After affirming that I support safe legal abortion for all girls and women, as and when needed - and the pregnant girl/woman is the only person who can decide when needed - and of course paid for out of public funds! - I then added that I am 100% pro-life.


After all, anyone who opposes safe legal abortion for girls/women is obviously anti-life: they want girls and women to die in illegal abortions or to die of pregnancy/childbirth complications. Pregnancy is the leading cause of death for teenage girls worldwide: think how many lives safe legal abortion could save!


Anyone who opposes public funds being used to pay for safe legal abortions for poor women, is obviously anti-life: they support clinics like Kermit Gosnell's.

So you're 100% pro-life - as long as that life belongs to someone who has been born. Would that be an accurate clarification?

Something tells me your comment is tongue-in-cheek.

All hail and glorify the almighty abortion if not suffer the consequences of a guilt trip because we all know that abortion either resolves the very issue that led to the abortion and/or is the best health precaution for pregnancy prevention. Oh, wait........

Not at all.


I am 100% prolife - which is to say, unlike most prolifers, I am 100% in favour of providing free reproductive healthcare to everyone, regardless of age or ability to pay: including all pre-natal, childbirth, and post-natal care, naturally.


I'm 100% against forcing girls and women through pregnancy and childbirth against their will. Anyone who supports forcing girls & women through pregnancy & childbirth against their will (that is, anyone who is against free provision of safe legal abortion) is clearly not "100% pro life" as doing so is a leading cause of death in any country where it is successfully imposed by law.

Just a sardonic reflection on how pro-death most "prolife" policies are.

Something tells me your comment is tongue-in-cheek. ;-)

Your beef is with the people who make teenage girls pregnant. Know the thing you're fighting. Fight whatever makes girls pregnant before they're ready. Also, if abortion were made accessible to all the teenage girls you refer to, then the death rate would stay steady as the children would all be dead instead of their moms. In the pro-life view, the kids matter as much as their moms. End cultural problems that lead to teenagers getting pregnant. The pro-life view is also distinguished by an unshakeable conviction that no woman, IN HER RIGHT MIND, would want to kill her unborn kid. They do it out of desperation and neglect. They do not do it because it is their "will". You are pro-choice if you believe that any woman truly wants to kill her kid. That is definitely a clear delineation between the pro-choice and pro-life stances.

I feel like your Question 6 has lots of nuance on the pro-life side. You have three different options for "support informed consent" and only one "oppose informed consent" option.

If you have a response that starts with "I trust that doctors will give all the information anyway, so...", and you're trying to be fair, you should either have two versions ("What's the harm in requiring it?" and "What's the use in requiring it?") or end with "So I don't particularly care".

If you weren't confined to four multiple-choice options, I also would have liked a choice of, "Informed consent laws often include outdated or disproven information such as the abortion/breast cancer link; I would support an informed consent law that showed the true risks of abortion and pregnancy based on current medical science" or "I would support a law that mandated that this information be offered to the person seeking abortion but not a law that required her to listen to it."

Your beef is with the people who make teenage girls pregnant.

Well, yes, mostly. Sometimes teenage girls get pregnant from having consensual sex with teenage boys - and when it's two kids of equivalent age, there's no blame either side, except to the people who ensured those two kids either did not know or were not able to use contraception - all the people who preach abstinence-only sex ed or who tell kids they should wait til they get married: I have a beef with them: all of the people who de-fund clinics where teenage girls can get contraception - I have a beef with them: all the people who prevent free distribution of free condoms in schools - I have a beef with them.

Know the thing you're fighting. Fight whatever makes girls pregnant before they're ready.

Absolutely. All kids, everywhere, should learn as early as possible that they shouldn't have heterosexual intercourse without using contraception, and that it's entirely up to them when and where they have sex, and that it's entirely up to the girl or the woman when and if she's going to get pregnant/have a baby. That's what I'll fight for.

