So which is it? Free or not free? Somebody is going to pay. Unless the doctors start doing it all for free as a public service… in which case, I fear the abortions won’t be worth the money you pay for them.
I disagree and so does Robert Wright. He claims that when men outnumber women by a large rate, the men tend to become much more competitive and violent. This leads to wars, increases in incidents of rape and incest. All kinds of nasty things.
Vastly? Really?? Got a cite, please?
I see. So you are in full support of free will to such a degree that you are willing to force it on these women.
rjung, I don’t see your stance as pro-abortion, but maybe I am the one misunderstanding the term. To me, that means that you firmly believe that all pregnant women out there should drop everything and go get an abortion. Pro-choice means that all pregnant women should drop everything and carefully consider whether they really want to bring their child full-term, and then have the legal ability to either stay pregnant or not, depending on what they decide.
Pyrrhonist, your argument is a new one on me, and not one that’s the least bit practical in any sense, if I understand it. But call yourself what you will.
Great, you won’t mind if we stop using Pro-Life and start referring to your side of the debate as Anti-Woman…
I’m pro-choice. I am not pro-abortion. Pro-abortion is someone who would force an abortion on a woman if her fetus was deformed. Or if should couldn’t afford to support it. I find both the idea of being forced to carry a pregnancy and being forced to abort a pregnancy abhorrent. China is pro-abortion.
Now that is pure trollery. Puddleglum I call bullshit. You know damn well that pro-abortion is not more descriptive of the majority of pro-choicers. The term pro-abortion is a deliberate, and perjorative, distortion of their views. But then again, you already knew that.
Hey, anyone know if there is a smiley that means ‘you are a liar?’. Somehow a rolleyes doesn’t seem enough for situations like this.
Hmmm. An interesting stance. Anyone who is not in favor of making something illegal, then, is presumptively in favor of it. I can see some fascinating stupidities by taking this proposal to an extreme.
In my personal view, a woman has a right not to become pregnant. If she abdicates that right (as opposed to having it taken from her by force or by accident), then her moral duty is to live with the consequences, rather than terminating a development that will presumably, in due course, become another human being with the same rights and privileges as she.
In a sense, this makes me a moderate anti-abortionist.
However, what moves me deeply is that I have never been a woman confronted with the problem, and that my strong belief is that she, and she alone, is the person with the moral responsibility to make the proper choice for her. To dictate that choice for her is to trespass on her personal dignity and her rights as a human being.
So I am pro-choice.
I go into this, not because my opinion is something I feel I need to press on others, but because I am an excellent example of a thoughtful middle stance your definitions would exclude.
Please reset your mental monitor to grayscale or one of the color settings; the black-and-white setting is not representative of the world it is attempting to depict for you.
Pro-abortion is a more descrptive term than pro-choice. In our national political scene there are many issues where choice plays a part that have nothing to do with abortion. Should parents get to choose which school their children and money go to, Should young workers be allowed to choose an alternative to Social Security, Should workers be able to choose whether to join a union. There are many issues involving choice that have nothing to do with abortion.
Maybe a better term would be pro-legal abortion, but since we are talking about laws I would think the legal part is understood.
I am perfectly content to call my self anti-abortion rather than pro-life because it is more descriptive of my position on this issue. I am satisfied with my position enough that I do not feel the need to hide behind euphemism. I also feel that plain speaking is necessary if we are to understand one another. However, if there are those who are so uncomfortable with their position they feel the need to engage in semantics that is fine with me.
For someone who is unwilling to engage in “semantics”, how interesting that your last two posts have been devoted to it. How about responding to the actual substance of what others have argued? For example, do you think the fact that some people may abuse a right necessitates that right being revoked? Do you still see a discrepancy between someone being both pro-choice and against gender discrimination? What is your take on Polycarp’s well thought-out middle stance?
And for the record, please tell us: what someone claims to be pro-choice, are you really confused as to which choice they are referencing? In a debate about U.S. politics, do you find yourself lost when someone mentions “the President”? After all, lots of countries have presidents, so they could be more descriptive.
Who couldn’t love the word buggery?
No offense to homosexuals intended.
