Do pro-lifers just see life from a man's persepective?

Amazing isn’t it that the majority of the pro-lifers, and "anti" the-day-after pill (which by the way does not cause an abortion) and the anti-contraceptive groups are male? Including the male dominated Catholic Church? Men who are terrified of women who want to control their own wombs.

I can remember my dad complaining about my mother when she went to work at an air base in 1942 after the war started, saying, “Women should be kept pregnant and barefoot.” It was the prevailing attitude, of the common man of the day.

So all the work and efforts women have done this past century to gain reproductive rights, possession of their own bodies, are now being taken from them, with a few of their sisters (mostly those envious ones who are barren) convinced to go along. What a backward step for the 21st century.

Some of you argue that the right to use contraceptives, have abortions, plan your parenthood, and women’s health rights, should be available, but the taxpayer shouldn’t have to pay for them. But guess what? Taxpayers pay for botched abortions; foster homes; juvenile crimes; and all the other miseries caused by unwanted, unloved babies.

You say, “Every fetus has the right to life.” I say that every child has the right to be wanted and loved. And my lord, what a punishment for a child, a victim of rape, or incest, or just plain stupidity, to be forced to carry a baby to term, and then with your unholy religions make that child feel guilty for having a baby out of wedlock.

Have the pro-lifers ever thought about the fact that 80-90 percent of spontaneous miscarriages are defective fetuses, and are aborted by nature? What if medical science breaks through and prevents these abortions? Hundreds of thousands of special-needs children for the taxpayers to take care of. Will a law be made so every woman should carry a defective child to term? You think special-needs children are not a drain on society? You think that every parent of a special-needs child has the means to care for it? Some of my family members are Tay-Sachs carriers, look it up, and I guarantee you, a test can confirm in the first trimester if the fetus has Tay-Sachs. There isn’t a woman in my family that would allow that child to be born.

None of this has to do with religious freedom, as in your religious ignorance you can choose to use the services offered or not. It’s forcing your ignorance upon other women. Insurance companies pay for maternity care, pre-natal care, and neo-natal care. Oh, and by the way, isn’t it strange the insurance companies pay for that Viagra, and implants for E.D.? Oh, let’s do make sure that that all men can — regardless of age or ability to be financially responsible for any child he sires — impregnate a woman or girl. By god he can still manage it with a little help from science. Wonder why that isn’t against your religion? Doesn't seem to be against anyone's religion for E.D. drugs to be advertised on prime-time TV either, where children see, wonder, and ask questions.

Ohana is a resident of Bigfork.