# Growth of Pro-Life Movement? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 24, 2012, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920 "2012-05-24T04:13:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/121 "2012-06-03T05:57:50Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > _sigh_ I don’t think states should be have the power to summarily execute Klansmen. Do you think that says anything about what I think of the Klan? Nice to hear. Any states on record that they would like to do away with due process for clansmen if only the federal government would let them? Because even with Roe v. Wade you have this: > [@](#): > > The bill “should effectively close the only abortion clinic in Mississippi,” said Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves in a statement. “This is a strong bill that will effectively end abortion in Mississippi.” > > [CNN](http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-04/politics/politics_mississippi-abortion_1_abortion-providers-abortion-regulations-abortion-services?_s=PM:POLITICS) That’s just one state but it is pretty obvious that many others would be happy to do away with abortion. So your Klansman comparison is a little [fishy](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html)… It is an undeniable fact that many states would be happy to ban abortion if allowed. Again, you can argue that this is a theoretical exercise, that in the real world the states _should_ have the ability to do it but also that none of them _should_ avail themselves of that ability. But that won’t happen because this is the real world. Because a state such as Mississippi will blatantly run an end around of Roe v. Wade and not even try and be sneaky but instead brag about it. That doesn’t mean you cannot long for the day that Roe V. Wade is overturned and the states can finally make these decisions without the interference of the federal government. Go for it, it’s not an entirely invalid premise according to some constitutional scholars (though they are a minority). But to call yourself pro choice while wanting something to happen that would effectively end abortion in lord knows how many states - maybe the entire Bible Belt and much of the western interior states - is ridiculous. You are not pro choice if you want this, or you live in some theoretical world so far removed from the one we actually live in it’s laughable. And you didn’t answer if you’re a Ron Paul supporter… ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/122 "2012-06-03T06:16:22Z")
Re: “Pro Abortion” > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I doubt such people exist, but it sounds like the sort of thing “pro-lifers” would attribute to their enemies. [Actually](http://www.lifenews.com/2012/05/30/obama-gives-pro-abortion-supreme-court-judge-medal-of-freedom/), [it](http://www.nj.com/gloucester/voices/index.ssf/2012/05/sick_of_columnist_connie_schul.html) [usually](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704662604576256702271734850.html) [is](http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id15.html). Which is why I have a hard time taking that poster seriously. ---
**Author:** ![florez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@florez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/florez)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/123 "2012-06-03T06:44:47Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Re: “Pro Abortion”[URL=“[Obama Gives Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Judge Medal of Freedom - LifeNews.com](http://www.lifenews.com/2012/05/30/obama-gives-pro-abortion-supreme-court-judge-medal-of-freedom/)”]Actually. Which is why I have a hard time taking that poster seriously. Great examples, they want to get pro-choice to back off on calling them what they are, anti-choice, but they can ignore what we are advocating for, which is full reproductive choice, and call us pro-abortion. This is why I do not get it when certain posters who sit on the fence get all bent out of shape over the term anti-choice. I refuse to call anti-choice groups by the inaccurate term pro-life, because it is unmerited. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/124 "2012-06-03T12:17:16Z")
> [@Strinka](#): > > If abortion is murder, then why wouldn’t associating with pro-choicers be akin to associating with murderers? Then war or self defense would also be called murder. Born and unborn are killed in such circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Makeitstop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@Makeitstop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Makeitstop)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/125 "2012-06-03T12:34:21Z")