Okay, tell me this: How much does it cost to educate a child in public school per year until it graduates from High School? Would it be more or less than the cost of an abortion? If the abortion costs less than a public education, then that alone would make it more cost effective.
Can’t say I’m familiar the book or the author… or his critics. I’ll put it on my “to read” list and make a judgment in the future. But in the meantime what ever happen to a man Enlightening himself instead.
Here is a manual to help them along their way. There are others like it if you don’t like its flavor.
Do I have a cite for you? No, but I have a sight and experience for you. Take a trip to Washington, DC sometime. Drive along the beltway and between 7:00AM and 9:00AM or 4:30PM to 6:30PM; while your driving at a crawl you count the number of mini-vans for the spawning families; better bring pen and paper to keep take of them all. Then take a trip to the side roads and count the new home development cites going up. There is currently six on my trip morning and evening at two signs for forthcoming development sites. Will you please tell these breeders to head on out to Montana or somewhere? They should bring their fleet of mini-vans too.
If they can’t breed responsibly on their own, then someone is going to have to tell them they can’t continue. Pyrrhonist can’t be expected to move over, make room, and give up his resources just to accommodate a woman’s maternal desires. I certainly pump a good portion of my income and living space to suit their needs already–against my free will. Turn about is fair play.
I know many pro-lifers who are pro-capital punishment, and pro-military intervention. I guess I don’t know what they are referring to when they say pro-life either.:rolleyes:
Plain speaking implies accurate speech, and “pro-abortion” is inaccurate. That’s the whole point. You are correct that “pro-choice” is ambiguous, but “pro-abortion” is neither correct nor the only other option. Try “pro-reproductive rights”, etc.
If people want to call themselves pro-choice instead of pro-abortion I will not correct them but I prefer to use plain language because I beleive that clear language leads to clear thinking. I do not find sex selection abortions to be any different than any other abortions and was wandering if those who supported abortion on demand felt the same way.
I understand that abortion is a hard issues and I understand that there are people who prefer not to grapple with it and take agnostic positions such Polycarp does.
Yes. I was just going to suggest that. Either that or “pro-abortion rights”. So why did you thread title refer to “pro-abortion people” rather than “pro-legal abortion people” or better yet, “abortion rights supporters”.
As a pro-choice feminist I probably could have added to your understanding. However, I’m not really interested in doing so, since you don’t seem to be interested in understanding. You may be “plain-speaking” but it isn’t helping your quest, thus your goal of “clear thinking” is also being obscured.
PUDDLEGLUM, this is not that hard. “Pro-choice” means that you are in favor of allowing a woman to decide whether or not to have an abortion; you are in favor of (pro) her having that choice. “Pro-abortion” means that you are in favor of abortions generally, as if they are something positive in every respect, or something that you would generally encourage; you are in favor of (pro) abortions.
For many people who are pro-choice, it is not only inaccurate but dishonest and offensive to characterize them as “pro-abortion.” I am a perfect example of that. As a 30+ year old woman of reasonably stable economic means, I would never choose to have an abortion. I personally think abortion is an emotionally difficult procedure that should only be undertaken after some deep soul-searching, and that it should never be used as a substitute for birth control or the exercise of common sense. That said, I do not feel I have the right to decide for any other woman what she will do with her own body regarding a pre-viability pregnancy. She must search her own soul and make the decision that she deems best for herself, under her circumstances. To characterize my position as “pro-abortion” is simply wrong. I am not in favor of abortion; I am in favor of the right to choose. For you to use terminology that implies otherwise is not “plain language,” it is obfuscation.
Oh, and “pro-choice” is hardly the ambiguous term you attempt to construe it as. In the United States at least, it is universally understood by its context in the abortion debate. This thread is a perfect example: How many people have posted in confusion, “Wait. Pro-choice of what? School to go to?” None. Virtually everyone understands perfectly well what people mean when they use the term “pro-choice.” Is it inexact? Sure. But it’s a heck of a lot better than “pro-abortion,” which is not merely inexact but flat-out wrong.
PYRRHONIST is pro-abortion. He (I confidently guess that he is male) has stated that he would compel women to abort if he felt it was in the best interests of society. This is not the “pro women’s rights, pro equal rights” position of the majority of pro-choice people. It would be as wrong to consider his views “pro-choice” as it would be to consider mine “pro-abortion;” he apparently has as little regard for a woman’s right to choose as a pro-life individual does.
