Bit of a stretch appropriating Sealth's words, gardenerlori. That quote has to do with not leaving traces of human intervention in a natural setting, and has nothing whatsoever to do with signs left in public urban locations in protest of a corrupt administration.

Goodness, gardener. That was some rude name calling.

Best to scroll on by. Not worthy of comments.

I stand by my statement. Do you clean up after yourself at home??? Why not out of your home?

Cat; So how many were at my "march of choice"?

And now vanished.

I wonder how many people went to both marches?

Good to know that she stands by the statement she deleted. I know I should SOB, but that was over the line. She should stay at HT if she can't be civil.

That's an interesting question, pal.

I think I may have written this before...

The march last weekend was to protest a variety of proposals/policies of the new administration. As a multi-dimensional human, I would bet that most voters do not agree 100% with their parties. So there is no reason an anti-abortion person could not be part of that march, as long as they did not feel uncomfortable or upset marching along with people who were pro-choice, and as long a their role in the march was not counter to its purpose (protesting policies of the new admin.) So an anti-abortion foe would be perfectly welcome marching about climate change, if they did not mind being next to a person with a sign that was pro-choice. However, to show up with an anti-abortion sign would be disingenuous.

For the same reason, it is disingenuous that an anti-abortion group, organized for that purpose, can sponsor. If anti-abortionists formed a group to support freedom of the press for example, then that group should and would be part of a march.

The issue is, you are at the march in your capacity as a protester against "x". You may have other feelings about y and z, but if x aligns with the group, c'mon in.

I don't agree with everything every marcher said/says. I am pro-choice but have never been an activist, volunteer or even donor in that regard. I did not march for that reason, and my sign had nothing to do whatever with women's rights. To me, that was part of the beauty of the march. It was why it was so large; it was not a single issue by any means.

Ida, not really a stretch. The march was outdoors, was it not? Grass around? And I mean the kind you mow out in the yard; not the other kind.

I have not been tent camping in many years but when we did; we left the area cleaner than we found it.

And it was Seattle rather than Sealth, whoever that is.

Another question is how yesterday's marchers would have felt had the March for Life accepted sponsorship from Planned Parenthood? You can't bash the Women's March for refusing pro-life sponsorship unless you would have welcomed Planned Parenthood logos all over your march.

Pro-life supporters were welcome to march last Saturday. As Mtn noted, reproductive rights wasn't the only issue addressed in that march. Making blanket statements that pro-lifers weren't welcome just because the organizers didn't accept sponsor $$ from pro-life organizations is false.

I think though, that the March for Life is clearly a single - issue March so not accepting sponsorship from Planned Parenthood makes complete sense. But the Women's March on Washington was not supposed to be a single issue March, so I am not sure how having sponsorship from groups with opposing viewpoints on this particular issue would be the same? And in my opinion it would have sent a message to the Trump camp that it was about more than that one issue. I am not trying to be argumentative here, just trying to figure out what the negative would have been.

The Women's March unity principles explicitly state it believes in reproductive freedom, which pro-life organizations do not support. To allow pro-life sponsorship of the march would have been a violation of the march's stated principles, not to mention hypocritical.

Now, if pro-life supporters wanted to march in support of one of march's other many principles, they were welcome to.

Okay that makes sense. Does anybody know if there were "Pro-Life but still Anti-Trump" signs? (At either march) Just curious .

gardenerlori, Sealth and Chief Seattle are the same person. Google is your friend if you aren't already well versed on Native American history but would like to know more about the great man whose words you quote.

When I looked up the quotes I saw nothing related to the name and when googling the Sealth name the Chief Seattle quotes came up. So, presumably one and the same person. One learns something every day even considering one's age. Thanks.

"trying to figure out what the negative would have been". I think the negative would have been that the women's march was single issue in that we were sending a message that we are NOT going to accept a government that wants to negate the advances women have fought so hard for. So accepting sponsorship money from organizations whose main purpose is to overturn one of the most important SCOTUS decisions entitling women to have control over their own medical decisions, would be antithetical to the principles of the March.

I think it was a wise and correct decision. I do wish there were areas of common ground where we could work together and maybe that's possible, but I can't help but think there would always be an elephant in the room - and those of us who are pro-choice would always be worried about our full rights being trampled.

