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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
