That’s what happens when one side wins the messaging war. If they’re “pro-life” and you disagree with them, you’re clearly “anti-life”.
Messaging matters.
Huh, I thought you’d left the board or something.
Anyway, I can picture Americans with no recollection of or regard for pre-Roe conditions fumbling away their abortion rights before some of them actively fight to have them restored. I figure it’s a pendulum issue for them.
1.) Nope
2.) Tell me again which age group would best remember “the good old days”? Most often this line about “pre-Roe conditions” is used by people who were either (A) not born or (B) way too young to remember such days as they would have had to be born no later than the mid-1950s or so. Of course people born before then aren’t exactly supportive of abortion sooo…
Again? I don’t recall telling you the first time. I don’t see why it matters, in any case. I figure the people who will cause abortion rights to be fumbled away will be the ones who:
- Don’t remember the “bad old days”.
- Don’t care about the “bad old days”.
- Some combination of (1) and (2).
So there are some older people who think Roe was a big mistake and some younger people who agree even if they weren’t around when Roe was decided, and both groups don’t care to think about how important the issue at hand really is. They’re a minority, I guess, but if they’re loud enough and can find the right emotional appeals to pursue, they might swing enough of the usually-indifferent majority to their side long enough to do some actual harm.
I really do think you have a reading comprehension problem or something.
1.) The most supportive group of abortion are too young to remember such a time, if it ever existed at all. Which brings us to point number two.
2.) What “bad old days” are you speaking of? As QSH pointed above, at best you’d be perpetuating a myth. But since when have you cared?
The rest of what you wrote is an unrelated tangent, so there’s no real need to address it.
Anti-homosexuality (and hence anti-gay marriage) is pretty stemmed from a belief of death/punishment of those who don’t fit in what is said to be right - and is stated outright in scriptures that they should be put to death. With more acceptance, we are getting away from the concept of condemning people to death, which may have a carry over to fetuses and the abortion issue.
I really do think that this kind of lame attempt at a personal attack is the only ammunition you have.
If true, then where’s this “growth” among pro-lifers coming from? Are young people simultaneously the most supportive and the most opposed? Do older people become pro-life as they age?
I don’t need thousands, or even hundreds (or even dozens, really) of botched-abortion deaths to understand that restricting abortion is a bad and pointless thing to do. Heck, the number of additional deaths per year could be one or two, or even none, and it would still be bad and pointless. There are other repercussions involved, none of which seem to me an acceptable price for the rather tenuous benefit you and QSH are anticipating.
It’s of no import, but I believe I’ve made clear several times that I figure the number of casualties will be proportional to the severity of enforcement:
-
Toothless unenforcable on-paper-only ban? No additional casualties.
-
Determined crackdown on medical professionals who perform abortions, depriving them of licenses and freedom and leaving the market open to less-skilled abortion providers who lack the training and resources to deal with complications? Some additional casualties. Not many, I’m sure, unless that crackdown starts extending into investigating women who have sudden need for penicillin and other antibiotics, making these harder to obtain.
And this is why I tend to ask people who eagerly anticipate a ban to describe how they want it enforced. I rarely get details.
I know it’s pointless to ask, but how does a hypothetical country that has:
- no death penalty
- gay marriage
- no abortion restrictions
…fit into your hypothesis?
No, pro-abortion, anti-abortion would be even more accurate.
I don’t understand why people are so squemish about this when it’s obvious that the “choice” in question that people are on the pro or anti side of is abortion. You have a lot of people like the OP of that current bad idea pregnancy thread who more than likely identifty as “pro-choice” but really want to be able to force poor/young people to abort or give their babies up for adoption, so that’s hardly a position in favor of giving women choices because supporting choices would also support the decision to keep the child too. And then on the other side you have people like me who are against abortion (imho the only moral abortion is one that keeps a child with genetic defect/disease from experiencing a life of pain. period. there are other reasons that are understandable, but they’re neither morally neutral or positive) but not for keeping people like Terri Schiavo or convicted mass murderers alive, so that’s hardly “pro-life” either.
Pro choice means supporting ANY reproductive choice that a woman decides to make. The idea of forcing a woman to choose as another sees fit is anti choice.
It doesn’t have anything to do with state authority IMHO, with laws protecting homosexuals - they are still murdered for being homosexual, with laws protecting a fetus abortions still will happen. State can only rule by imposing fear and punishment IMHO and this is not what I am talking about. The state can also only prevent some actions from taking place, but laws do nothing to change the minds or hearts of the people.
