Abortion and the Women’s March

[Third Hour]

On January 21st, 2017, cities were filled to the brim with women participating in the Women’s March. Women marched, holding hands, holding signs, and firmly grasping to their cause. To many women across the country, the sight of the protest was inspiring and moving. Yet, despite the initial purpose of the Women’s March being to protest President Trump’s election and inauguration and Women’s Rights in general, the spotlight seemed to shift to one issue in particular: abortion. The consequence of this focus was the exclusion of pro-life feminist groups, as they were denied opportunity to partner with or participate in the March. These events reveal a misunderstanding common among modern-day feminists, that one cannot be a feminist and pro-life. Mormon Hub has found a selection of articles that help debunk such a myth, in hopes of clarifying the stance of those who are pro-life feminists. Image from Christianity Today Just in case you're not quite sure what the Church's stance is on abortion, here's an article written by Angela Fallentine, a Co-Founder of Mormon Women Stand, titled "Abortion:...

View the full article

[Guest]

I thought it was very revealing that no one knew what rights they were losing because of Trump.

[Guest]

I don't see it as women losing rights.  I see it as children gaining rights.  (And yes, an embryo is a child, I don't care what the Supreme Court says).

[Guest]

6 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

I don't see it as women losing rights.  I see it as children gaining rights.  (And yes, an embryo is a child, I don't care what the Supreme Court says).

I was referring to a particular interview with some of the protesters who said they were protesting the loss of their rights as women under a Trump Presidency.  When asked what rights  were being lost, they were at a loss and could not enumerate anything other than "Trump Sucks".

[anatess2]

So, several Never Trumper Mormon friends of mine marched in our citiy's downtown for the Women's March.  None of them marched on the March for Life.  So I asked them, why not march for life?  And they said.... Oh, it's a pro-Trump march.

Is this what we've become? We abandon our principles just because it happens to align with the political figure you're against?

[estradling75]

8 hours ago, anatess2 said:

So, several Never Trumper Mormon friends of mine marched in our citiy's downtown for the Women's March.  None of them marched on the March for Life.  So I asked them, why not march for life?  And they said.... Oh, it's a pro-Trump march.

Is this what we've become? We abandon our principles just because it happens to align with the political figure you're against?

 

While I understand exactly what you are saying...  Given that a lot of pressure was put on those whose principles would not let them vote for Trump.. by those who wanted Trump... it is hardly a one-sided abandonment of principles

[Guest MormonGator]

On January 28, 2017 at 6:04 PM, DoctorLemon said:

I don't see it as women losing rights.  I see it as children gaining rights.  (And yes, an embryo is a child, I don't care what the Supreme Court says).

Judging from recent SC rulings, they don't care what you say either. 

 

The pro-life marches are great and inspiring, just like the Women's marches were. Sadly though. I think the pro-life side might be marching for a very long time. It's been 40 years since Roe v Wade, and abortion is still legal here. Might be time to re-evalute tactics on the pro-life side. 

[anatess2]

35 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

 

While I understand exactly what you are saying...  Given that a lot of pressure was put on those whose principles would not let them vote for Trump.. by those who wanted Trump... it is hardly a one-sided abandonment of principles

Dunno about that.  Well, it may be because I've had a tough year and my perspective is skewed by the experience, but the way I saw it, Trumpers never asked Never Trumpers to abandon their principles.  Rather, they simply tried to convince Never Trumpers that there are certain pressing matters in this election cycle.  Elections are not single issue campaigns.  The entire time here on Mormonhub, all I've done is defend my choice.  I've been attacked by many on this forum, painting me with all kinds of broad brushes - I'm ignorant, I'm racist, I'm blind, I support rape... etc. etc... from people I have a high regard for. 

[estradling75]

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Dunno about that.  Well, it may be because I've had a tough year and my perspective is skewed by the experience, but the way I saw it, Trumpers never asked Never Trumpers to abandon their principles.  Rather, they simply tried to convince Never Trumpers that there are certain pressing matters in this election cycle.  Elections are not single issue campaigns.  The entire time here on Mormonhub, all I've done is defend my choice.  I've been attacked by many on this forum, painting me with all kinds of broad brushes - I'm ignorant, I'm racist, I'm blind, I support rape... etc. etc... from people I have a high regard for. 

