children.

"Liberals" are actually one person at a time, and I have never met a woman yet who had an abortion that hasn't felt grief and sorrow and guilt for it. Never. It is a hard choice, but I believe it is up to responsible women to make that choice.

I saw this Requiem Mass a year or two ago (not this particular one) and it knocked my socks off. It is about respect for life and sorrow for the loss of potential. At least the year I saw it, the homily was gentle and moving. That is how to approach an abortion discussion. No one can possibly argue, imo. Maybe it would at least move a few more women to REMEMBER TO TAKE YOUR PILL.

Responsible adults don't have unprotected sex. Unwanted...terrible word to attach to a child.

Do you think a lot of adults, particularly young adults, are especially responsible?

Unwanted is certainly not a label a child should have. At least some of the time I would say that it ends up the pregnancy is unwanted, but the child is wanted once it is born.

 

[saveliberty]

Birth control has only been legal in the U.S. for a little over 50 years. Everyone who couldn't use it prior to that time was "irresponsible" in your opinion?

1960s and after - Sexual revolution and 'The Pill'
See also: Sexual revolution and Sexual revolution in 1960s America
In the early 1950s, philanthropist Katharine McCormick had provided funding for biologist Gregory Pincus to develop the birth control pill, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1960.[31] The pill became very popular and had a major impact on society and culture. It contributed to a sharp increase in college attendance and graduation rates for women.[32] New forms of intrauterine devices were introduced in the 1960s, increasing popularity of long acting reversible contraceptives.[33]

In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that it was unconstitutional for the government to prohibit married couples from using birth control.

Also in 1965, 26 states prohibited birth control for unmarried women.[34] In 1967 Boston University students petitioned Bill Baird to challenge Massachusetts's stringent "Crimes Against Chastity, Decency, Morality and Good Order" law.[35] On April 6, 1967 he gave a speech to 1,500 students and others at Boston University on abortion and birth control.[36] He gave a female student one condom and a package of contraceptive foam.[36] Baird was arrested and convicted as a felon, facing up to ten years in jail.[37] He spent three months in Boston's Charles Street Jail.[38] During his challenge to the Massachusetts law, the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts stated that "there is nothing to be gained by court action of this kind. The only way to remove the limitations remaining in the law is through the legislative process."[39] Despite this opposition, Baird fought for five years until Eisenstadt v. Baird legalized birth control for all Americans on March 22, 1972. Eisenstadt v. Baird, a landmark right to privacy decision, became the foundation for such cases as Roe v. Wade and the 2003 gay rights victory Lawrence v. Texas.

In 1970, Congress removed references to contraception from federal anti-obscenity laws;[40] and in 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy.[41]

Birth control pills
Also in 1970, Title X of the Public Health Service Act was enacted as part of the war on poverty, to make family planning and preventive health services available to low-income and the uninsured.[42] Without publicly funded family planning services, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in the United States would be nearly two-thirds higher; the number of unintended pregnancies among poor women would nearly double.[43] According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, publicly funded family planning saves nearly $4 in Medicaid expenses for every $1 spent on services.[44]

In 1982, European drug manufacturers developed mifepristone, which was initially utilized as a contraceptive, but is now generally prescribed with a prostoglandin to induce abortion in pregnancies up to the fourth month of gestation.[45] To avoid consumer boycotts organized by anti-abortion organizations, the manufacturer donated the U.S. manufacturing rights to Danco Laboratories, a company formed by pro-choice advocates, with the sole purpose of distributing mifepristone in the U.S, and thus immune to the effects of boycotts.[46]

In 1997, the FDA approved a prescription emergency contraception pill (known as the morning-after pill), which became available over the counter in 2006.[47] In 2010, ulipristal acetate, an emergency contraceptive which is more effective after a longer delay was approved for use up to five days after unprotected sexual intercourse.[48] Fifty to sixty percent of abortion patients became pregnant in circumstances in which emergency contraceptives could have been used.[49] These emergency contraceptives, including Plan B and EllaOne, became another reproductive rights controversy.[50] Opponents of emergency contraception consider it a form of abortion, because it may interfere with the ability of a fertilized embryo to implant in the uterus; while proponents contend that it is not abortion, because the absence of implantation means that pregnancy never commenced.[51]

In 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided insurance for prescription drugs to their employees but excluded birth control were violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[52]

President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) on 23 March 2010. As of 1 August 2011, female contraception was added to a list of preventive services covered by the ACA that would be provided without patient co-payment. The federal mandate applied to all new health insurance plans in all states from 1 August 2012.[53][54] Grandfathered plans did not have to comply unless they changed substantially.[55] To be grandfathered, a group plan must have existed or an individual plan must have been sold before President Obama signed the law; otherwise they were required to comply with the new law.[56] The Guttmacher Institute noted that even before the federal mandate was implemented, twenty-eight states had their own mandates that required health insurance to cover the prescription contraceptives, but the federal mandate innovated by forbidding insurance companies from charging part of the cost to the patient.[57]

