You aren’t anti-abortion rights? I would assume you would self-identify as being anti-abortion rights. Should I call you pro-abortion rights?
I, on the other hand, don’t describe myself as wanting “to kill a baby in the first trimester.”
Your description is deliberately pejorative to those who think differently to you. Mine is, as far as I can see, the most judgment free descriptor out there. But your idea the two are comparable, much as your idea that immutable characteristics and belief choices are comparable, shows a lot about you.
I’ll happily address the rest of your post when and if you address this.
Most of the pro-choicers on the thread seem to feel that tolerance is a virtue only if we agree with them. They speak about pro-lifers not forcing their moral values on them but then try to force their views on us.
Funny you should mention it, I’m actually right now coordinating with baby-killers in your area to drag you in for a forced abortion. Don’t say you weren’t warned.
And don’t forget financial. Financial issues are one of the majority reasons listed for getting an abortion*.
So you’d have to have someone ready to foot the bill for the magical machine and medical care, as well as taking on the child that resulted.
*You know, if all those people out protesting would put the same time and energy and money and effort into fund-raising for organizations that actually help support pregnant women / mothers (rather than organizations that spend all of their time and money and effort and energy in vilifying and abusing them), perhaps they could actually reduce the number of abortions.
But instead, those organizations that actually provide material support to women and children tend to fold for lack of funds. While those organizations dedicated to forcing women to act as unwilling incubators, as a punishment for the sin of having sex - those organizations thrive.
** sigh ** Again? Ok. I’ll try again: If you legislate making abortions illegal, then you are forcing your views on us. If abortion remains legal, then … you are still free to not get an abortion; thus our views are not being forced on you.
One of the reasons I tend to tolerate **Bricker **on this issue more than most is that he’s (assuming we believe his claims; I have no reason not to) a member of an organization that does provide financial and material support to pregnant women and women with children.
It’s important, too, to distinguish the majority of pro-lifers (who are in it for the specific moral codes of the more fundamental Christian churches–that is, no sex, no birth control, no abortion; often with a heavy helping of Tea Party values such as no welfare, no childcare assistance, some war, lots of death penalty) from the fairly significant and oft-drowned-out minority of pro-lifers (who are anti-abortion, by and large pro-birth-control, have no position on sex, anti-war, anti-death-penalty.)
The latter do exist, and probably should be encouraged to push back against the idiot wing of their own overall movement.
The essence of the question is this: the issue is contentious enough as it is without getting into a war of issue-framing, which is exactly what labels do – they frame the issue.
If I have to refer to people in favor of expanding legal rights to abortion, which I view as infanticide, as “pro-abortion-rights” or “pro-choice”, than you’ll just have to grit your teeth and call us folk “pro-life”. “Anti-abortion-rights” is not “judgment-free”, it conveys the sense of one against “rights,” and who would be against rights, right?
We can argue over labels, or we can simply defer to how each side prefers to be denominated.
Also, I’m not sure I understand what you mean by:
Which immutable characteristics and belief choices are at issue? Regardless of what you mean, I always love hearing about what people on an anonymous internet message board feel “shows a lot about” me based on several posts.
As I said, being prejudiced, myopic and judgmental is truly liberating. It’s like a breath of fresh mountain air; freeing, exhilarating, giddy.
Informed judgement and educated inference is a heavy weight that taxes the mind and burdens the soul.
All sarcasm aside, there are indeed beliefs which can logically lead to the inference that one who possess belief A is also likely to possess belief B. But, so far on this thread, I haven’t seen any such valid inferences.
Again, you’re forgetting the third party at issue here. In our view, you are forcing death on a human being. That human being is not given a “choice” to be killed, it is just killed.
How exactly is anyone trying to force their views on you? By engaging in a discussion and strenuously disagreeing? That’s not the same thing at all.
Pro choice people support people’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, or to carry to term. The very definition means we’re not forcing our views on anyone.