And you have painted others in return...   Now you might say that was never your intent... and I can accept that...  But if never your intent then perhaps it was never their intent either... And yet it still happened.

From all sides... with all sides claiming to be attacked but not attacking in return

 

 

Edited January 30, 2017 by estradling75

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

And you have painted others in return...   Now you might say that was never your intent... and I can accept that...  But if never your intent then perhaph it was never their intent either... And yet it still happened.

 

 

This requires a quote.  The only time I ever called somebody out was when JAG defended Hillary.  If you want me to give you a quote of the type of things I'm talking about I can.  But I don't want to unearth all that ugliness.

Edited January 30, 2017 by anatess2

[estradling75]

Just now, anatess2 said:

This requires a quote.  If you want me to give you a quote of the type of things I'm talking about I can.  But I don't want to unearth all that ugliness.

Do you really need me to dig up the quote where you called out @Just_A_Guy as being full of hate?  Simply because he could not/would not abandon his principles around Trump and was perfectly willing to explain in detail why he felt that way?

I don't want to unearth all that ugliness either but if you require it... then apparently you really do want to go there.  But please note.. I am not denying how you felt...  I am  simply pointing out that there was/is plenty going around from all sides.

[anatess2]

20 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Do you really need me to dig up the quote where you called out @Just_A_Guy as being full of hate?  Simply because he could not/would not abandon his principles around Trump and was perfectly willing to explain in detail why he felt that way?

I don't want to unearth all that ugliness either but if you require it... then apparently you really do want to go there.  But please note.. I am not denying how you felt...  I am  simply pointing out that there was/is plenty going around from all sides.

You might want to check the history of that conversation and how JAG  - a guy I highly respect - has painted me with all kinds of brushes for supporting Trump.  As a matter of fact, he's the one I referred to that basically accused me of being okay with rape.  And yes, a lot of his accusations of Trump that I defended was flung out of hatred for the guy.  That is not telling him to abandon his principles.  That's me telling him he is wrong about the guy.  Now, if we would have agreed that Trump is a baby killer then I told him to vote for Trump because he's a baby killer that would be me telling him to abandon his principles.

Edited January 30, 2017 by anatess2

[a mustard seed]

Please no.  can we just accept that this election has been extremely polarizing and accept that people are passionate and willing to defend their beliefs? Rather than rehashing old contentious discussions. We'll have plenty more opportunities to have new ones during this administration and last days, I'm sure. 

Lets get back to the womens march and try to leave personal attacks and old(albeit recent) hurts behind. <3

Edited January 30, 2017 by a mustard seed

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, a mustard seed said:

Please no.  can we just accept that this election has been extremely polarizing accept that people are passionate and willing to defend their beliefs? Rather than rehashing old contentious discussions. We'll have plenty more opportunities to have new ones during this administration and last days, I'm sure. 

Lets get back to the womens march and try to leave personal attacks and hurts behind. <3

You are as sweet as you look on that avatar.  I wanna be your best friend.

[zil]

Personally, I prefer the Radetzky March...

[estradling75]

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You might want to check the history of that conversation and how JAG has painted me with all kinds of brushes for supporting Trump.  As a matter of fact, he's the one I referred to that basically accused me of being okay with rape.  And yes, a lot of his accusations of Trump that I defended was flung out of hatred for the guy.  That is not telling him to abandon his principles.  That's me telling him he is wrong about the guy.  Now, if we would have agreed that Trump is a baby killer then I told him to vote for Trump because he's a baby killer that would be me telling him to abandon his principles.

And you calling him a Hater was some how you not also paining him with a brush...  

You know what never mind...  I know how you are with these kinds of conversions..  And it is simply not worth it... 

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

And you calling him a Hater was some how you not also paining him with a brush...  

