Why "Men can't have an opinion" and "Keep the government out of it!" are hypocritical arguments.

I'm sure we've all heard these arguments before. The, "Well you're a man, so you can't (have an opinion/speak about it/vote on it/even think about it) because you have no uterus and don't know what it's like to be a woman!" type of arguments are flawed when it comes to people whoa re pro-choice, because, guess what, NARAL was founded by 2 men originally, and only 1 of the 5 founders was a woman, and MEN passed Roe V. Wade, and MEN are abortion doctors, and yes MEN are pro-choice and vote as such. You (I'm talking about the pro-choicers that are like this of course) only seem to care about this if it is pro-life men. Where are all the people screaming at pro-choice men, "No uterus, no opinion!"? Same goes for the "government should stay out of it" argument. It was the GOVERNMENT that wrote in laws saying you could get an abortion in the first place. If you don't want the government in it, reject Roe V. Wade, and all other laws saying women have the right to choose abortion, and government officials who are pro-choice or vote that way.

The whole "No uterus, no opinion" thing is stupid and obviously sexist, and this is coming from a woman who does have a uterus. It's taking something about that person and saying that because of it, they don't get to have a voice. It's not like anyone would say a woman can't have an opinion on or talk about circumcision just because we don't have penises, and if anyone ever did, everyone would be crying "Sexist!" Same goes for a number of things. No one would say that white people can't talk about how bad owning slaves is just because they aren't black, and can't properly "understand". Perhaps they did say that in the day though, but now everyone would think that is stupid. People aren't defined by their race or gender or whatever else. To say they can't understand it because they don't belong to that group is even furthering the separation of groups.

The funny thing is that while it apparently only applies to pro-life men, much in the same way they are "pro-choice" yet don't let anyone choose to be pro-life, the statement itself is only based off of gender and not content of their views. Everyone has to be like them. Frankly, if they think a man is saying something stupid about abortion, the fact that they are saying something stupid should be enough. They could just say, "Well that's ridiculous and makes no sense", but instead they opt for the ad hominems, which always is a cue to other people that they honestly have no idea how to argue that so they look for something else to argue. Do they say "You're not a woman, so quit talking!" to men saying they think a woman has the right to choose or people should stay out of it? No they do not. I wonder what they would say if they saw someone yelling at a pro-choice man who is talking about how he thinks women should get to choose what they want, "You don't have a uterus, so you don't get an opinion! So shut up!" One would wonder why these men would want to be part of a group that doesn't allow their gender to speak, have an opinion, or make laws depending on their viewpoint anyway. Also, some women don't have uteruses. Don't pro-choice men hate the whole, "Only women are allowed to talk about this" aspect of it? Not to mention it actually is sexist against women as well because you are making it out to be a "woman's thing."

Taking Back Bodily Autonomy

I have always been SUPER pro-bodily-autonomy/integrity and freedom of choice. My main philosophy in life has always been that you should be able to do whatever you want, whatsoever, as long as it doesn't hurt another body besides your own. This is exactly why I am against abortion. Bodily autonomy/integrity is why most pro-lifers are against abortion. If there wasn't another body that was being threatened or we didn't care about the body being threatened, we wouldn't be pro-life and there wouldn't be a problem. We'd say "Yeah sure violate and kill the unborn's body, it's not like I care what others do to bodies that aren't their own!" Get a hysterectomy, sure, but there is no greater threat to bodily autonomy than abortion. The right to bodily autonomy fits so much better with the pro-life side.

The thing about pro-choicers is that they don't really understand bodily autonomy. They think it's absolute (they seem to forget the "as long as you don't hurt another body" part of it, and there are many situations in which it is not absolute, such as helmet or other safety laws, drugs being illegal, or illegal in certain circumstances such as for those under a certain age, being taken away on a 5150 and forced in a mental hospital and watched to make sure you don't kill yourself, someone can't neglect their child and refuse to feed it because they don't want to use their arms to give it food (Refusing your child nutrients and survival because you don't want your uterus to go to this is basically the same. Children also have the right to not be neglected, and depriving the child of resources it needs to live, even if it wasn't wanted or planned or is an "inconvenience", is still neglect and still wrong) or kill or hurt their child if they wrapped themselves around your leg for instance and you can't get them off without doing so, and various other circumstances (regardless of whether or not you agree with them, they exist legally)), they think right to life can never come before it (right to life comes before at least most things as it is the ultimate threat against someone (and if you're an Atheist like me, you should really believe in it, as life is ALL we have, and without life, all other rights are meaningless as we wouldn't be alive to be able to use them, and this is why they put life first in "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", and it's almost like a lot of them don't even think right to life is a thing, because if bodily autonomy always exists in the context of "even if someone dies" as so many of them like to argue, then you can go around killing people an excuse it by saying "Well it was my body doing the killing so you can't do anything about it because bodily autonomy" ), when talking about abortion, they act like the only thing to bodily autonomy is whether or not you allow someone to use your organs (there's much more which I'll explain), and they think forget about the unborn's bodily autonomy because the woman's autonomy is the only thing we should really care about etc.

