“So what if abortion ends life?”

[red states rule]

It is amazing to see/read libs support the murder of helpless and defenseless children while screaming their tax and spend agenda is "for the children"

Of all the diabolically clever moves the anti-choice lobby has ever pulled, surely one of the greatest has been its consistent co-opting of the word “life.” Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants be on the side of … not-life? That’s why the language of those who support abortion has for so long been carefully couched in other terms. While opponents of abortion eagerly describe themselves as “pro-life,” the rest of us have had to scramble around with not nearly as big-ticket words like “choice” and “reproductive freedom.” The “life” conversation is often too thorny to even broach. Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.
As Roe v. Wade enters its fifth decade, we find ourselves at one of the most schizo moments in our national relationship with reproductive choice. In the past year we’ve endured the highest number of abortion restrictions ever. Yet support for abortion rights is at an all-time high, with seven in 10 Americans in favor of letting Roe v. Wade stand, allowing for reproductive choice in all or “most” cases. That’s a stunning 10 percent increase from just a decade ago. And in the midst of this unique moment, Planned Parenthood has taken the bold step of reframing the vernacular – moving away from the easy and easily divisive words “life” and “choice.” Instead, as a new promotional film acknowledges, “It’s not a black and white issue.”
It’s a move whose time is long overdue. It’s important, because when we don’t look at the complexities of reproduction, we give far too much semantic power to those who’d try to control it. And we play into the sneaky, dirty tricks of the anti-choice lobby when we on the pro-choice side squirm so uncomfortably at the ways in which they’ve repeatedly appropriated the concept of “life.” http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_w...ion_ends_life/

[red states rule]

[taft2012]

Whereas most of us outgrew the "so what" argument ender at the age of 5, liberals learned to embrace it during the Clinton years.

In fact, it just appeared this week:

"Mrs. Clinton, your incompetence caused the death of 4 Americans in Beghazi."
"So what?"

Pick your issue, it's their unanswerable trump card:

"Mrs. Clinton, your husband lied under oath."
"So what?"

[mundame]

Whereas most of us outgrew the "so what" argument ender at the age of 5, liberals learned to embrace it during the Clinton years.

In fact, it just appeared this week:

"Mrs. Clinton, your incompetence caused the death of 4 Americans in Beghazi."
"So what?"

Pick your issue, it's their unanswerable trump card:

"Mrs. Clinton, your husband lied under oath."
"So what?"

Why all the deliberate misquoting on this forum? I'm being misquoted, Hillary is being misquoted --- she never said "So what?" I looked it up, since it sounded very implausible.

Here is the actual quote from Secretary of State Clinton:

“With all due respect, the fact is we have four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans,” Clinton shouted during the hearing. “What difference at this point does it make?”

I would like to see more honest use of facts on the ground here.

Arguing from what never happened ---- I can't see the point of that.

[bingster]

Whereas most of us outgrew the "so what" argument ender at the age of 5, liberals learned to embrace it during the Clinton years.

In fact, it just appeared this week:

"Mrs. Clinton, your incompetence caused the death of 4 Americans in Beghazi."
"So what?"

Pick your issue, it's their unanswerable trump card:

"Mrs. Clinton, your husband lied under oath."
"So what?"

I think "so what if abortion ends life?" is red states' words

[bingster]

If Republicans didn't have such an obsession with blocking contraception to women, there would be less abortions.

[Abbey Marie]

Actually, this was pretty much a "so what" comment by the author:

Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.

Rephrased:

"I know that a fetus is a human life, and I still don't care about killing it, because my feminist ideals trump that life any day".

[gabosaurus]

If Republicans didn't have such an obsession with blocking contraception to women, there would be less abortions.

You've hit it on the nose right there. Though conservatives don't want to admit it.
ConReps are very hung up on the idea of what "Life" is, though they are quite adamant about their right to end it with guns ownership and the death penalty.
Men have been making laws since this country was founded. They have perennially blocked women's rights into a corner by denying them the right to sex education and birth control. More sex education and birth control = fewer abortions.

As another poster so eloquently pointed out in another thread, ConReps need to work on defining what constitutes "life" before they go on to regulating abortion.
"Life" does not begin at conception. "Life" is what is sustainable outside the body.
If you talk to the majority of pro-life supporters, they are agreeable that no procedures should be allowed after the first trimester.
The vast majority of men (outside the medical field) have little to no knowledge of the female body. And they don't care. They are the "fuck and run" types (as Liz Phair puts it) that want to regulate everything that doesn't involve their right to enjoy a good time.

Leave women's rights to women.

[Thunderknuckles]

If Republicans didn't have such an obsession with blocking contraception to women, there would be less abortions.

Nonsense. There would be far less abortions if those who are sexually active were responsible in obtaining already widely available contraceptives that can be found at just about any local convenience/drug store. If they can't get off their asses now to do that, you think that some government mandate making then freely available is going to make a difference?

edit: Sorry Trigg, I didn't read your post before making mine.

[Abbey Marie]

If Republicans didn't have such an obsession with blocking contraception to women, there would be less abortions.

Explain to us how Republicans are "blocking contraception".

ETA: Trigg, just saw your post, lol.