Anyone who opposes that, is plainly fighting to ensure more teenage pregnancies and therefore more teenage abortions.

The pro-life view is also distinguished by an unshakeable conviction that no woman, IN HER RIGHT MIND, would want to kill her unborn kid.



Yep. The prolife view IS distinguished by the unshakeable conviction that women are crazy inferior people not to be trusted with big, important decisions like when to have kids.

It's not a case of "wanting to kill a kid", its a case of not wanting to be pregnant.

Unless of course you are insinuating that women who abort are sociopathic child killers?

That's a fair criticism. I worded it the way I did because Gallup shows a majority of pro-choicers support informed consent. But I've just changed it to what you suggested, "so I don't particularly care."

Why is it always painted that pro-lifers want to "force women to be pregnant". I don't want to force anyone to be pregnant. I'm just saying that once you ARE pregnant, you shouldn't be able to dismember and kill your child.
When did it become okay to kill someone because they are inconvenient to you?

Forcing women to remain pregnant against their will.

Pregnancy is not easy. It is an intimate bodily violation if you do not want it inside you, and it can end in death and disability.

Labour and birth are so painful that if induced by other means they would be classified as torture.

Because prolifers want to force girls and women through pregnancy and childbirth against their will. Prolifers don't want safe legal abortion to be freely available. Prolifers dehumanise and monster girls and women who have abortions, talking of them as if they were serial-killer villais from horror movies.

When did it become okay to do that to other human beings? Forced use of another human being is always, always wrong. Rape, slavery, "prolife" - all vilely immoral.

Apparently I lean pro-life. Good to know.

that is simply false and a lie. It is pro life group that have healing groups for post abortion women who in some cases suffer severe depression after an abortion. It is dishonest to say that pro life groups dehumanize these women and girls when they are the ones helping with the consequences of abortion. Also I don't see pro choicers having any healing groups for abortion survivors.

This is just a test comment...

You are making broad, and very untrue, assumptions. You think that if you make us look like we are "forcing pregnancy on a woman", people will ignore the fact that this woman has a living, breathing human child inside of her. You think that if you can make being pregnant look horrible and debilitating, your cries will drown out the fact that abortion is dismembering and killing.
Fact: Pregnancy CAN cause injury to a person. Abortion WILL kill a person.
Fact: Pro-lifers do not force women to get pregnant. That whole idea is completely ludacris. We do not stand outside of bedroom windows yelling at women that they have to get pregnant. We are not trying to create a law that forces every woman to have sex with a man and conceive.
Fact: Once a woman is pregnant, ALREADY pregnant, we believe it is wrong to kill that child.

My results are……..

"You support abortion on demand, without apology, and with public funds."

I'm totally pro-life, but I'm still against informed consent laws on principle. If people have a certain right, they should have that right regardless of age ... that's the whole reason I'm pro-life in the first place.

Yes. Pregnancy/child birth can cause all of this. I know because I have had a child.But if you are going to list all complications and side effects of pregnancy, you need to be equally aware of all the side effects that abortion has on the mother. And on the child. Is it that you don't think the baby is a living human child, or that you don't care?The bottom line is that there is no justification for killing. None. Women are free to do whatever they want with their bodies.Inside and outside of the womb. Why do you discriminate against women just because they cannot speak for themselves yet. Bodily autonomy exists for both parties. Both women have rights. I am not trying to force anyone to do anything. I am trying to give voice to the person who does not have one. Stand up for the weak. The inability speak for herself does not give you the right to oppress her.

The prenate does not have the right to occupy and use the body of the woman for its own consent. It does not have the right to threaten her, by its very presence, with bodily harm, torture and death.

Calling women who've had an abortion "abortion survivors" is insulting. Most women feel relief after an abortion.

abortion survivors are the children who survived the abortion. THe women are also counseled to come to terms with their abortion and go through healing. Again not a service Planned Parenthood offers