Now essentially bodily autonomy has a few different things to it (and no not all of them are legal.) It means you can do whatever you want to or with your body (get tattoos or piercings or body mods, take drugs, be a stripper or prostitute, have sex whatever way you want it however much you want it with whomever you want (unless they are underage or someone else non-consenting) refuse to shave or wear makeup etc.), no one can do anything to your body without consent or invade the personal space of your body (think of rape, molestation, inflicting pain or injury, even just touching someone without them wanting you to etc.), and yeah having control over your organs is part of it, but the main thing is that no one can hurt or kill your body without consent (this is actually sort of related to right to life as someone being killed means their body was killed and hurt to the utmost extreme, so they aren't even mutually exclusive in the first place). You get to be in charge of your body, and no one else can ever hurt it (unless you're into that sort of thing and it's completely consensual ).

Of course according to science, the unborn is another individual living human being and different body than the mother. The unborn's bodily autonomy is the one being threatened here as the act in question is abortion and the unborn is the one being aborted, not the woman. Abortion is forcing death (and various things with the various types, such as dismemberment which is also obviously a great threat to bodily autonomy) on it without it consenting and having a choice in the matter. That is the biggest threat to bodily autonomy.

Now trust me, I get that the woman has autonomy too and she might not want to be pregnant and share her body with the unborn. Talking about the unborn's right to bodily autonomy and right to life DOES NOT mean we think little of the woman's right to bodily autonomy (remember I'm a super liberal and radical feminist, super pro-bodily rights type, so don't use that stupid "they all just hate women and want to take away their bodily autonomy" misconception on me). I am female, I live with thinking about what it is like to be pregnant all the time, BUT abortion is still a greater threat to bodily autonomy. Someone hurting or killing someone else's body is obviously a greater threat than someone using someone else's organ to stay alive. Also the unborn has two violations pushed on them (right to life and bodily autonomy) vs. the woman's one.

Abortion being the greater threat to bodily autonomy is true even more so for various reasons. It is completely innocent in the matter, it could not have consented or chosen to be there, and it is already there before a woman can find out she is pregnant or an abortion can take place. It did not "take over the woman's uterus without consent" as it could never have consented to that, and comparisons like that imply intent, but it never could have made a conscious decision to do something like that or even be aware of what it was doing. Just like newborns and toddlers can't be held responsible for certain actions because they couldn't have consented to it or realized what they were doing (from needing to be fed down to more serious things like accidentally hurting someone) the unborn is purely innocent. It can't consent to being killed either, just like infants outside of the womb couldn't consent to being killed so since it's not legal to do that, it doesn't make sense to allow someone to do it to the unborn (other examples of how bodily autonomy still applies to those who aren't aware to be able to consent either way is how women who have passed out can't consent to having sex, so doing that to her is rape, or sleepwalkers can't consent to sleepwalking, yet they also can't consent to being killed). Usually people know that things like circumcision or piercing a baby's ears are against it's bodily autonomy, yet some of them do a 180 when it comes to abortion. Those aborting specifically decide to do so and DID consent and make a conscious decision. The abortion is a direct an conscious action on someone. The unborn being there was there by the actions of the woman and man, or in case of rape man and woman's body. It happens to be using her uterus because that is how science works and the only home it has. Once again, it didn't "force itself into her and take her uterus hostage." Other analogies I've heard are ones like you can't drag an unconscious person into your home and then shoot them because you want them to leave *or something like that*, and extensions of that.

Want of womb empty is definitely not an adequate excuse to literally, purposefully, consciously, and actively kill someone who already happens to be there and by natural circumstances made by other people/bodies, especially those who are the ones wanting to kill them, and without their own consent to be there or a conscious choice made, who is the most innocent out of anyone innocent ever. Anyone for bodily autonomy should be pro-life above all else. No one is saying they should get more rights, we're just saying give them actual equal rights, which pro-choicers don't seem to understand. Someone's rights to their own body stops where another's begins, and we know that that is at conception.

Also I never liked the "kidney transplant" type of analogies. Abortion is different than refusing to give someone an organ or something like that as that hasn't already happened and when someone gives an organ, part of them is gone forever and put into someone else, whereas with the unborn, it is only using the woman's uterus and only for 9 months and she gets to keep it in her, and it is already there and happening by the time she finds out, and she will have it back to herself in months. Also, one might say that if a parent were the one to make their child's organ non-functioning, they should be obligated to give them theirs, or if someone already had an organ transplant, they shouldn't be allowed to take it back (which is actually an actual thing. You can't take it back once they are already using the organ, let alone take tools to dismember and kill them, and the unborn is already using the organ) and anyone can also refuse to take an organ, and if they don't they agree and make a conscious decision to take someone's organ, but the unborn can't refuse to use the uterus, and like I said before didn't make the choice to use it in the first place, and then there is the difference between actively killing and letting die, but even beyond all of that, I'm sure even the most pro-choice people still think very poorly of those who just flat out refuse to give someone an organ if they really need it.