I wanted to stay out of this because I am middle of the road. Someone hit on my biggest argument against abortion. Convience abortions. Being a nurse I can tell you 90 % of the abortions are, I think this is terrible with effective birth control. I can not imagine the young rape victim, incest victim, sick mother etc having to make the decision. My heart goes out to them & could never think less of them for choosing abortion. Another big reason abortion numbers have decreased is teens, 13-18 are choosing to get pregnant & keep their babies. So many of these babies are not being raised in good conditions. I also think late, convience abortions are horrible. I know some of these are for babies that will only live a short sick life. I would prefer to see normal delivery & comfort measures only for the baby. I wonder if middle ground could be reached with long term birth control as well as parameters could ever be reached with sides?

Eandhl2, are you a nurse at a reproductive health services clinic? I certainly hope not, as women in need of abortions or birth control certainly don't need your judgment, questioning of their motives and gross speculation. And who are you to say that a late term abortion because of horrible birth defects (virtually the only reason for such abortions too, BTW, look it up) is worse than an infant living a "short sick life" with "comfort measures"? Way to give your profession a bad rap.

From the latest Quinnipac Poll on the subject: (this is a copy and paste right from the website even though it shows up in the GW Houzz font):

Planned Parenthood

In a question with no mention of abortion, American voters oppose 62 - 31 percent cutting off federal funding to Planned Parenthood.

After respondents are asked, "If you knew that federal government funding to Planned Parenthood was being used only for non-abortion health issues such as breast cancer screening, would you still favor cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood," the result is 12 percent in favor of cutting funding and 80 percent opposed to a funding cut.

In this second question, no listed party, gender, educational, age or racial group supports a funding cut. Republicans oppose a Planned Parenthood funding cut 65 - 25 percent.

Offered four choices on abortion, American voter attitudes are:

• 28 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases;
• 36 percent say abortion should be legal in most cases;
• 22 percent say abortion should be illegal in most cases;
• 9 percent say abortion should be illegal in all cases.

American voters agree 70 - 26 percent with the U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2421

No I never worked at a reproductive center. Years ago I di look into working at planned parent hood but decided it wasn't a fit for me. At that time they were encouraging abortions. Also I will say I know a couple of people that had convience abortions that now say a day doesn't go by they don't think about it and are sorry for the choice they made. Lakeeffects we will have to disagree on late term abortions & comfort measures without life saving measures.

Could someone explain the Quinnipac Polls to me? What are the two numbers? I looked at their website and still couldn't figure it out...like this:

American voters oppose 62 - 31 percent cutting off federal funding to Planned Parenthood. What is the 31?

or this: Republicans oppose a Planned Parenthood funding cut 65 - 25 percent. What is the 25?

Thanks!

"Also I will say I know a couple of people that had convience abortions
that now say a day doesn't go by they don't think about it and are sorry
for the choice they made."

I am sorry when people have regrets, but they had the luxury of choice and hopefully they do not now think they have the right to deny others the same opportunity to make a choice.

It means, as I understand it that 62 oppose, 31 approve, and the would not answer that question.

What I found interesting was the clarification "If you knew federal government funding....only for non-abortion health issues...." only 12 % would still cut funding.

Federal government funding for abortions at Planned Parenthood is $0.00 already and yet people still insist that federal taxes are paying for abortions at Planned Parenthood. When I said to one of my friends something to this effect, she said "Oh, and where did you hear that propaganda?" And I said "The Annenberg Public Policy Center Fact Check". It doesn't seem to matter. Anything someone doesn't want to hear is flawed information. I don't know what to believe anymore.

I don't know for sure if the federal gov't monies that PP gets are used for abortions or not. PP says not but they are not always fully honest with their statements. However, it seems to me that money can be shifted anywhere someone wants it to go and make the paperwork show whatever they want it to say. There has been a lot that has come out that is not favorable towards PP. Being "creative" with numbers works.

My understanding is that PP has to request money from the feds for the services they've performed. Those services do not include abortions. Instead abortions are covered by other sources like donations.

Fine, if the accounts are strictly managed. However if the funds are commingled, who is to say what the money actually get used for? You would trust PP to do what they are supposed to do?

Garden, if you provided evidence as to why we shouldn't trust PP, that might be helpful.

Maybe the simple fact that they tried hiding what they were doing with aborted fetuses. Harvesting them and selling parts like one would sell a fender off a car? It may not have been PP but the people who were working as their agents did and then they tried to sweep it all under that rug. The docs were eating salad and drinking wine and discussing how to more safely get the fetus out to maximize the profit. Didn't the one doc laugh about she wanted a fancy sports car?