> [@florez](#): > > This is why I do not get it when certain posters who sit on the fence get all bent out of shape over the term anti-choice. I refuse to call anti-choice groups by the inaccurate term pro-life, because it is unmerited. Out of curiosity, is there anyone does does fit the term pro-life, in your view? What does a person need to stand for to be called pro-life as far as abortion is concerned, by your estimation. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/126 "2012-06-03T15:09:24Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > What is it about those exceptions that make it no longer murder in your eyes? If a fetus is conceived by rape, is that fetus less than human? Is there any point where killing the offspring no longer allowed? Can you kill a 15-year old that was conceived through rape, and have it not be murder? > > Similarly, is it any incest that makes abortion OK? Or, just where one of the parties was unable to consent? If adult brother and sister decide to have a baby, is that OK to abort? Required to be aborted? First cousins? Uncle/niece, of about the same age? Half siblings? Step siblings? And, is the offspring always allowed to be killed, or is there a cutoff date? First three months of pregnancy? months? Under the age of 5? Does it matter if there are deformities? Are any deformed fetuses eligible for abortion, even if no incest was involved? > > Also, regarding the life of the mother, does it have to be for-sure death, or greater than some probability? What probability? What about no risk of loss of life, but a great risk of severe disability? Some risk of disability? Does it have to be physical or mental disability? > > I always saw those exceptions as a political accommodation, which would make abortion bans acceptable to people who haven’t thought through their position (the general electorate). But, you’ve apparently thought it through and still hold that position, so I’m curious about your thought process. Sorry, I didn’t see this until now for some reason. First: rape. Yes, I realize that my position is logically inconsistent with the idea that a fetus is a human life. When I compare the trauma of forcing a woman to carry her rapist’s baby for 9 months and then either raising it or undergoing another trauma of giving it up for adoption, I have to think that due to the “unnatural” (I don’t want to use the term illegitimate) or morally bankrupt circumstances that the child was conceived, the balancing of interests should make the termination of the pregnancy an option in that rare circumstance. The woman did not consent to having her body violated, did not engage in consensual sex with the assumed risk that a pregnancy would result and should not be forced to carry a child when she didn’t consent at the outset. Obviously shooting the 15 year old is absurd hyperbole, and you can see the obvious difference in that situation. Incest: Yes, I mean of the non-consensual type. It’s basically the same as the rape exception. It really shouldn’t be included, but as you note, it’s entered the political vernacular to really stress that a 12 year old girl who has sex with her father (under the guise of consent or not) will not be forced to have the child. Save the Mother’s Life: The contours of the necessary danger could be debated, but I have in mind a circumstance where a doctor, in good faith, determines that in continuing the pregnancy, it is likely that death will result. I’ll leave it to people more versed in medicine to outline the specifics. I certainly wouldn’t make it so harsh as to make death a near certainty; perhaps a reasonable probability. Disability: None. As I believe these fetuses are human lives, they deserve protection regardless of a disability. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/127 "2012-06-03T15:14:17Z")
On preview, I misunderstood disability. You were referring to a possible disability the mother may have as a result to carrying the child to term. Yes, I would count a severe disability as an exception. Again, one constructed by a doctor in good faith. Not the general “health” exception as found in a lot of bills against partial birth abortion. That term is so broad as to apply to every pregnancy and swallow the rule. Mental disability? I strain to see how carrying a child to term would cause a mental disability. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/128 "2012-06-03T16:53:20Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > But to call yourself pro choice while wanting something to happen that would effectively end abortion in lord knows how many states - maybe the entire Bible Belt and much of the western interior states - is ridiculous. You are not pro choice if you want this, or you live in some theoretical world so far removed from the one we actually live in it’s laughable. I can’t tell you what I think of you here, so I’m going to do it [here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15128048#post15128048) ---
**Author:** ![florez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@florez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/florez)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/129 "2012-06-03T16:54:41Z")
> [@Makeitstop](#): > > Out of curiosity, is there anyone does does fit the term pro-life, in your view? What does a person need to stand for to be called pro-life as far as abortion is concerned, by your estimation. Pro-life might be a good term for the cause of some cartoon super hero, who is intent upon saving the universe from evil anti-life villains. But for one real world example, anti-war activists that I’ve known in the past would better fit the bill for being termed pro-life. As far as reproductive rights are concerned, the term pro-life would be more fitting for those who respect and prioritize the life and choices of all ready born women, so IMO pro-choice is more worthy of the term pro-life. ---