Your reasoning is specious. If I despise a point of view or a behavior, but support people’s right to hold that point of view or engage in that behavior, it doesn’t mean I’m “agnostic” about the point of view or the behavior.
Excuse me?! What is “agnostic” about Polycarp’s position? He believes that people should not have abortions, but that it is the woman’s place to make the moral choice. Nothing agnostic about that at all. Instead, it sounds like a nuanced and reasoned position. More importantly for your point, it sounds like Poly “grappled” with the issue and came to a conclusion.
Me, I started out anti-abortion, and then through more self-reflection, investigation of the subject, etc., came to exactly the same conclusion as Poly. My position came about because of grappling with the issue, rather than avoiding thinking about it.
Hmmm. A stance based on the Two Great Commandments singled out by Jesus of Nazareth and structured on the idea that persons must make their own moral choices is “agnostic” and “prefer[ring] not to grapple with it”? Perhaps I was guilty of inadequate “plain speaking.”
So try this:
You are wrong. Your approach is simplistic, dividing the world into those who “think right” in your view and those who advocate “error” (also in your view). And you would compel these beliefs on others.
This to me defines a bigot holding totalitarian views. (Note that I am not calling you this epithet, but rather stating that your expressed views would appear to entitle you to be so classified. Please be so kind as to prove me wrong.)
It is my view that every human being has the moral duty to live in accordance with the Two Great Commandments. Starting with me. Which means that if pldennison or jayjay choose to reject one of them, or yourself, puddleglum, the other, it is my own moral duty, as defined by the second of them, to honor that view and to refrain from any coercive effort to expect that of them.
However, it is further my moral duty to stand as a supportive third party in opposition to an effort to compel actions contrary to their own ethical choices by X on Y. The anti-abortion, “pro-life” camp appears to be doing precisely that. (BTW, in the context of the abortion issue, “pro-choice” is quite clear, and, as I noted in my earlier post, defines a stance that may be quite different from “pro-abortion” – just as any “pro-life” advocate, in a context other than the abortion issue, would need to stand in opposition to the death penalty, should either favor gun control or have strong arguments as to why the right to bear arms trumps the right to life of another, etc.)
Wow, two extremes and I disagree with both sides. Let me flip a coin. OK, puddlegum, you’re first.
This argument cannot continue until you understand that pro-choice does NOT equal pro-abortion. Even taking away all the other crap that “choice” could imply, pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion. You can think that pro-choice is a euphamism but I think pro-abortion is flat out wrong.
Hey, I know, let’s turn it around. You can’t be anti-abortion because God performs abortions all the time. They’re called miscarriages and it’s His will to have them done. You’re not against God, are you?
[sub]writer’s note. The logic in the above paragraph was as painful for me to write as it is for you to read. But a point had to be made[/sub]
OK, Pyrrhonist, it’s your turn. I just don’t know where to begin. Let’s start with the fact that you chose to live in a crowded city. That’s your problem, not theirs.
Secondly, the USA is nowhere near experiencing a population problem. It only seems that way because you can’t get where you need to in said crowded city.
Third, if you killed off a majority of the births to have a negative population growth, you’d also end up having negative city growth in 20 years. Oh and negative technological growth. And negative human growth. We actually need people to fill the roles in society that we’ve created by having more people. If you reduce society’s numbers, there will be no one behind the counter to fill your non-fat half caf iced mocha frappacino order. There will be no one make the technology we use to talk over the internet. Hell, there won’t be enough people to help build cars (or develop robots to build cars) and so you won’t need to worry about waiting in traffic jams anymore. Huzzah!
Oh, I get it. You’re suggesting that people stop breeding altogether. Good idea. I think you should definately fly with it. You’ve got my full support.
Many roads lead to Rome.
You know, I don’t believe Budhists are against procreation. If they were, there would be very few Budhists.
I take a trip in Washington DC every day. I see lots of minivans. I also see lots of SUV’s and sedans, and coupes and wagons, and pick-me-ups. The one common denomenator is that virtually every vehicle is carrying a single person - the driver. It seems to me that lack of car-pooling and efficient public transit are the main cause of traffic congestion, not moms in minivans.