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), is a landmark decision[58][59] by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest. It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief,[60] but it is limited to closely held corporations.[a] The decision is an interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. For such companies, the Court's majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by a 5–4 vote.[61] The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative was being provided for religious non-profits, until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later, effectively ending said alternative, replacing it with a government-sponsored alternative for any female employees of closely held corporations that do not wish to provide birth control.[62]

Zubik v. Burwell was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate. Churches were already exempt.[63] On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam ruling in Zubik v. Burwell that vacated the decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals and remanded the case "to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits" for reconsideration in light of the "positions asserted by the parties in their supplemental briefs".[64] Because the Petitioners agreed that "their religious exercise is not infringed where they 'need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception'", the Court held that the parties should be given an opportunity to clarify and refine how this approach would work in practice and to "resolve any outstanding issues".[65] The Supreme Court expressed "no view on the merits of the cases."[66] In a concurring opinion, Justice Sotomeyer, joined by Justice Ginsburg noted that in earlier cases "some lower courts have ignored those instructions" and cautioned lower courts not to read any signals in the Supreme Court's actions in this case.[67]

In 2017, the Trump administration issued a ruling letting insurers and employers refuse to provide birth control if doing so went against their religious beliefs or moral convictions.[68] However, later that same year federal judge Wendy Beetlestone issued an injunction temporarily stopping the enforcement of the Trump administration ruling.[69]
​

Nice false argument there. First of all, birth control has been around for longer than 50 fifty years. Next you take a timeline out of context to bolster your weak point. Of course it takes weak logic like that to sanction murdering life.

 

[saveliberty]

Do you think a lot of adults, particularly young adults, are especially responsible?

Unwanted is certainly not a label a child should have. At least some of the time I would say that it ends up the pregnancy is unwanted, but the child is wanted once it is born.

You are going to trust them to make a decision on killing a human, now all of a sudden they aren't responsible?

 

[Coyote]

A woman knows there is a human life growing inside of her. She knows this.

Then give her a choice, give her the info she needs, find her resources and the support she needs to make the right choice - don't abandon her when the baby is born. Don't label her a slut, a ho, a welfare queen, a parasite on the system because she had to drop out of highschool when she had her baby. Support her - don't drop her once the baby is born because it's "not our problem". And respect her choice if decides against what you believe. Don't make it illegal, make it rare.

Be a friend instead of an enemy.

 

[Coyote]

Birth control has only been legal in the U.S. for a little over 50 years. Everyone who couldn't use it prior to that time was "irresponsible" in your opinion?

1960s and after - Sexual revolution and 'The Pill'
See also: Sexual revolution and Sexual revolution in 1960s America
In the early 1950s, philanthropist Katharine McCormick had provided funding for biologist Gregory Pincus to develop the birth control pill, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1960.[31] The pill became very popular and had a major impact on society and culture. It contributed to a sharp increase in college attendance and graduation rates for women.[32] New forms of intrauterine devices were introduced in the 1960s, increasing popularity of long acting reversible contraceptives.[33]

In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that it was unconstitutional for the government to prohibit married couples from using birth control.

Also in 1965, 26 states prohibited birth control for unmarried women.[34] In 1967 Boston University students petitioned Bill Baird to challenge Massachusetts's stringent "Crimes Against Chastity, Decency, Morality and Good Order" law.[35] On April 6, 1967 he gave a speech to 1,500 students and others at Boston University on abortion and birth control.[36] He gave a female student one condom and a package of contraceptive foam.[36] Baird was arrested and convicted as a felon, facing up to ten years in jail.[37] He spent three months in Boston's Charles Street Jail.[38] During his challenge to the Massachusetts law, the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts stated that "there is nothing to be gained by court action of this kind. The only way to remove the limitations remaining in the law is through the legislative process."[39] Despite this opposition, Baird fought for five years until Eisenstadt v. Baird legalized birth control for all Americans on March 22, 1972. Eisenstadt v. Baird, a landmark right to privacy decision, became the foundation for such cases as Roe v. Wade and the 2003 gay rights victory Lawrence v. Texas.