You know what never mind...  I know how you are with these kinds of conversions..  And it is simply not worth it... 

It's not a brush, broad or otherwise.  It's a conclusion from all the stuff he posted. 

And yes, it's not worth it because it's not even related to what I posted on here. 

Edited January 30, 2017 by anatess2

[estradling75]

Just now, anatess2 said:

It's not a brush, broad or otherwise.  It's a conclusion from all the stuff he posted. 

And yes, it's not worth it because it's not even related to what I posted on here. 

You remember it one way and feel totally justified in every word you spoke.

I promise you that @Just_A_Guy remembers it differently and feels totally justifies in every word you he spoke.

And it relates because both of you will claim that you were standing on your principles and being attacked for it...  Which is exactly my point.

 

But whatever

[anatess2]

46 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

You remember it one way and feel totally justified in every word you spoke.

I promise you that @Just_A_Guy remembers it differently and feels totally justifies in every word you he spoke.

And it relates because both of you will claim that you were standing on your principles and being attacked for it...  Which is exactly my point.

 

But whatever

Okay, I'll bite and beat this dead horse as oftentimes happen between estradling and I.

The issue is - friends of mine who are Pro-Life did not attend the Pro-Life March because they believe it is pro-Trump.

Now, what principle did these women stand on and got attacked for it?  Let's relate it to Jag and I... what principle did JAG stand on that I attacked?  Did JAG say he is against rape and I attacked him for being against rape?  Did JAG say he is pro free trade and I attacked him for being for free trade?  That is not the case.  Rather, when JAG said he is against rape that's why he doesn't support Trump I told him Trump is not for rape either and I rejected the position that Trump is a rapist no less abhorrent than Bill Clinton.  I didn't tell him he needs to abandon his anti-rapist principles.  When JAG said he is for free trade that's why he doesn't support Trump I told him Trump is for free trade as well.  When JAG said he is not for Trump because Trump is not a conservative, I told him, yep, Trump can barely spell conservative but he is a pragmatist with conservative instincts.  I did not tell him to abandon any of those principles.  JAG did state that Trump is a bad model for a Republican, twice divorced, scandalous life, can't spell Corinthians.  I told him I have no problem with it.  I did not tell him to not have a problem with it.  I did tell him it's terrible to vote for Hillary because of that just to keep the Republican image pure. 

Now, these friends of mine who did not march for life because it is pro-Trump.... Trump is pro-life.  Do you understand where the comment is coming from?

Now, let's see what I saw from the other side.  There's no question that I'm a Trump supporter.  Yet, people here called Trump Supporters white supremacists, racists, bigots, sexists... you know the drill.

Edited January 30, 2017 by anatess2

[estradling75]

15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, I'll bite and beat this dead horse as oftentimes happen between estradling and I.

The issue is - friends of mine who are Pro-Life did not attend the Pro-Life March because they believe it is pro-Trump.

Now, what principle did these women stand on and got attacked for it?  Let's relate it to Jag and I... what principle did JAG stand on that I attacked?  Did JAG say he is against rape and I attacked him for being against rape?  Did JAG say he is pro free trade and I attacked him for being for free trade?  That is not the case.  Rather, when JAG said he is against rape that's why he doesn't support Trump I told him Trump is not for rape either and I rejected the position that Trump is a rapist no less abhorrent than Bill Clinton.  I didn't tell him he needs to abandon his anti-rapist principles.  When JAG said he is for free trade that's why he doesn't support Trump I told him Trump is for free trade as well.  When JAG said he is not for Trump because Trump is not a conservative, I told him, yep, Trump can barely spell conservative but he is a pragmatist with conservative instincts.  I did not tell him to abandon any of those principles.  JAG did state that Trump is a bad model for a Republican, twice divorced, scandalous life, can't spell Corinthians.  I told him I have no problem with it.  I did not tell him to not have a problem with it.  I did tell him it's terrible to vote for Hillary because of that just to keep the Republican image pure. 