Do you have any sources to back up these claims? A link to some sort of evidence? The details you share here are horrific--from where did you get them?

Annie is correct. They do an exam, or provide birth control, then they bill the government or other insurance for whatever the service was. They cannot and do not bill the gov't for abortion services and the government cannot pay for them. If they provide abortion service to a client, they must bill another source, which is either the client herself or a private funding source, like the client's insurance company, or their own fund created by donations.

Many, many people donate to PP with no restriction on how it is used; some (like me) donate money specifically to pay for abortions for women who cannot afford them. Like many since the election, my $ is donated on behalf of Mike Pence, in his name, for abortion services.

Fetal cells from abortions, whether PP or other providers, IS sold to medical researchers working on cures for different diseases, but PP cannot profit from it, only be reimbursed for the special handling it requires. Clients must give permission for that tissue to be provided for research. The cells from abortions are considered bio-hazardous and must be handled as such, so companies whose business it is to dispose of the tissues handle it in a way that it can be used by scientists and they charge for that special handling. I feel confident that PP is disposing of aborted tissue in an ethical way; the science will or has benefited so many with diseases that were or are now incurable or untreatable. Pence and others think there should be funerals for these cells.

"Also I will say I know a couple of people that had convience abortions that now say a day doesn't go by they don't think about it and are sorry for the choice they made."

And there are others that had them and not a day goes by that they aren't totally relieved they had the choice. That's the nature of having any choices in your life. You get to make one, and you look back later and contemplate whether you would do the same thing again. So I don't get your point.

Gardererlorisc, where do you get your information? I had a coworker tell me that at PP, they were "routinely" ripping 8-month old fetuses out of the womb. I wonder if it was the same news source.

In the last presidential debate, Trump said that a woman can chose to
rip a baby from her womb right up to her due date. Trump knows that's
not true (I hope), but many trust Trump's every word.

There seems to be a lot of misinformation among pro-lifers, even in this thread. If I was so passionate about an issue, I'd research it as much as possible so I didn't argue something that isn't true or misinform others. Up until the election, I knew very little about late-term abortions, so I read about it. I appreciate Olychick's post. It would have been a good one to start the thread with.

There's another argument that hasn't been touched on. The Right-to-Lifers believe that even that clump of cells has a soul. In essence, you're aborting a soul. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me why God blesses women with a new life, gives it a soul, and then takes millions away through miscarriage. Just to give a quick idea without getting bogged down in statistics, the WHO reported that 19 million miscarriages occurred in 2000. What's God's purpose in that? God oughta get better in the creating life department. That's a lot of ooops!

mayflowers, religious zealots don't care about facts, and the christian taliban's war on women's reproductive choices is a great example. For a great perspective on the war against women's reproductive choices, and how the alt right white men (what is it with those alt right white men, anyway? if they are right and there is a god, boy oh boy, they are going to have a lot to answer for) manipulated their base, check out Samantha Bee's excellent and actual fact video clip here:

https://www.bustle.com/articles/162964-samantha-bees-history-lesson-on-the-pro-life-movement-reveals-its-outrageous-origins

You can find this all over the net, but I choose the link from Bustle because they are awesome feminists and I love to support them.

"If there are clowns who have nothing to add to the discussion best to
ignore their baiting!"

--Joe on HT

Some (including maybe those like me who are too young to remember before Roe v. Wade) might be interested in a history by Daniel K. Williams. Links to book reviews below:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/books/review/defenders-of-the-unborn-by-daniel-k-williams.html?_r=0

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/daniel-williams-defenders-unborn/435369/

Ronald Reagan. Barry Goldwater. George Wallace. These men probably won’t be featured on pro-choice pamphlets any time soon, but during at least some point in their political careers, the Moral Majority-era president, conservative stalwart, and infamous segregationist all favored the legalization of abortion.

***

In a new book, Defenders of the Unborn, the historian Daniel K. Williams looks at the first years of the self-described pro-life movement in the United States, focusing on the long-overlooked era before Roe. It’s somewhat surprising that the academy hasn’t produced such a history before now, although Williams says that’s partially because certain archives have only recently opened. But the gap in scholarship is also partly due to the difficulty of putting abortion into a single intellectual framework. “Too many historians took for granted that the pro-life movement emerged as a backlash against feminism, and/or as a backlash against the Supreme Court’s decision in 1973,” Williams said in an interview. Many of today’s most ardent anti-abortion activists likely identify with this kind of sexual conservatism and resentment toward a meddling government. But in many ways, their political convictions are counter to the original aspirations of the movement. As Williams writes in his book, “The pro-life movement that we have always labeled ‘conservative’ was at one time much more deeply rooted in the liberal rights-based values than we might have suspected.”