The big dilemma with how we view pro-choicers

So I've mentioned this before, but a lot of pro-choicers honestly don't know scientific facts, or aren't aware of other choices, or have people lying to them about the whole thing. Perhaps this actually makes them seem better, as it may not be their fault, and maybe they aren't the big bad people that want to kill babies but rather are just confused people who are uninformed as their side and society have pulled the wool over their eyes. Then again, maybe it's worse as they should know better and stand up against those trying to convince them of it. On the other hand, in a certain way that's better than then saying "Yeah we know it's a human being, but we don't care, people should be allowed to kill them anyway", and yet recently I came to the conclusion that one of the worst things about the pro-choice side is the fact that they spew so many scientifically illiterate things, and at the very least, if we got rid of all the "it isn't alive" "it's just an appendage of the mother" "it isn't human" garbage and all pro-choicers were just "yeah we recognize that it's a living human being but we think that mothers should have the right to do away with them" then life would be so much better, because at least they wouldn't be spewing unscientific crap that makes us think they are really just trying to justify it all with their bigotry, or perhaps they were wronged, or this will only help to further brainwash that side into actually believing all of that, and maybe that would be a step in the right direction as that big brainwashing mechanism which is the reason for a lot of people being pro-choice would be taken away from them and it could lead to less people being pro-choice.

So I guess what I'm saying is that this seems like a bit of a predicament. I'm sure it's also an area for lots of different sides and viewpoints in the pro-life side. You also have the pro-choicers who know it's killing and admit it and say there's nothing wrong with it and maybe wouldn't mind doing it, or people that act like it's great, like closer to your pro-abortion people, who on the one hand seem horrible, but on the other hand at least are more consistent and honest than their counterparts who are "personally pro-life" and think that abortion is a horrible thing, but think that we can't tell women to not do it, even though we don't do that with anything else, such as murder in general or rape.

The abortion doctors who know it is a human being and baby and life and they are killing it are great because it will help people understand these things and we can say "see, even they know it", but then are horrible because they are ACTUALLY fine with killing. The person who blatantly describes abortion like it is infanticide is horrible for being ok with that, but necessary for showing people that it IS infanticide. The person who honestly believes they are supporting women's rights by being pro-choice and doesn't realize the humanity of the unborn, and normally wouldn't hurt a fly, is better for being that type of person, but bad because they are supporting the stereotypes and a culture that hurts our young, but then that is split up into who was the one who wronged them and actually made them think that, as well as why on earth didn't they have the sense to realize that that is obvious bull and they should think for themselves?

It's hard. My empathy censors are going in all sorts of directions and I just don't know how to feel. Sometimes I want to hug those who actually think it's "just a clump of cells" and dehumanize, as I know they were brainwashed into believing that, and other times I hate that they are like that, and probably have convinced other people that that is actually true, as they even said it and are telling people that, and that's how it keeps spreading.

Feminist pro-choicers being open to the fact that feminists are diverse in every way, except not abortion

While I will always consider myself a feminist, it seems to have been taken over by a pro-abortion stance, with some people claiming that if you are pro-life, you can't be a feminist, as abortion rights is what feminism is about. Yet feminists usually tend to agree that you can be feminist and have a wide array of stances on a wide array of issues. We know that feminists can be sex-positive, sex-negative, pro-porn, anti-porn, pro-BDSM, anti-BDSM, choose to wear makeup, choose to not wear makeup, choose to shave their legs, choose to not shave their legs, choose to wear dresses, choose to not wear dresses, choose to be mothers, choose to never have kids, choose to get married, choose to never get married, choose to be housewives, choose to be career women, more concerned with feminism in the workplace, more concerned with intersectionality,  choose to go from a woman's body to a man's body, choose to go from a man's body to a woman's body, feminists who are nerds, feminists who are rockers, feminists who are gamers, feminists who are outdoorsy, feminists who are nudists, feminists who are athletes, feminists who are artists, feminists who are business people, feminists who are mothers, feminists who are stay at home dads, feminists who are of all races, all countries, all faiths and none, all ages, all genders, all sexual orientations, all sizes, all shapes, who have all disabilities, all diseases, all interests, all political ideologies, have to overcome all challenges, feminists who are this and that and the other and everything in between. So why is it different for the abortion stance? You're not letting anyone choose to be pro-life. That's not very "pro-choice." After all, Feminism started off pro-life. Apparently the people who started feminism in the first place, wouldn't be considered feminist by these people. Since they created and defined feminism to begin with, there must not be such a thing as feminism. Feminist pro-lifers aren't going anywhere. There are many pro-life feminist groups. You'll have to learn to accept it eventually.

To make it all about abortion is very limiting. You are throwing away all this good that can be done to make the sexes equal and help people not be judged by or have disadvantages because of their gender, all for the sake of trying to keep ONE thing around and say that ONLY people who believe in that ONE thing are good people, or adequate enough to call themselves something. THIS is one of the reasons why feminism is looked down upon, and many feminists don't realize they are feminists. Feminists themselves are making other feminists think they aren't feminists because they have pro-life views. We all hate how much people don't realize they are feminist. We all know the "Well I'm not a feminist, I just believe in (insert what feminists believe in)" circumstance that happens ALL the time, so why do that TO them? If they are feminist besides that, why wouldn't you HATE it if they didn't realize they were feminist, just like you do with people who do that in general? Feminism DOES NOT equal abortion.