In 1970, Congress removed references to contraception from federal anti-obscenity laws;[40] and in 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy.[41]

Birth control pills
Also in 1970, Title X of the Public Health Service Act was enacted as part of the war on poverty, to make family planning and preventive health services available to low-income and the uninsured.[42] Without publicly funded family planning services, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in the United States would be nearly two-thirds higher; the number of unintended pregnancies among poor women would nearly double.[43] According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, publicly funded family planning saves nearly $4 in Medicaid expenses for every $1 spent on services.[44]

In 1982, European drug manufacturers developed mifepristone, which was initially utilized as a contraceptive, but is now generally prescribed with a prostoglandin to induce abortion in pregnancies up to the fourth month of gestation.[45] To avoid consumer boycotts organized by anti-abortion organizations, the manufacturer donated the U.S. manufacturing rights to Danco Laboratories, a company formed by pro-choice advocates, with the sole purpose of distributing mifepristone in the U.S, and thus immune to the effects of boycotts.[46]

In 1997, the FDA approved a prescription emergency contraception pill (known as the morning-after pill), which became available over the counter in 2006.[47] In 2010, ulipristal acetate, an emergency contraceptive which is more effective after a longer delay was approved for use up to five days after unprotected sexual intercourse.[48] Fifty to sixty percent of abortion patients became pregnant in circumstances in which emergency contraceptives could have been used.[49] These emergency contraceptives, including Plan B and EllaOne, became another reproductive rights controversy.[50] Opponents of emergency contraception consider it a form of abortion, because it may interfere with the ability of a fertilized embryo to implant in the uterus; while proponents contend that it is not abortion, because the absence of implantation means that pregnancy never commenced.[51]

In 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided insurance for prescription drugs to their employees but excluded birth control were violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[52]

President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) on 23 March 2010. As of 1 August 2011, female contraception was added to a list of preventive services covered by the ACA that would be provided without patient co-payment. The federal mandate applied to all new health insurance plans in all states from 1 August 2012.[53][54] Grandfathered plans did not have to comply unless they changed substantially.[55] To be grandfathered, a group plan must have existed or an individual plan must have been sold before President Obama signed the law; otherwise they were required to comply with the new law.[56] The Guttmacher Institute noted that even before the federal mandate was implemented, twenty-eight states had their own mandates that required health insurance to cover the prescription contraceptives, but the federal mandate innovated by forbidding insurance companies from charging part of the cost to the patient.[57]

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), is a landmark decision[58][59] by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest. It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief,[60] but it is limited to closely held corporations.[a] The decision is an interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. For such companies, the Court's majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by a 5–4 vote.[61] The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative was being provided for religious non-profits, until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later, effectively ending said alternative, replacing it with a government-sponsored alternative for any female employees of closely held corporations that do not wish to provide birth control.[62]

Zubik v. Burwell was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate. Churches were already exempt.[63] On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam ruling in Zubik v. Burwell that vacated the decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals and remanded the case "to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits" for reconsideration in light of the "positions asserted by the parties in their supplemental briefs".[64] Because the Petitioners agreed that "their religious exercise is not infringed where they 'need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception'", the Court held that the parties should be given an opportunity to clarify and refine how this approach would work in practice and to "resolve any outstanding issues".[65] The Supreme Court expressed "no view on the merits of the cases."[66] In a concurring opinion, Justice Sotomeyer, joined by Justice Ginsburg noted that in earlier cases "some lower courts have ignored those instructions" and cautioned lower courts not to read any signals in the Supreme Court's actions in this case.[67]

In 2017, the Trump administration issued a ruling letting insurers and employers refuse to provide birth control if doing so went against their religious beliefs or moral convictions.[68] However, later that same year federal judge Wendy Beetlestone issued an injunction temporarily stopping the enforcement of the Trump administration ruling.[69]
​

Nice false argument there. First of all, birth control has been around for longer than 50 fifty years. Next you take a timeline out of context to bolster your weak point. Of course it takes weak logic like that to sanction murdering life.

But only for married women....

 

[saveliberty]

Birth control has only been legal in the U.S. for a little over 50 years. Everyone who couldn't use it prior to that time was "irresponsible" in your opinion?

1960s and after - Sexual revolution and 'The Pill'
See also: Sexual revolution and Sexual revolution in 1960s America
In the early 1950s, philanthropist Katharine McCormick had provided funding for biologist Gregory Pincus to develop the birth control pill, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1960.[31] The pill became very popular and had a major impact on society and culture. It contributed to a sharp increase in college attendance and graduation rates for women.[32] New forms of intrauterine devices were introduced in the 1960s, increasing popularity of long acting reversible contraceptives.[33]

In 1965, the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that it was unconstitutional for the government to prohibit married couples from using birth control.