***

For most mid-century American Catholics, opposing abortion followed the same logic as supporting social programs for the poor and creating a living wage for workers. Catholic social teachings, outlined in documents such as the 19th-century encyclical Rerum novarum, argued that all life should be preserved, from conception until death, and that the state has an obligation to support this cause. “They believed in expanded pre-natal health insurance, and in insurance that would also provide benefits for women who gave birth to children with disabilities,” Williams said. They wanted a streamlined adoption process, aid for poor women, and federally funded childcare. Though Catholics wanted abortion outlawed, they also wanted the state to support poor women and families.

Other progressives, though, took a more calculating approach to poverty and family planning. Some proponents of the New Deal believed birth control could be used to implement government policy—a means of reducing the number of people in poverty and, ultimately, saving the state money, Williams said. Later, as technology made it easier to detect fetal deformities, abortion proponents commonly argued that women should have the option of terminating their pregnancies if doctors saw irregularities. “It was a widespread belief among abortion-liberalization advocates … that society would be better off if fewer severely deformed babies were born,” Williams said. The Catholics who opposed abortion “saw this as a very utilitarian perspective,” he said. “If you believed the fetus was a human being, this life would be destroyed for someone else’s quality of life, and they saw this as a very dangerous way of thinking.”

At times, there was a dark racial component to pro-abortion and birth-control rhetoric. In the early 20th century, for example, “there was substantial support in some areas of the country for the eugenic use of birth control to limit the reproductive capabilities of poor, sexually promiscuous, or mentally disabled women—especially those who were African American,” Williams writes in his book. Decades later, as public-aid spending ballooned in the 1960s, a new kind of racism entered the abortion debate. “Many whites stereotyped welfare recipients as single African American women who had become pregnant out of wedlock and were ‘breeding children as a cash crop,’ as Alabama Governor George Wallace said,” William writes. “Wallace eventually took a strong stance against abortion, but like some of his fellow conservatives,” he was an early supporter of legalization.

***

From the Falwell years forward, abortion was merely one in a suite of conservative issues, solidifying the pro-life movement’s alliance with the Republican Party. But, as Williams points out, the Republican Party has never been a fully comfortable home for the social-justice ideals of those who started the movement. “Republicans had given little support to the pro-life cause before Roe,” he writes, and the party “gave scant attention to poverty reduction, social-welfare provisions, or the other causes that had interested pro-life leaders of an earlier generation.” Yet, in a Democratic world heavily influenced by organizations such as Emily’s List and NARAL, it’s become increasingly difficult for politicians on the left to take a boldly pro-life position. As the Southern Baptist leader Russell Moore told me in an interview last year, “I wish we were in a situation where we had two pro-life [parties]. I started my career working for a pro-life Democratic congressperson, and he was pro-life, pro-family. That world doesn’t exist anymore.”

Perhaps that’s one reason why the electoral politics of abortion don’t quite seem to capture how Americans feel about the procedure.

In essence, you're aborting a soul. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me why God blesses women with a new life, gives it a soul, and then takes millions away through miscarriage. Just to give a quick idea without getting bogged down in statistics, the WHO reported that 19 million miscarriages occurred in 2000. What's God's purpose in that?

I am not a theologian, but to me, when you question that, you have to start questioning the "purpose" of life at all. Why are people born who will never function outside of an institution? Why are babies born only to die of cancer a few years later? Why were we born in America, where we can sit in relative comfort and debate these questions when entire populations will be born somewhere else where they will be hungry most of their lives and never live outside a slum with no sanitation at all? Does this mean God just Likes Americans more than he likes people in Africa or Brazil?

Of course this is probably a good argument for why God doesn't exist at all, and it's all just random chaos. I don't believe that either, but I could see the rationale for the belief.

If you believe in the concept of free will, then you have to believe that evil exists because of the existence of free will. Because if you have free will and the only consequences of being allowed to make your own decisions are always Good, then there is really no point in decisions at all. I think there has to be bad things that happen so we can understand what Good is.

However...