Not only that but it really shows a lack of priorities. There are so many things wrong with the world, wrong with gender discrimination, wrong with women being raped and killed and this and that just for being women, and you are more concerned about women having a right to abortion? SERIOUSLY? Not to mention the females BEING KILLED IN THE WOMB JUST FOR BEING FEMALES!! But oh wait, you say we have to support that because a woman can choose no matter what, or let's just ignore it because it'll hurt our pro-choice movement. There are also women being FORCED or COERCED into abortions, but oh wait, we have to keep it legal for the greater good, all the bad things that come with it be damned. Not to mention all the women who regret abortion and have PTSD and suicidal thoughts and tendencies, or who have actually killed themselves because of it, but oh wait, we need it legal, and we need people to be pro-choice, so let's just ignore them and say they don't exist and it's all lies, even though you can hear their stories everywhere, so that we can keep abortion. Some people are going to be casualties, right? All of that really shows a lack of caring about women.

Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood founder) was pro-life

Likewise, so was Marie Stopes (the namesake of the UK version of Planned Parenthood) which I will talk about after Margaret)

So I heard about this from one of the people who posted on my Riot Grrrls For Life Pro-Life facebook page when I first started it. She mentioned that Margaret Sanger was pro-life and she really liked her, and so at first I was shocked, as I had assumed that she was the queen of abortion, as that's what everyone, pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike, make it seem like, and what with her being the founder of the main voice for pro-choice, I guess I assumed it like everyone else does. So I start to look it up, not knowing what to expect, and it turns out, she was right. She hated abortion for several reasons and has a lot of good pro-life quotes. I found this link talking about how that one infanticide quote was totally taken out of context, and what she really said about abortion and infanticide, and how she often linked abortion, infanticide, and child abandonment together, calling them all "horrors" and the like, and other things like that, and this link that said the same stuff and gave more quotes. You can actually go to her book Woman and the New Race from there as it links it, or hey I'll just give it to you here, and it is written all over how much she hates abortion and infanticide and other things like that. Also, you can look at her wikipedia page. Some pro-choicers will try to brush it off like it doesn't matter or she was only against abortion because of how dangerous it is to pregnant women, but she clearly has said at least a few times that it was because it was the taking of a life, so I'm sure it was for both reasons.

In fact, Planned Parenthood pamphlets used to advocate against abortion, saying "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that if you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life." I guess the phrase "every child a wanted child" was first only meant in reference to birth control as well, since it says that on there too. Here are links I found for that.

I'm not saying she was a good person, and I'm not saying she wasn't racist or for eugenics (though honestly I don't know), but I am saying that everything like that she was for, was only with wanting to prevent them before conception so that no one was killing any human beings. She worked to secure birth control in part to get rid of abortions and infanticide. She knew that it was the taking of a life, so she wanted to take care of the situation before that happened. She seems like one of those people who is both good and bad. Some things about them you love, and others you hate. It did at least give me more respect for her, because in researching this, I found that I liked a lot of what she wrote.

They added abortion to Planned Parenthood after her death, and I'm sure that's why everyone assumes it, and no one corrects people. I'm sure if more people knew their founder worked to get rid of abortion, less people would support PP, or there would be some sort of outrage, and so they probably keep it under wraps. Also, the more conservative and religious pro-lifers really like to paint her as the queen of abortion and infanticide, and I have even posted that she was pro-life on a few pro-life pages, and they argued with me and tried to act like it wasn't true, and one even blocked me, even though I didn't do anything other than simply state that and post those links. So, funny enough the pro-life side is also fueling this false info, when really they could be using the fact that she was pro-life to say it's disrespectful that Planned Parenthood have abortion services. Or like that first link from the livelydust blog states, "And anyway, why would pro-lifers want to base a campaign against abortion on misinformation? Why not just sweetly point out that Planned Parenthood's founder called abortion a horror and devoted her life to making it unnecessary?"

We really should be doing that. Why bother to keep pushing a lie just because it makes someone look like they support abortion, when the people who support her already do, when you could be telling the truth and saying that even the woman pro-choicers love and celebrate as the leader of women owning their bodies and reproductive rights, was against this?

Here are some of her quotes:

"Although abortion may be resorted to in order to save the life of the mother, the practice of it merely for limitation of offspring is dangerous and vicious. I bring up the subject here only because some ill-informed persons have the notion that when we speak of birth control we include abortion as a method. We certainly do not. Abortion destroys the already fertilized ovum or the embryo; contraception, as I have carefully explained, prevents the fertilizing of the ovum by keeping the male cells away. Thus it prevents the beginning of life."
- In her paper "Birth Control Advances: A Reply to the Pope"

"To each group we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not begun."
- In her autobiography

"Human society must protect its children–yes, but prenatal care is most essential! The child-to-be, as yet not called into being, has rights no less imperative."
- In her paper "The Children's Era"

"While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."
- In her paper "Birth Control or Abortion?"

""It is apparent that nothing short of contraceptives can put an end to the horrors of abortion and infanticide"
 - In her book "Woman and the New Race" page 25

"[It is] the most barbaric method [of family planning], the killing of babies — infanticide — abortion."
- In her paper "My Fight for Birth Control

"Usually this desire [for family limitation] has been laid to economic pressure... It has asserted itself among the rich and among the poor, among the intelligent and the unintelligent. It has been manifested in such horrors as infanticide, child abandonment and abortion."
- In her book "Woman and the New Race" 

"When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become the foundation of a new race. There will be no killing of babies in the womb by abortion, nor through neglect in foundling homes, nor will there be infanticide."
- In her book "Woman and the New Race" page 232

It makes sense that Margaret Sanger was pro-life as all the feminists of the time were.