And by god, you’re just the person to do it. Good luck with that.
Your mom must be so proud to hear you say that.
I tell you what since other people’s children are such a burden on you personally I will support you if you want to make a case to opt out of paying taxes for the education of other people’s children. There is just one thing you have to agree to. It’s quite simple really. You may not receive social benefits from people a generation younger than yourself. Why? Well, quite simply, you did not pay for their education.
So, a younger police officer cannot help you if you’re car has been stolen. A younger ambulance attendant cannot help you if you’re having a heart attack. A younger doctor cannot help you with that broken wrist you’ve suffered in a fall. You cannot expect the young firemen to rush to you house and put out your kitchen fire. Etc. You get the picture right?
I mean, since not only are you opposed to being a contributing member of society where children are concerned, it appears you are in fact morally opposed to children period. As such, we should be able to make a case for you to be unmolested by the demands of younger generations. I mean, you don’t feel that better educated kids are a boon to society and the future of society anyway. Hell, you don’t even feel they should be a part of your society. Let’s just relieve that burden from your life. Hmmm… shall we?
<Rhetorical question>
What the hell is it with adults who forget they were once children as well?
</Rhetorical questin>
Actually, I don’t live inside the crowded city, but in the suburbs south of it. Each year the density increases as more and more people move in and start raising families. More and more dwellings are build to support the sprawl and the more and more shopping spring up to supply the growth in population. Population density keeps increasing. What once was quite is now bustling. Bad as it is now, imagine it in twenty or thirty years. What was once undeveloped land, on the far outskirts, will be come another sea of subdivisions at best. Maybe this is your idea of the good life, but it isn’t mine. When all these millions and millions of new mouths start claiming for dwindling resources, like fresh water, fuel, and open space, then maybe you’ll start thinking differently.
How about a little thought experiment? Suppose that twenty to thirty years from now, there is a resource crisis and there just isn’t enough fresh water to support a population of 337 million in 2025 by one census estimate (PDF File), so some kind of water rationing is required. Let’s make it simple and say only bathing water is rationed, and only for one day per week. Would you be willing not to wash yourself one day per week in order to avoid restricting the number of live births? What about two or three of four days per week? At some point, I would hope, you’ll say “I stinkith bad. Reduce the population.” When would you say the rationing of resources is worse than reducing the number of live births?
Like civilization would suffer with no Starbucks. :rolleyes:
With a decrease in population there would be a decrease in demand as well. It would balance out in the end.
Nope, you don’t get it. If you remember, you claimed that “Somebody is going to pay.” I showed that it costs less to abort than to educate in the long run, so the Doctors wouldn’t have to provide shoddy free public service, they’d simply take funds earmarked for the Department of Education.
Okay, so we have some miscommunication here. I didn’t intend to imply that Buddhists might be against procreation. You mentioned that men without women might be more prone to violence and backup that claim with a reference to a book on evolutionary psychology. Okay, I replied back with the The Dhammapada, but what I didn’t make clear was that the ethical teachings of Buddhism (or any other religion or ethical philosophy) could potentially reduce or counteract the natural instinct to breed and fight of women. In essence, I don’t fall for that purely biological fatalism that would dictate that males must necessarily fight for the coital privileged.
True, it isn’t just moms in mini-vans, it is the vast number of vehicles on the roads. Do you think it would be any easier to restrict automobile use than the number of children? You might have a bigger fight on your hands than gun control. But less people on the road would mean less traffic.
:rolleyes:
Sarcasm becomes you, QuickSilver.
Let’s look at this in an other light.
Many parents clamor about overcrowding in schools and want a better education for their kids. How can this come about? Get Pyrrhonist to pay double or triple taxes? He doesn’t make that much and couldn’t make a big enough dent at super-high tax rates; there aren’t all that many DINKS to leech off either. The best way to reduce overcrowding in schools and increase the teacher to student ratio would be to reduce the number of students entering the school system. Since every kid must go to school this would mean reducing the number of kids.
Now that younger doctor will have a better education (and hopefully better skills) to better treat that misanthropic oldman Pyrrhonist.