I don't think that God awards points and rewards people directly upon some sort of merit. I think God is pretty much hands off and lets things play out somewhat randomly. Does it hurt to pray or ask God for help? No, but I don't think things are as direct as "If I am good then God will give me _____" Because if it was that direct, it would mean that God likes Everyone in America better than he does in some countries because living in poverty, or in a hospital or prison is still living better in America than it is for people in some countries.

This is why I don't believe in the theology of people like Joyce Meyer or evangelical / charismatic Christians of that sort, because I feel that it molds God with the human fault of favoritism. In other words, Joyce Meyer has a Lear Jet, God gave her the Blessing of this Lear Jet. God loves Joyce Meyer more than he loves people who do not have the blessing of a Lear Jet. I am probably over simplifying and I don't want to offend anyone who likes Joyce Meyer.

So that is why I God creates fetuses that get aborted, because he lets people have the choice to abort them. I also think (and this is probably in complete conflict with the other theology I wrote here) --but I also think that none of those aborted fetuses, or a baby who dies of Cancer or the teenager who commits suicide, was destined to be any more than they became.

I pretty much agree with Pal, at least on most of his theological points. I do believe in God and I believe God gave us a brain and free will to make choices, some of which turn out to be awful.

Upthread someone asked why God would bless a women with new life and then take it away by miscarriage. Maybe the woman chose to drink heavily during early pregnancy or was exposed to something toxic at work or was punched in the stomach by her partner. I don't believe that God thinks that would be a just punishment. Sometimes humans put themselves in harm's way, not necessarily by intent on their part.

I will never understand believing in such a mean-spirited deity who would allow such suffering as occurs on earth, physical, emotional, or otherwise. I fully accept the randomness of nature, the survival of the fittest, mans inhumanity to man, etc.

To think that god set me up to fail via free will seems ridiculous. To think that god didn't think this through before he set up his system suggests that he has one heckofa mean streak that believers are willing to overlook or tolerate. Even if you remove humans and their ability to think and make choices from earth, you still have all the rest of life on earth preying on each other to keep themselves alive, suffering ghastly deaths.

I don't get it. Doesn't seem very loving to me, but it does help explain the idea that humans are made in the image and likeness of god.

One of the problems that I have with atheism in general is that...I think if most atheists I knew were completely content, they might have something there, --since I mentioned above that one of my arguments about evil is a good argument to why God doesn't exist at all.

But most atheists I know are not very happy people, some of them are just discontent, but a number of them feel betrayed by or angry about life. I don't see how that's any better than believing in a God you don't quite understand. At least if you believe in God or an afterlife, you have some hope that you get a different chance at a better existence later on. If you don't have that and you are pissed off at this life, you got nothin'. Maybe God is a scapegoat or a crutch for things we don't understand. But I would rather have some hope of something than the nothingness that atheists seem to feel.

If I ever met atheists that seemed truly contented I might feel differently, but I haven't. I am sure they are out there, I just haven't met any.

Please don't look at the above as a dismissal or disapproval of atheism.

I have been partnered for 21 years to someone who vacillates between pantheism and atheism--mostly atheism.

My point was that RTLers are concerned about saving the millions of aborted babies when God himself is the great abortionist, ending pregnancies for no reason. If religious women think God gave them that gift, then they must believe that God took it away. Why create it only to take it away? I read that one in three pregnancies end in miscarriage. I had two, my mother had one, and my grandmother lost twins at 5 mos. For what reason?

I think we're just like any other living creature on this earth. Maybe the death of a seedling isn't much different than the death of a fetus. To us it is, but maybe it isn't to God. You have to believe in a soul to think that we're any different.

I don't believe in God but something had to have created us. We'll never know what that something is that set us in motion. But we call it God and believe that it monitors everything we do. We then believe that men as prophets speak for God or are the son of God, which has only caused untold suffering in this world as we fight those who believe differently. Now I see suffering growing in our country because of religious beliefs that have become political weapons.

"But I would rather have some hope of something than the nothingness that atheists seem to feel."

Pal, maybe it's the group of people you know. I am an atheist and I have a very large circle of friends who are also atheists. They are some of the most hopeful, positive, loving, nurturing people I know. They live their lives by very strong moral and ethical codes and many of them have careers that involves giving (whether is be health or happiness) to others because it makes them happy to do so. Many are artists, musicians, teachers, a nurse, a mid-wife, hair stylist, flower shopkeeper, etc. Many of us feel that there's no need for a god in our lives because hope and happiness comes from within.

yes I think it does a great disservice to assume that atheists are people who have no morals or ethical code.