Marie Stopes was likewise one of these pro-life feminists who worked to further birth control yet had the biggest abortion facility named after her after her death. From her wikipedia,
"Stopes was strongly against the termination of a pregnancy once it had started: her clinics did not offer abortions during her life. She saw birth control as the only way families should limit their size.

The nurses at her clinic had to sign a declaration in which they swore not to "impart any information or lend any assistance whatsoever to any person calculated to lead to the destruction in uteroof the products of conception."^[50]

When she learned that one of Avro Manhattan's woman friends had had an abortion, Stopes accused him of "murdering" the unborn child.^[51]

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/06/22/there-is-no-doubt-the-early-feminists-were-pro-life-on-abortion/
"‘I was glad you gave space to the fact that the Queensland Medical Association is planning an extensive educational campaign against the evil of abortion.’ – Marie Stopes. (When Stopes found out that her contemporary Avro Manhattan had pressured one of his lovers into having an abortion, she called him a murderer to his face. And when William Carpenter named his abortion shop after her, she took legal action against him. But today, the largest abortion business in the UK bears her name since it was founded in 1976, eighteen years after her death.)"

The Pro-Choice side is based on lies

So from searching all of this stuff and trying to find like-minded people, I have found the history on why and how pro-life turned from being a liberal and feminist thing to pro-choice being a liberal and feminist thing, and it turns out, it is all based off of shysters lying to people and them being gullible and eating it up, hook, line, and sinker. I found this article, Why Liberals Should Defend the Unborn, that explains that a lot of what turned liberals pro-choice was the eugenicists and population controllers, and they went and campaigned for abortion, saying that poor women should have access to what rich women had, and framing abortion as a matter of justice to the poor, and there is even a scary quote by Alan Guttmacher, the president of Planned Parenthood, "If you're going to curb population", he said, "it's extremely important not to have it done by the damned Yankee, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it is not considered genocide. If the united states goes to the black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproductive rate, we're immediately suspected to have ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you've got much better leverage." In addition to that, the article says it was also the lies about when life begins and abortion and so on the Roe case told, which you can read more about in this new book detailing all of that, Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade, and that's in addition to the lies they told about what the women in those cases wanted, which I will get to later on in this post, people being led astray by institutions and people they relied on, people being gullible and not going with their own better instincts and bothering to think about how this issue betrayed their key principles, the gloomy European ideologies left over from the 1800s and early 1900s which were more rigid and less hopeful than early American views and liberal views which tended to be pretty optimist and idealist, and that also helped to turn the feminism of the 60s pro-choice, and Karl Marx's materialism and an essay that Friedrich Engels wrote that was hostile toward marriage and indifferent to children, Sigmund Freud's sexual theories making people assume sexual restraint is psychologically harmful, and the sexual revolution of the 60s that treated children as unwanted byproducts of sex.

While I love the sexual revolution and do think that too much sexual restraint is harmful, I could see it being too careless that way and making people think that they don't have to take care of the outcomes of sex as much. I think we can come to a place where we value everyone's sexuality and let them do whatever they want that way, but realize there are consequences and real adults take care of them. It came second nature to me. I have always known sex was incredibly natural and supported things like prostitution as long as all are consenting adults and there was no sex trafficking, and polygamy as long as there is no sexism, and sex whatever way you want it, with whomever you want (of course as long as all are consenting adult humans), and however much you want, yet of course there would be things to look out for such as pregnancy and STDs, so I never guessed people would actually advocate for opting out of their responsibilities. We know there are so many consequences to so many things, yet no one has a problem taking responsibility with anything else, lest they be considered a very immature person who isn't doing what they should.

Here is another article that explains how the left adopted abortion. I'll just pull out quotes that give a good summary of the reasons. "One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies." "Unfortunately, many liberals and radicals accepted this view without further question." "Class issues provided another rationale. In the late 1960s, liberals were troubled by evidence that rich women could obtain abortions regardless of the law, by going to careful society doctors or countries where abortion was legal. Why, they asked, should poor women be barred from something the wealthy could have?" "Many liberals were also persuaded by a church/state argument that followed roughly this line: "Opposition to abortion is a religious viewpoint, particularly a Catholic viewpoint. The Catholics have no business imposing their religious views on the rest of us."" "Still another, more emotional reason is that so many conservatives oppose abortion. Many liberals have difficulty accepting the idea that Jesse Helms can be right about anything. I do not quite understand this attitude. Just by the law of averages, he has to be right about something, sometime. Standing at the March for Life rally at the U.S. Capitol last year, and hearing Senator Helms say that "We reject the philosophy that life should be only for the planned, the perfect, or the privileged," I thought he was making a good civil-rights statement. If much of the leadership of the pro-life movement is right-wing, that is due largely to the default of the Left. We "little people" who marched against the war and now march against abortion would like to see leaders of the Left speaking out on behalf of the unborn. But we see only a few, such as Dick Gregory, Mark Hatfield, Jesse Jackson, Richard Neuhaus, Mary Rose Oakar. Most of the others either avoid the issue or support abortion."