Now, these friends of mine who did not march for life because it is pro-Trump.... Trump is pro-life.  Do you understand where the comment is coming from?

Now, let's see what I saw from the other side.  There's no question that I'm a Trump supporter.  Yet, people here called Trump Supporters white supremacists, racists, bigots, sexists... you know the drill.

And my comment was

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

While I understand exactly what you are saying...  Given that a lot of pressure was put on those whose principles would not let them vote for Trump.. by those who wanted Trump... it is hardly a one-sided abandonment of principles

Both you and @Just_A_Guy pounded each other while claiming a principled stance.  Nether of you moved (to the frustration of the other), but you two are kind of rare.  Lot of other people might have crumbled, the principled stance pounded out of them by the other side.    Not surprisingly if people have had their principles pounded out of them by everyone that disagreed with them then further stances will not be based on principles but rather whatever sided they caved into.  So while you are free to complain about those that caved to the side you disagreed with... You're side has been just as vigorous in attempting to pound the principles out of people to get people to support your side. And thus just as much a part of the problem.

 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

And my comment was

Both you and @Just_A_Guy pounded each other while claiming a principled stance.  Nether of you moved (to the frustration of the other), but you two are kind of rare.  Lot of other people might have crumbled, the principled stance pounded out of them by the other side.    Not surprisingly if people have had their principles pounded out of them by everyone that disagreed with them then further stances will not be based on principles but rather whatever sided they caved into.  So while you are free to complain about those that caved to the side you disagreed with... You're side has been just as vigorous in attempting to pound the principles out of people to get people to support your side. And thus just as much a part of the problem.

 

And once again... I didn't pound JAG's principles out of him.  I simply pointed out to him that those principles align with Trump's.  If you didn't notice, I didn't engage much in discussions about defending Trump to leftists.

Edited January 30, 2017 by anatess2

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And once again... I didn't pound JAG's principles out of him.  I simply pointed out to him that those principles align with Trump's.  If you didn't notice, I didn't engage much in discussions about defending Trump to leftists.

Sigh... now you are explicitly defending yourself about something I said explicitly said did not happen.  This is why I will no longer discuss things with you.. you are to busy trying to be right then actually listening.  Good bye

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Sigh... now you are explicitly defending yourself about something I said explicitly said did not happen.  This is why I will no longer discuss things with you.. you are to busy trying to be right then actually listening.  Good bye

What am I defending exactly that you didn't accuse me of?  From this comment below you accused me of trying to pound JAG's principles out of him.  I did no such thing. 

Until you can prove me wrong, I'm not seeing anything about what you say that is right.  Good bye, then.

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

And my comment was

Both you and @Just_A_Guy pounded each other while claiming a principled stance.  Nether of you moved (to the frustration of the other), but you two are kind of rare.  Lot of other people might have crumbled, the principled stance pounded out of them by the other side.    Not surprisingly if people have had their principles pounded out of them by everyone that disagreed with them then further stances will not be based on principles but rather whatever sided they caved into.  So while you are free to complain about those that caved to the side you disagreed with... You're side has been just as vigorous in attempting to pound the principles out of people to get people to support your side. And thus just as much a part of the problem.

 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, zil said:

Personally, I prefer the Radetzky March...

@zil-

Once during an equal rights march in the 1960's the commentator/film critic Michael Medved got a group of friends and started chanting "Rice is nice! Equal rice for all! Rice! Rice! Rice!" 

Now THAT is my kind of protest baby! 

[zil]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Medved

Huh.  That means "bear" (the animal) in Russian.  Bears are very popular in Russia.  (And "cucumber" (in Russian) is used as a term of endearment - so instead of calling someone "Sweetie Pie" you might call them "My little cucumber" - I know, weird.  Let's not over-think it.)

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

protest baby

I see what you did there.

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

"Rice is nice! Equal rice for all! Rice! Rice! Rice!"

PS: I just got back from lunch (at a Thai place new to me), where I had Sesame Chicken, and we all had rice, rice, rice, equal rice for all.  It was nice.