Also in 1965, 26 states prohibited birth control for unmarried women.[34] In 1967 Boston University students petitioned Bill Baird to challenge Massachusetts's stringent "Crimes Against Chastity, Decency, Morality and Good Order" law.[35] On April 6, 1967 he gave a speech to 1,500 students and others at Boston University on abortion and birth control.[36] He gave a female student one condom and a package of contraceptive foam.[36] Baird was arrested and convicted as a felon, facing up to ten years in jail.[37] He spent three months in Boston's Charles Street Jail.[38] During his challenge to the Massachusetts law, the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts stated that "there is nothing to be gained by court action of this kind. The only way to remove the limitations remaining in the law is through the legislative process."[39] Despite this opposition, Baird fought for five years until Eisenstadt v. Baird legalized birth control for all Americans on March 22, 1972. Eisenstadt v. Baird, a landmark right to privacy decision, became the foundation for such cases as Roe v. Wade and the 2003 gay rights victory Lawrence v. Texas.

In 1970, Congress removed references to contraception from federal anti-obscenity laws;[40] and in 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy.[41]

Birth control pills
Also in 1970, Title X of the Public Health Service Act was enacted as part of the war on poverty, to make family planning and preventive health services available to low-income and the uninsured.[42] Without publicly funded family planning services, according to the Guttmacher Institute, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in the United States would be nearly two-thirds higher; the number of unintended pregnancies among poor women would nearly double.[43] According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, publicly funded family planning saves nearly $4 in Medicaid expenses for every $1 spent on services.[44]

In 1982, European drug manufacturers developed mifepristone, which was initially utilized as a contraceptive, but is now generally prescribed with a prostoglandin to induce abortion in pregnancies up to the fourth month of gestation.[45] To avoid consumer boycotts organized by anti-abortion organizations, the manufacturer donated the U.S. manufacturing rights to Danco Laboratories, a company formed by pro-choice advocates, with the sole purpose of distributing mifepristone in the U.S, and thus immune to the effects of boycotts.[46]

In 1997, the FDA approved a prescription emergency contraception pill (known as the morning-after pill), which became available over the counter in 2006.[47] In 2010, ulipristal acetate, an emergency contraceptive which is more effective after a longer delay was approved for use up to five days after unprotected sexual intercourse.[48] Fifty to sixty percent of abortion patients became pregnant in circumstances in which emergency contraceptives could have been used.[49] These emergency contraceptives, including Plan B and EllaOne, became another reproductive rights controversy.[50] Opponents of emergency contraception consider it a form of abortion, because it may interfere with the ability of a fertilized embryo to implant in the uterus; while proponents contend that it is not abortion, because the absence of implantation means that pregnancy never commenced.[51]

In 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided insurance for prescription drugs to their employees but excluded birth control were violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[52]

President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) on 23 March 2010. As of 1 August 2011, female contraception was added to a list of preventive services covered by the ACA that would be provided without patient co-payment. The federal mandate applied to all new health insurance plans in all states from 1 August 2012.[53][54] Grandfathered plans did not have to comply unless they changed substantially.[55] To be grandfathered, a group plan must have existed or an individual plan must have been sold before President Obama signed the law; otherwise they were required to comply with the new law.[56] The Guttmacher Institute noted that even before the federal mandate was implemented, twenty-eight states had their own mandates that required health insurance to cover the prescription contraceptives, but the federal mandate innovated by forbidding insurance companies from charging part of the cost to the patient.[57]

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), is a landmark decision[58][59] by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest. It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief,[60] but it is limited to closely held corporations.[a] The decision is an interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. For such companies, the Court's majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by a 5–4 vote.[61] The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative was being provided for religious non-profits, until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later, effectively ending said alternative, replacing it with a government-sponsored alternative for any female employees of closely held corporations that do not wish to provide birth control.[62]

Zubik v. Burwell was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate. Churches were already exempt.[63] On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam ruling in Zubik v. Burwell that vacated the decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals and remanded the case "to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits" for reconsideration in light of the "positions asserted by the parties in their supplemental briefs".[64] Because the Petitioners agreed that "their religious exercise is not infringed where they 'need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception'", the Court held that the parties should be given an opportunity to clarify and refine how this approach would work in practice and to "resolve any outstanding issues".[65] The Supreme Court expressed "no view on the merits of the cases."[66] In a concurring opinion, Justice Sotomeyer, joined by Justice Ginsburg noted that in earlier cases "some lower courts have ignored those instructions" and cautioned lower courts not to read any signals in the Supreme Court's actions in this case.[67]

In 2017, the Trump administration issued a ruling letting insurers and employers refuse to provide birth control if doing so went against their religious beliefs or moral convictions.[68] However, later that same year federal judge Wendy Beetlestone issued an injunction temporarily stopping the enforcement of the Trump administration ruling.[69]
​

Nice false argument there. First of all, birth control has been around for longer than 50 fifty years. Next you take a timeline out of context to bolster your weak point. Of course it takes weak logic like that to sanction murdering life.

But only for married women....

That would be wrong. Care to try again?