I also found a video, The Feminist Case Against Abortion, where Serrin Foster explains that the reason why feminism ended up taking a pro-choice stance was that Lawrence Lader and Dr. Bernard Nathanson were going around the country, and first seen as pariah, trying to tell people that women should have the right to abort. No one was buying it and there wasn't really an outcry for women to have abortions, but they tried all sorts of tactics and slogans and made up a whole bunch of lies to try and convince people that we need this. They came to Betty Friedan, who was the leader of the National Organization of Women, and the one who wrote The Feminine Mystique, and even she wasn't buying it at first, and her book didn't even have anything about abortion in it until after all this happened, but what really got her was them making up a number saying 100,000 women had died from illegal abortions, and they painted it as a civil rights issue, so she got on board thinking she had to legalize it to make it safe - a common misconception that still is around today. To this day, there has never been any documentation of more than 83 or 89 women who have died from illegal abortions, and if people actually thought about it, they would realize how false the 100,000 number was, as there weren't enough women who had died from causes other than those who were already accounted for, to account for that many deaths by abortion, but people just fell for it and didn't use their common sense. So it wasn't even until 1966 that the National Organization for Women included abortion in its list of goals, and even then it was really not a big priority. It just grew from there, and since then, the National Organization for Women has made legalized abortion it's #1 priority, even stating that access to abortion is the most fundamental right of women, without which, all other rights are meaningless.

In fact, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was pro-life, and Planned Parenthood actually used to advocate against abortions. Here is an old pamphlet of theirs, stating "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that if you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life."

Bernard and Larry were trying to think of  what women want and what the movement was about, to try and persuade them that they needed and wanted this, so they figured it was equality in the workplace and education, and one of the ways they framed it was by telling women that if they wanted to be hired, educated, promoted, and payed like a man, they can't bother the poor employer with maternity and fertility issues.--The employer shouldn't be burdened with your fertility. You'r tummy's gonna ache for the first trimester and you'll feel sick and won't want to go to work, and then you'll want to have time off to have the baby, and then the baby will get ill with something, so you'll disrupt the workplace even more by taking time off when your kid gets sick.-- To this day, women still don't have adequate care for being pregnant or mothers, especially in the workplace, and now I know it is because of this. We need more help to get rid of all that. Women in America still don't have a federal paid maternity leave. These are the reasons people say abortion should be available. They don't need abortion, they need these things fixed.

Abortion proponents promised the women's movement all sorts of good things to further persuade them; that there would be this world of equality, and reduced poverty, even though the term "feminization of poverty" was coined after Roe V. Wade, and that every child would be a wanted child, because hey, we'll just get rid of the unwanted ones, and they won't bother us (which obviously doesn't happen because no matter how unwanted a child is, even if someone totally believes in abortion, it doesn't mean they will have one, and there are still other options that even the most pro-choice people could choose, not to mention that obviously not everyone would think abortion is ok in the first place, no matter how badly pro-choice people would want it, so you can't get rid of other people's unwanted children like that.). This also seemed to be popular in the eugenics crowd. They thought that if you just get rid of poor people and unwanted people and defective people, all the world's problems would be solved. It definitely isn't that easy. Instead of this world of non-violence, child abuse has escalated in every developed country where there is legalized abortion. Rather than shared responsibility for children, even more of the responsibility of children has shifted to women, do to the pro-choice side's "It's a woman's choice" anthem which really put all the pressure on women to make decisions regarding their offspring, and cultured a world where girls grew up thinking they had to take it all on their shoulders or else they were bad women or weren't strong enough or weren't feminist enough or that's just what women do, and guys grew up thinking they had to respect their girlfriends "right to choose" and do what THEY wanted, so they tell their girls that they will support whatever THEY choose, as if men are just supposed to stay out of it and let women do their thing because they are the mothers so that's women's work, and then of course the bad men taking advantage of this and using it as an excuse to get out of taking care of children. The #1 cause of death for pregnant women isn't abortion, it isn't even on the map, it's being beaten to death by their boyfriends who don't want them pregnant. You have schools and colleges who don't allow women or teenage girls to complete their education if they have a child. You have employers today who do not have maternity coverage in their health insurance, won't accommodate women with job-sharing, flex-time, create a virtual office, or pay a living wage. College students say without housing, without daycare, without maternity coverage, it doesn't feel like they have much of a choice.

As it also turns out, it was actually the Feminists, along with what would become the American Medical Association, and the media, who worked  to make abortion illegal in this country in the first place, because they were all in agreement that we needed legal protection for the unborn. I have known all the early American Feminists were pro-life for years now, but I didn't know they were the ones to make abortion illegal in the first place. 100 years later, Roe V. Wade undid everything they worked for.

In addition to that, I found this link that says, "It was in 1827 that the discovery of "conception" revealed when human life begins. As a result, the American Medical Association (AMA) urged state legislators to pass laws protecting the unborn human "from conception" and prohibiting abortion. During the 1800's all states passed laws making abortion a serious crime." and this link that says "The American Medical Association (AMA) declared as far back as 1857 (referenced in the Roe. vs. Wade opinion) that "the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being” is a matter of objective science. They deplored the “popular ignorance...that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.”" and given the info from Serrin's speech, it seems to fit and give more of the history of how this all went down.