It isn't easy to be an atheist in a culture where there is a presumption that you believe in a god, where your right to not believe is always under assault by a dominant culture that is controlled by believers. It's very hard to even be empathetic to them (believers) when so much of our country believes that we are to be ruled by what many of us believe is a book of fiction, by fictional characters invented by men who seek to oppress "others." So I can relate to the feelings of discontent when you have to be on alert in nearly every venue against religion that is "lorded" over you in so many ways and places.

Prayer being led in our political arenas, religious holidays, in god we trust, god bless America, let's bow our heads, join hands for the blessing, it's god's will, the bible says, and on and on and on.

I'm used to all the Christian customs and they don't bother me as an atheist. But I think evangelicals would jump at the chance to rewrite the Constitution and do whatever else it took to make us a Christian nation. My biggest fear about them getting a political majority is what they would do to science, that while we sit here taking the Bible literally, the rest of the industrialized world moves ahead without us. They have already moved ahead on social issues.

Unfortunately, I think most people's views on atheism are informed by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who just seemed like an extremely angry person.

Of course I am not sure the removal of prayer from public schools was a fight for a reasonable well - mannered person, as much as I agree that it should not be done in public schools.

But many peoples' views on minorities are informed by stereotypes, and often these are negative stereotypes. I grew up in a town where some people never saw a live black person until they moved away to go to college. So to some groups, all Muslims are equated with terrorists, all black people with drug dealers, all gay people with drag queens or some person who hangs out in public bathrooms.

At the very least, I suppose maybe an atheist can "pass" a little easier than some people in those groups.

"Unfortunately, I think most people's views on atheism are informed by
Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who just seemed like an extremely angry person."

Yes, 'ol Madalyn kind of did us a disservice. DH knew someone who worked for her. Said she was a horrid person.

I'm used to all the Christian customs and they don't bother me as an atheist.

Me too. In fact, I quite enjoy many of them. I never go to church except for weddings and funerals, but I love the traditions and pageantry. I also appreciate when someone says they're going to pray for me. It's the thought that counts. I'm often in situations where everyone bows their heads in prayer. I don't participate in the bowing or praying, but I stay quiet and reflective.

• • I mentioned this on another trump thread this week why I am an atheist. Although a very positive and happy person I am a non believer for two reasons. First and for most because I lack the ability, and I do believe it to be a gift that I wished I possessed , to suspend my disbelief enough to trust that what I can not fathom without evidence is real. Secondly, I believe people to be intrinsically good without the need of a God to draw that goodness from them. So God is not a necessity for me.

• Even as an atheist, though, I can see prolifers' point of view on this issue. This in no way implies that I want legislation passed to prevent anyone's choice though. But as an atheist I am not sure if I could choose one for my self because I am not sure it is right according to my inner moral code even without a god to believe in. This is only my belief for myself I do not hold judgement on any other woman's choice and have loved ones I supported financially and emotionally when they made a difficult choice to do as they saw best. But I am just saying I understand this to be a very grey area and then mixing a religious point of view into it and it is a tough issue to judge on either side and because it is such a difficult choice it should again only be made by those who need to choose and not by governments, churches nor courts just by individuals in the position to know what is best for themselves.

Roarah I agree the government should not make the decisions. I guess for religious pro life people, it is the need to extend their belief to actions outside themselves (I'm not explaining that well) -- to support legislation. That making their own choice not to utilize abortion in any case is not enough, it must also be legislated for all.

And I guess I get stuck there, because people can say I supported this legislation, isn't that great. But I feel we also have to look at the information we have and admit that in many cases, the legislation causes more destruction of life and deprives women of family planning. And if you support legislation that causes that, you have to own that too. making abortion illegal may support a religious and personal position, but it's important to know the actual results of that. Just as people say there are X number of abortions, we know that there will be a percentage of deaths from botched abortions, etc. and people can argue about the data, but we have it. The executive order denying funding overseas to any group discussing abortion. Are we really happy to have taken that discussion off the table when they clearly know it actually increases the abortion rate? I guess it's to be able to point to the law and say we did it, but when it actually causes more abortions, I just can't understand how someone who is against abortion would be happy with that.

That making their own choice not to utilize abortion in any case is not enough, it must also be legislated for all.

And herein lies the entitlement problem of pro-lifers.