Really? Why is that? A classic method of exploring propositions – even in science – is a hypothetical. What do you think Schrödinger’s Cat and Maxwell’s Demon are?
Good thing you weren’t hanging around Princeton in 1935. “Listen, Erwin, when you actually build that box and put a cat inside it, then we’ll talk. Till then, however…”
Thanks. But redtail is not wrong: we constantly struggle for funding. And every year it gets more difficult. We’re embroiled right now in a mini-battle with the state over what we have to do to sanitize donated cribs and strollers before we can give them away. We had a procedure that was fine until last year, and now we apparently need to be doing a much more extensive set of steps. Which cost us time, money, and materials. There’s a sentiment on the board now to simply end accepting donated cribs and strollers and just buy new ones… which would of course drastically reduce what we can provide to our clientele.
That made me laugh. Nicely put.
I think it’s more the, “You’re telling me my opinion is wrong, so you’re not tolerating my opinion,” and “you’re trying to force your views on me by trying to show I’m wrong.” Both are an incorrect understanding and use of the English language.
I am not asking you to refer to me as pro-choice, and I am not referring to you as anti-choice, though I admit I do slip into that at times. You simply are anti-abortion rights, much as Jefferson Davis was pro-slave owning rights. I think you would agree “pro-slave owning rights” is a pretty negative label to put on someone.
I won’t call you pro-life, because you aren’t. It is ceding that argument that the fetus counts as life in a relevant sense, much as the anti-abortion right groups consistent use of the inaccurate term “Partial Birth Abortion” is designed to lie about the issue.
That’s why I use a value neutral term - pro and anti-abortion rights. I can try to use pro and anti-legalized abortion, though, if you prefer…
The immutable characteristics you brought up were different racial groupings. And you seem to feel a generalization based on race is comparable to one based on belief choice.
I’ve met large numbers of anti-abortion rights people. I have met very few who are otherwise on the progressive side of politics. I have met some, but the significant majority of anti-abortion rights people in my experience, in particular amongst those who are active on the issue, are on the right of politics. Therefore if someone expresses strong anti-abortion rights views, and is active on that issue, I will think it likely they are on the right on other things.
What percentage of those who protest outside of abortion clinics would you say are generally speaking on the left of politics? 5%?
How about just “anti-abortion”, though? I’ve seen people object to that, and I don’t get it at all. If you actually believe that abortion is bad, why do you not want to be called anti-abortion?
I wouldn’t object to being called pro-abortion. It doesn’t mean I think everyone should have one, it just means I think that abortion is a net good, and don’t mind people knowing that.
This is not true. For many people (including myself), you’re praying to get even one embryo to the point of transfer. I had six eggs, five of which fertilized. All five were still growing at day 3 (a shockingly good outcome), so we transferred the two best-looking ones. The others stayed in culture to grow to the blastocyst stage. At day 5, two had died and one was still going, so we froze that one for potential later use.
My RE recommended transferring two embryos if they looked good, or three if they looked marginal, with a goal of a singleton pregnancy. But we would not have used selective abortion if we’d had twins, and probably not even if we’d transferred three marginal-looking ones and ended up with triplets.
The goal is generally a singleton pregnancy - that’s by far the safest for mother and baby. Most doctors try to transfer the number of embryos that they believe has the best chance of achieving singleton pregnancy. Nobody likes selective abortion for high-order pregnancies. Sometimes it’s necessary for a variety of reasons, but nobody is trying to make sure it happens - quite the contrary.
I know that IVF is not super-relevant to the discussion going on here, but I don’t like seeing this kind of misinformation propagated.
But do they oppose creating them, given the certain knowledge that most of of them will die? (In my own attempts to explore this point, I got mixed results, but ultimately no coherent defense for the practice.)
Why does the biological mother of that tiny human not have a duty of care? Why is it different from a typical pregnancy?
That made me laugh. Nicely put.