Then of course you have the Roe V. Wade and Doe V. Bolton cases which were also based on lies. Roe was just a pawn used in an attorney's attempt to gain legalized abortion, and was persuaded to lie and say she was raped and needed and abortion, which was not true. She ended up not ever having an abortion. She is now a pro-life advocate vowing to spend the rest of her life undoing Roe V. Wade. Doe never even wanted nor requested an abortion, and she was tricked into signing an affidavit about abortion in the process of filing for divorce from her husband and seeking to regain custody of her other children. She to has become a pro-life spokesperson and is fighting to overturn the court cases. She actually fled the state when her mother and a lawyer tried to force her to have an abortion. She too did not end up ever having an abortion.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/two-women-legalized-abortion-in-america-now-both-of-them-want-it-reversed
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/22/woman-behind-roe-v-wade-im-dedicating-my-life-to-overturning-it/?utm_content=buffer5bb9d&utm_source=buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

There were also Nixon tapes that came out a few years ago that shows that the conservative presidency of the time wasn't all that against abortion, that had this scary quote, “There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,”

Dr. Bernard Nathanson turned pro-life in the 70s after seeing an ultrasound of an abortion, and admitted all the lies he told and the story behind how they were selling abortion. He has come out with a few books, Aborting America, and The Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind, telling his story. I'll post a few quotes where he says some of the lies and tactics they used.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0005.html
"The First Key Tactic was to capture the media

We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority.

We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200 - 250 annually. The figure constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalization.

The Second Key Tactic was to Play the Catholic Card

We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its “socially backward ideas” and picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was played endlessly. We fed the media such lies as “we all know that opposition to abortion comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics” and “Polls prove time and again that most Catholics want abortion law reform.” And the media drum-fired all this into the American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favour of abortion are enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian religions were (and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly suppressed, along with pro-life atheists’ opinions.

The Third Key Tactic was the Denigration and Suppression of all Scientific Evidence that Life Begins at Conception

I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist to pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New York City and had to set up a perinatal research unit, just at the start of a great new technology which we now use every day to study the fetus in the womb. A favorite pro-abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Fetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy.

Why, you may well ask, do some American doctors who are privy to the findings of fetology, discredit themselves by carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic: at $300.00 a time 1.55 million abortions means an industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion. It is clear that permissive abortion is purposeful destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma. But to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic utilitarian answer to social problems.

As a scientist I know, not believe, know that human life begins at conception. Although I am not a formal religionist, I believe with all my heart that there is a divinity of existence which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity."

I'd like to point out that these are still around today and still just as false, and regarding the false numbers they made up saying most people supported abortion, that stigma is still working to make people believe the hype today, with this gallup poll showing that most Americans falsely think that more people are pro-choice, when really it is pretty even yet actually more people are pro-life.

On the illegalized abortion leading to more women dying lie, Ground Breaking Study From Chile

                                                      National Center For Health Statistics

http://prolifequotes.wordpress.com/category/dr-bernard-nathanson/

“We fed the public a line of deceit, dishonesty, a fabrication of statistics and figures. We succeeded because the time was right and the news media co-operated. We sensationalized the effects of illegal abortions, and fabricated polls which indicated that 85 percent of the public favoured unrestricted abortion, when we knew it was only 5 percent. We unashamedly lied, and yet our statements were quoted (by the media) as though they had been written in law.”

http://realweb.ifastnet.com/pcspeaks.html

"How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew that the figures were totally false and I suppose that others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the 'morality' of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible."

A lot of the false mottos and whatnot that were around in the 70s, still get spewed out today by pro-choicers. That is, after all, where all the "it's just a clump of cells" "it's not alive" "it's just a part of her body" "we need it legal so that it's safe as so many women die from illegal abortions" and so on and so forth came from. Most of the views held today by pro-choicers are false political rhetoric that their side never corrected so they had no reason to stop saying it all. We can actually pity them a bit though. Some of them honesty believe this stuff, or think they are doing the right thing, and don't realize they had the wool pulled over their eyes.

What they need are other options

One of the most annoying things about the pro-choice side, and I have been hearing it more and more as time goes on, is that they talk about how abortion should be available because lots of women can't work and have a kid at the same time, or don't have the money to raise a kid, or can't be single mothers, and so on, so essentially they say women need abortion because the system is screwed up and there aren't perfect other choices for women.

