Adoption after birth really isn’t a realistic option for married women. The whole family knows she’s pregnant after she starts showing, and she had BETTER be able to produce either a baby or an infant corpse for the grandparents to coo or grieve over. She can’t just say “I’m not ready to be a mother/I don’t want kids so I/we gave it up for adoption” without a lot of drama ensuing.
Because I’m a wordsmith and I hate the way the "pro-life’ groups have corrupted the language. They re anti-abortion! The pro-choice group is not pro-abortion.
Here is an article about the use of “pro-life” words, from a website that calls itself “abortion facts.” That’s a GROSS misnomer.
So married people never give up a child for adoption because of pressure from the family?!? Even if this were the case it would not make any difference. You can’t argue that women are forced to keep kids due to peer pressure from the family.
They’re not pro-choice either – not in a general sense. Most of them don’t favor the choice to steal, or rape, or pillage. Rather, they’re only “pro-this-very-specific-choice.”
“But it’s understood!” one might object. “People understand that when we talk about choice, we don’t mean choice in general. We only mean choice with regard to abortion.” Sorry, but that’s rather poor wordsmithing. If one is going to complain that the term “pro-life” isn’t linguistically precise, then the same objection should be leveled against the term “pro-choice.”
They are pro-choice when it comes to legal activities. Even if they hate smoking because it kills people, they don’t bomb places that sell tobacco.
The anti-abortion crowd thnks a woman shold be able to go through pregnancy and childbirth, hand the baby over to a couple of strangers, and go on with her life like nothing happened. That is extraordinarily cruel.
One of the stupidest things I ever heard anyone say was “All women rgret having an abortion. No woman regrets giving a child up for adoption.” I wonder if the woman whose babies are killed ny their adoptive parents agree with that.
Technically, the most correct terms would be anti-abortion or anti-abortion-rights vs. pro-abortion-rights. Pro-choice vs anti-choice/anti-abortion and pro-abortion vs pro-life are both loaded on one side or the other.
And yet they don’t call themselves “pro-legal-choice,” do they? So much for wordsmithing.
Besides, should we honestly believe that they completely endorse the choice of any activity, so long as it’s legal? Should we believe that pro-choicers never try to change laws on the grounds that they’re unjust? Or that they would have supported slavery, back during the days when slavery was legal?
I know many adopted children don’t agree with that sentiment either.
Actually, the point of mentioning that gang-rape was the cause of the unwanted pregnancies was to explain that those women considered being denied abortions far, far worse being held as sex slaves and repeatedly raped.
There are also a spate of health problems that can come along with being pregnant, and can last long after birth, whether you’ve kept the child or not. Post-partum depression doesn’t go away because you’ve given the child up for adoption. And issues like mental illness, depression, eating disorders, chronic back pain, substance abuse, insulin-dependent diabetes, HIV, chronic urinary tract infections, even being addicted to cigarettes – the things a woman might be willing to weigh against a baby she really wants (not always opting to have a child at all) – not so hot when you’re carrying a pregnancy against your will.
ETA I’ve said this before, but I like ‘pro-reproductive rights’ because it acknowledges that there’s way more to the issue than whether or not a baby pops out of a woman’s womb. But it’s a mouthful.
OK to answer your question - it is intentionally designed that way, the pro-anti whatever you want to call it is set up in opposition to each other, to cause conflict among humans, spread hate and death and to divert attention to the real cause of our battle for humans achieving true Love for each other.
While this battle goes on, a servant of the Lord will be sent only in Love to the woman and the soul of the baby, if the woman doesn’t see the path of Love, the baby generally does and will go with the Lord. The baby’s development (spiritual evolution) will be delayed, but will eventually happen.
And, of course, paid maternity leave is still not a law in the US (or maternity leave at all depending on the job), so this idea that you can sign off nine months of your life and return to normal is a bit of a pipe dream, even if there are no complications.
You write excellent God fanfic.
Eh, the Servant of the Lord’s a Mary Sue.
Uh…condoning, if not outright participating in, the ending of over a million lives a year?
Except those aren’t people. And not even the “pro-lifers” claim that the doctors and others they kill aren’t people.
And the effect of this is what, exactly?
Here’s a nice case for this thread. Somewhat pro-choice nun who supported abortion for a critically ill patient? “Automatically excommunicated” by, one assumes, a pro-life Bishop. Perhaps she could have claimed the doctor was simply molesting the woman…
An example of the “pro-life” crew sticking their noses where they don’t belong is the case of Nancy Klein Everyone involved in the cast–her doctors, her husband, her parents–agreed an abortion would help her recover frm her coma. But two pro-lifers, total strangers to everyone, tried to repreent Ms. Klein and the fetus, saying they knew she would want her “baby” to live.
Absolute strangers. And all the courts said, in effect, fuck you.