**Author:** ![Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8baadc/32.png) [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nicest_of_the_Damned)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/130 "2012-06-03T17:20:53Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Mental disability? I strain to see how carrying a child to term would cause a mental disability. Shouldn’t that also be decided by doctors? ---
**Author:** ![Makeitstop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@Makeitstop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Makeitstop)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/131 "2012-06-03T18:56:18Z")
> [@florez](#): > > Pro-life might be a good term for the cause of some cartoon super hero, who is intent upon saving the universe from evil anti-life villains. But for one real world example, anti-war activists that I’ve known in the past would better fit the bill for being termed pro-life. > > As far as reproductive rights are concerned, the term pro-life would be more fitting for those who respect and prioritize the life and choices of all ready born women, so IMO pro-choice is more worthy of the term pro-life. So you don’t consider people who are honestly concerned over the rights of the unborn child pro-life? If they feel that, after a certain point, not necesarily at the point of conception, but at some point, the fetus becomes a person deserving of protection by the state? These types are not pro-life to you? ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/132 "2012-06-03T19:04:59Z")
> [@LonghornDave](#): > > These terms “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice” are not only incredible stupid but also completely meaningless. What actually matters is what specific restrictions a person believes should be placed on abortion or conversely, what specific abortion rights should women have. Very few people believe there should be zero restrictions on abortions. > > Person A: > Calls themself Pro-Choice > Believes Roe vs. Wade was incorrectly decided and should be overturned > Wants it to be up to states to decide legality > abortion is morally wrong and would never have one > minors should have parental consent > no government funding > only in the first trimester > no so-called partial birth abortions > woman should have a 3 day waiting period > woman should see an ultrasound beforehand > > Person B: > Calls themself Pro-Choice > Believes in zero restrictions for abortions at any stage of the pregnancy > **Wants abortion to be actively used in a government mandated China-styled population growth limit** I think you disproved your point. The anti-choice examples are typical stances of many groups in the ‘pro-life’ movement. They’re not considered extreme examples. If they were, there would be no ‘pro-life’ political movement. OTOH, the part I bolded is an extreme and nearly non-existent viewpoint in the pro-choice movement. Putting that silly part in simply emphasizes the false equivalence. (Unless I was whooshed. In that case, nevermiiiind.) Anyway, the terms pro-choice and anti-choice are the only meaningful political terms. Pro-choice simply means that people want women to have a choice of whether or not to bring a pregnancy to term. People in the the anti-choice movement want to remove that choice. The reasons why they want to remove that choice is irrelevant when defining their stance, which is that they prefer to have abortion either outlawed or access somehow restricted. That is an anti-choice stance. Furthermore, choosing whether or not to get pregnant or keep the baby is not what we’re talking about when we say pro-choice. (Although many so-called ‘pro-life’ people are also anti-choice in birth control, but I consider that a related but separate argument.) As for the pro-choice people, the reasons for being pro-choice seem to be more varied than the anti-choice stance. However, these reasons are also irrelevant to their stance. Furthermore, it’s irrelevant whether they themselves would ever have an abortion or think that abortion is a good choice. They simply want women to have access to safe and affordable abortions if they choose to have one. I’m also good with the terms pro- or anti-abortion rights. Not pro- or anti-abortion. But the right to have that abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/133 "2012-06-03T19:47:20Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > On preview, I misunderstood disability. You were referring to a possible disability the mother may have as a result to carrying the child to term. Yes, I would count a severe disability as an exception. Again, one constructed by a doctor in good faith. Not the general “health” exception as found in a lot of bills against partial birth abortion. That term is so broad as to apply to every pregnancy and swallow the rule. > > Mental disability? I strain to see how carrying a child to term would cause a mental disability. Post-partum psychosis, for one. That’s what Andrea Yates was suffering from when she killed her kids. ---