This is bad for several reasons. For one thing, it stops people from actually helping women and giving them these things so that they can have an excuse to say "this is why we need abortion" and for another thing, it essentially forces women to have abortions as they feel like they have no other choice. Those on the pro-choice side are usually the ones to say women only choose it when they feel like they have no other choice, yet they try so hard to make sure a bad choice that no woman ever wants to choose stays around, and especially at the expense of actually giving them other choices. They are clearly not pro-woman. When mentioning that women need abortion because sometimes they can't be, or don't think they can be working mothers, single mothers, student mothers, poor mothers etc. I try to explain to them that this is why my liberal/feminist pro-life side is in support of the other choices and social safety nets for mothers, and an overall support for motherhood, and it's weird because it seems like they've accepted it and don't care for helping those situations, but rather use it as an excuse to say, "Well see this is why abortion should be available." I don't know why Liberals or Feminists would do that, as it fits those ideologies better-and is always better-to help all the other choices instead of accepting them being faulty so that you can push your one poor choice agenda. That doesn't sound very pro-woman to me. When you have women who feel like they have no other choice than to abort, and you are using that to say, "This is why we need abortion" instead of, "This is why we need to fix the system and make sure there are so many options, and good ones at that", that sounds neither liberal nor feminist. 

It seems like a big no duh to me. "Well some mothers are poor and wouldn't be able to take care of a child"...um yeah, that's why we should tell them of all the other choices, and help make sure there are financial availabilities, and giver her some help, and give more support for being a mother, for the woman personally, and in general, so that eventually our country would have to change into one where mothers would have lots of paid maternity leave etc. and can actually easily be mothers. The fact that abortion would even come into their minds when talking about the injustices that pregnant women, mothers and children face, is rather telling. That on top of constantly acting like all people against abortion want to force the woman to raise an unwanted child (especially since most abortions aren't about the children being unwanted but the women feeling like they can't be the mothers they want to be) when there are such things as adoption and safe surrender, really make me think they only care about that one choice. If all the energy spent making sure women have the right to abort went into supporting all the other choices, and the act of being a mother in general, abortion wouldn't even be an issue.

Here is a post on how the pro-life side does support women's other choices and give support for pregnant women vs. how little the pro-choice side does.

Sometimes I actually think that it is the abortion industry keeping it this way because they know that so many less people would be pro-choice if there were much more options and better options available and there wasn't really a need for abortion. Think about it, a lot of people find abortion horrible but say women need to be able to choose it, but they still hate it being used basically as a back up contraception or it used easily and willy nilly. They say it has to be around for women in tight situations and with good reasons, but greatly frown upon women who just want to go out and do it for the heck of it. If people were already aware of all the options, or there were more and better options, so many more people would be pro-life because abortion would be left to women who could have very easily chosen a different choice yet didn't, and if there are more pro-lifers, and more/better/women knowing of choices, not only would you have people voting pro-life more and not voting pro-choice, but you would have less and less abortions, and eventually abortion would be outlawed, so abortionists would lose a whole bunch of money, and so many people would be out of work, and pro-choice politicians would have way less of a voice and be less likely to get elected. The abortion industry would crumble, and it has spent 40 years building itself up on the lies it tells people to try to get support. I'm not saying that's definitely what has been happening, but it's something to think about. We saw this clearly in Texas. Even most pro-choicers hate late-term abortion and would vote against it, yet the media and even some of these pro-choicers painted the Texas laws like it was so horrible and "stand with Texas women" even though Texas women especially didn't want that, but oh no, since it was the pro-lifers who were trying to get rid of abortion far enough along that nobody wants it and get abortion clinics up to code and doing exactly what pro-choicers always wanted and said should be done, they rejected it. They acted like it was so bad just because it would stop some abortions THAT ARE DANGEROUS IN THE FIRST PLACE AND WHAT YOU GUYS ARE ALWAYS COMPLAINING ABOUT and passed it off, and acted like pro-lifers must have some ulterior motive and suddenly changed their tune just because it would of course stop some abortions from happening and it was proposed and supported by pro-lifers. They  always say they want it "safe legal and rare" yet they really only care about the legal part. They have to have it by their people for their reasons or else they'll be hypocritical and not want it, even if it is the main reason they argue abortion should be legalized. I bet if pro-lifers did have a lot of laws they were trying to pass that totally helped out pregnant women and mothers and made it so less and less women would choose abortion, especially if that meant some would close down because of lack of need for them, pro-choicers would be against it because of that and because it was pro-lifers who did it. In fact, I bet you that has already happened. They don't care about women at all. Well ok, a lot of them don't. I guarantee you there would be some thinking this is so stupid right alongside us.

Also, I find it so odd that in a feminist society where they successfully made abortion illegal and have kept it legal and they have gotten so many other things for women, they couldn't secure more rights for pregnant women and mothers and children. That truly shoes where their priorities lie.  If feminists really wanted support for pregnant women, they could easily get it. They are just more concerned about that one choice. Mind you I'm a feminist too, so I'm only talking about the pro-choice feminists, but pro-life feminists need more people to support pregnant women in order to get anywhere with it. Feminism should change it's path to support women who actually want to be mothers yet feel like they have no other choice. What about their rights? What about pro-choice in that sense?

As the saying goes, abortion is a band-aid solution to a much bigger problem. It takes women and puts them right back in the situations they were in before they got the abortion. Abortion doesn't solve anything. 


Here is a good quote from Pro-Life Humanists...
"Feminist author Frederica Matthews-Green once pointed out that “No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.”    The challenge for our ever-evolving society  is this:    Are we going to hand the woman a hack-saw and help her amputate her leg?   Or are we wise and capable enough to come up with creative ways of removing the offending trap, without destroying the leg in the process  -  especially when that “leg” is a fellow human being?"