A person may not have a abortion if it’s illegal, but that same person would if it was. This is not the type of situation I support. I believe we would need to get to the heart and not use state enforcement so we can get to a situation where abortion is legal but a person would desire to have her child, while still allowing people who wish to abort to do so without fear of punishment from the state.
I am talking about is changing people’s hearts away from death practices of fear and punishment to desiring a full life for people, including as homosexuals and also such as the unborn. By changing the heart’s tendency from death to life, I do believe people will tend more towards accepting people and also desiring life to be brought forth.
How that displays itself among the laws of a country, I am not sure. If the laws of a country are very out of sync of the desires of the hearts of the people there is pressure to reform or overthrow the government, which the government can resist through varios means, such as fear and punishment.
As I see your hypothetical, I would generally support it. I don’t like abortion, I don’t even like the concept of it, but I do accept it and for various reasons don’t want to see it outlawed. Gay marriage, in only a ironic/humorous way I oppose it, as it is not fair to gays to impose what is generally a failed hetrosexual practice, but that is no reason to deny them. The no death penalty, I’d be OK with but would like to see alternatives to the current lock away for years system, in some ways I do see that as more cruel.
So that’s one vote in favour of Canada…
I know this is just anecdotal evidence but i personally know about a dozen females that come from conservative families that describe themselves as pro life but when asked for their actual beliefs on the matter say “i would never have an abortion but i am ok with other women having that choice”. Saying they are pro choice is simply they would never even consider because it would be a Very Big Deal.
If you rely solely on the numbers in this column as they apply specifically to women in the US you are woefully misinformed of the worldwide mortality rates from illegal abortions. Here is an overview of a 2003 World Health Organization paper stating that worldwide70,000 women per year die as a result of unsafe abortions and untold tens of thousands more live with permanent injuries as a result.
These deaths are all sanctioned - even required - by our government through international interference with and withholding of funding from worldwide reproductive health programs. And with the vigorous support and reinforcement of ‘pro-life’ groups, the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical Christians.
The reason it isn’t possible to provide such a cite beyond anecdotal information and basic math (over 50 million legal abortions have been performed in the US which indicates almost every single person knows a woman who has had one) is that abortions are performed by doctors who by law and ethical obligations can’t discuss the details of patients care including their identities or what services they had performed. There are quite a few famous ‘pro-choice’ voices who have wound up seeking abortion care but unless you have worked in a clinic or caught a doctor in a particularly talkative mood off the record, those cases can’t ever be cited publicly.
This semantical argument continues to sprout in these threads, and it continues to be ridiculous. Both terms were selected by their tribes for their positive connotations, and both are imprecise and somewhat misleading, taken at face value. “Pro-choice” has a nice inclusive ring to it, but its proponents are certainly not in favor of having all choices, for all matters, available to everyone. This is typically the cue for someone to point out that everyone knows which choice this refers to, ignoring that it is just as valid to point out that everyone knows whose life the pro-lifers refer to in the name they have selected.
“Our name is illuminating and logical, not like those other guys, who deliberately chose a politically loaded term with positive implications, that doesn’t really precisely describe their position and that casts their opposition in a negative light.” Yeah, right.
Listen, if you (the generic you) refuse to use the name that other camp uses to describe themselves, you lose the right to bitch when they choose your name for you as well, IMO.
A false equivalency. “Pro-choice” is at worst imprecise, but it does capture the general purpose of that side. “Pro-life” is an outright lie designed to make them look entirely different than what they are. “Anti-choice” is a polite way of referring to them, not a mischaracterization. Calling them “pro-life” amounts to lying for them, and lying to benefit your enemies is foolish. And yes, they are enemies, not just “people who disagree”; the anti-choice side are fanatic, violent, dishonest, sadistic and malignant; they are out to oppress, torment and kill other people.
Pro-choice is not anti-life, but pro-life is anti-choice. Semantical arguments are much less ridicules when you are the woman in the hot seat (reproductively) seeking choice, because a pro-choice clinic will offer you reproductive choices, while anti-choice will attempt to coerce you into their one interest outcome. That is a big difference, and well reflected by the fitting terms pro-choice/anti-choice.
Pro-life is not a fitting term because pro-life, as concerns the life of the women seeking reproductive choice, is not a priority to them and that is what casts the anti-choice movement in a negative light, and earns them the more fitting term of anti-choice.
“Our name is illuminating and logical, not like those other guys, who deliberately chose a politically loaded term with positive implications, that doesn’t really precisely describe their position and that casts their opposition in a negative light.” You’re making my point. I’m not going to get dragged into yet another one of these.