**Author:** ![florez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@florez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/florez)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/134 "2012-06-03T19:56:18Z")
> [@Makeitstop](#): > > So you don’t consider people who are honestly concerned over the rights of the unborn child pro-life? If they feel that, after a certain point, not necesarily at the point of conception, but at some point, the fetus becomes a person deserving of protection by the state? These types are not pro-life to you? I do not agree with the idea of elevating the fetus above the welfare of the already born people. The problems of the human condition as it is offer ample opportunities for the would be do-gooders to help and care for the already born, for example: those afflicted with disease, poverty, homelessness, lack of food, education, etc. I see that my anti-choice family members and friends are coming from a place of wanting to do good in the world, but IMO their sentiments are co-opted by their religious leaders who seem to enjoy sparking a controversy and battle against Godless baby killers, and in turn it enriches their coffers and membership support for the political agenda of the religious right. The well meaning and would be do-gooders IMO are just cogs in the wheel, tools for the religious right that will do what ever it takes to get in power, and nothing sparks controversy and interest more then baby killing, heroic salvation, sex, mothers, etc. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/135 "2012-06-03T21:25:53Z")
> [@florez](#): > > Great examples, they want to get pro-choice to back off on calling them what they are, anti-choice, but they can ignore what we are advocating for, which is full reproductive choice, and call us pro-abortion. > > This is why I do not get it when certain posters who sit on the fence get all bent out of shape over the term anti-choice. I refuse to call anti-choice groups by the inaccurate term pro-life, because it is unmerited. Too bad. That’s what they call themselves, and thus calling them something else indicates that you are attacking them, and attacking them means that they will not listen to you. They are calling you pro-abortion because they know it offends you. If you want them to stop, you have to not use a term that offends them. In short, you can’t attack the group you are trying to convince to change their minds. Again I point out that the only person who was able to make me change from being pro-life to what you guys seem to think is a pro-choice position was Cecil’s article which did not insult me or my position, and thus was able to help me see the reason in the pro-choice views. Similarly, I was not convinced to support same sex marriage by people calling me homophobic. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/136 "2012-06-03T21:31:32Z")
And if you believe it’s okay to abort the fetus after viability, you are the one lowering the value of the fetus by saying that the woman should have the right to kill the organism to evict it from your body. You have the right to control your body, and only your body. And there is no way that a fetus is the same thing as a tumor, and I honestly can’t figure out any reason to use that terminology except to be offensive. But, even if there were, if a tumor could live after being taken out of your body, and had the potential to become a human being, then killing it would be wrong, too. ---
**Author:** ![florez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9e5f3/32.png) [@florez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/florez)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2012, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/137 "2012-06-04T02:20:09Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > And there is no way that a fetus is the same thing as a tumor, and I honestly can’t figure out any reason to use that terminology except to be offensive. But, even if there were, if a tumor could live after being taken out of your body, and had the potential to become a human being, then killing it would be wrong, too. Who are you addressing this to? Because I never said a fetus is the same thing as a tumor. But I agree, a magical tumor that could become a human being should not be killed, rather it would be a very interesting specimen.😛 ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2012, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/138 "2012-06-04T02:29:56Z")
We already have a Carrot Top, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2012, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/139 "2012-06-04T03:31:48Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Post-partum psychosis, for one. That’s what Andrea Yates was suffering from when she killed her kids. Would that be something a doctor could see before birth? I’m not being snarky. I’m just not sure how a doctor could see that a woman would have a propensity to drown her child in a bathtub when she was still pregnant. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2012, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920/140 "2012-06-04T05:35:33Z")
> [@B.Serum](#): > > Pro-life sentiment grew because the GOP pushed it out as this season’s hot-button social issues divider. > > A half-dozen political scientists published a paper called “A Theory of Political Parties,” which found that “parties no longer compete to win elections by giving voters the policies voters want. Rather, as coalitions of intense policy demanders, they have their own agendas and aim to get voters to go along.” > > Ezra Klein discusses it [here](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-republican-partys-mitt-romney-problem/2011/08/25/gIQAKRsGCN_blog.html). I think this deserves it’s own thread, actually… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/growth-of-pro-life-movement/622920.md?page=8)