I find it ironic (abortion and freedom)

[NoCoolUserName]

*Originally posted by Svt4Him *
**NoCoolUserName, I don’t know how strong that arguement is. I can name many, and I can also tell you how hard it was to wait, and how long they did have to wait. My friends adopted a boy from Russian, and my others adopted two children. Then there were my non-religious friends who adopted. So to say no one wants to adopt is not accurate, nor is it a reason to kill children. **

I’m afraid I don’t quite follow this. My point was that adoption is currently a pain-in-the-butt and making it easier would make abortions less attractive. There are many social pressures (noted by Cat Fight) that make carrying the baby less attractive–let’s get rid of those as well.

Cat Fight, I wasn’t suggesting that adoption was a perfect answer, but that it is better than abortion. You obviously disagree. Do you know anyone who has had an abortion? Do they just say “it was nothing, zip, zap, problem gone”? If you feel that an abortion would be easier to deal with than 9 months of back pain…well, I guess I would call you selfish, but I’ve been fixed–I won’t ever have to make that sort of decision.

Make fun of the kids at school, sue the Evil Boss. Choose the non-violent alternative because it’s Nicer. (It’s a Good Thing. Yuck, I hate it when I quote Martha.)

Why would you “wake up pregnant tomorrow”? Don’t you use birth control? (I’m biting my lip over the need to make some sarcastic remark here. Please note that I’m not making one. Thank you.)

The 15-year-old who is pregnant…I don’t get a vote over her (or your) cooter, and I shouldn’t. We would offer to take/raise the child if she (or you) chose not to have an abortion because we love kids and hate to see them mistreated (very likely with a 15-year-old mom and a bad attitiude). If she has an abortion at 2 weeks, I won’t be at the clinic screaming at her–she has enough problems already.

Diogenes, are you just being cynical? My second adopted daughter, who is still in China, has birth defects. She’s not white. Am I the “people” you’re talking about?

Everyone–does anyone have actual facts, statistics, about how many abortions are
Single, White, Female
Crack babies
Congenital defect
etc.

'cause I don’t, and it might make this discussion more fact oriented. (…but probably not.)

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Actually, I do know women who have had abortions and never gave it a second thought. Zip zap zoom problem gone. It’s a much better option that adoption IMO. The world is over populated as it is.

[The_Ryan]

Shodan:

And I, in turn, see a lot of “pro-choice” people who are in favor of euthanasia. I have even heard arguments in favor of infanticide. Therefore, by your standards, would you say it is accurate to describe your side as being “anti-life”?

Lots of pro-lifers are highly bigoted towards homosexuals. Would it be accurate to describe your side as “anti-gay”?

OK - how about putting it as “The Ryan is in favor of allowing people to choose to commit murder”? Is that an accurate description of your stance on abortion?

No, be because I don’t believe it is murder.

This all strikes me as a rather desperate attempt to co-opt the debate. “Anti-choice” on the one side, “baby murderer” on the other.

It’s the pro-life side that is coopting the debate, by trying to put pro-life and pro-choice in opposition. They are not opposites; it’s quite possible to be pro-life and still respect a woman’s right to choose.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Bob Cos *
A completely idiotic position. This is pretty funny. Yes, your position is unassailable, so long as we accept your assertion that “pro-choice” can only, only, only have one possible meaning, and “pro-life” can only, only, only imply that those who are in opposition hold life in contempt.

Insults and misrepresentations of my position don’t make for a convincing argument. Where did I ever say that “pro-life” can only have one meaning? I specifically said that its current manner of use obscures the fact that some people described as “pro-life” are not opposed to choice. However, there are those that are opposed to choice, and there is nothing wrong with distinguishing them from the rest of the pro-life crowd by describing them as they are: anti-choice.

Pro-choice, the term by itself, is ambiguous and could imply that those who are in oppostion are generally against allowing people personal choices.

Odd that you are accusing me of trying to make my statements sound true simply by repeating them. You have said this several times before, and I have presented several counterarguments, which you have not responded to.

Pro-life, the term by itself, is ambiguous and could imply that those in opposition value life less. It was not selected accidentally. It could, however, also truthfully be used by someone who simply wants it to mean they are for protecting the right to life that they believe the unborn possess–i.e., it is short for “pro-protecting the life of the unborn.”

I don’t have a problem with people using the term “pro-life” to describe a commitment to prevent abortions. What I have a problem with is it being presented as the opposite of pro-choice. To resurrect an analogy I presented earlier, I don’t have a problem with someone describing them as “pro-American”. But I do have a problem with people describing themselves as “pro-American” as opposed to those that believe flag burning should be legal.

You have yet to show why either of these statements are false. You are begging the question: “My designation is accurate because it’s true, while yours is innaccurate because it’s false.” It is to laugh.

I’ve presented detailed arguments for my position, which you have chosen to ignore in favor of simply repeating your position and accusing me of argumetum ad naseum and question begging.

[The_Ryan]

And in case this wasn’t clear enough: “I specifically said that its current manner of use obscures the fact that some people described as “pro-life” are not opposed to choice.”

IOW, I clearly stated that I don’t think that “pro-choice” means just one thing, and I am in favor of the word “anti-choice” to highlight that difference.

[Shodan]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**She fits every definition. The fetus does not.

Basically, she is a human being and a fetus is not. **

Did you notice the “Proof, not assertions” part of my post? Or did you consider “Is so!” to be proof?

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**People want to adopt healthy white neborns.
**

Just a second -

Shodan checks both his children for race, age at adoption, and health status.

Yup, Diogenes is talking out his ass again.

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**
Zip zap zoom problem gone. It’s a much better option that adoption IMO. The world is over populated as it is.*

We see another example of people who label themselves as “pro-choice” really meaning “pro-abortion”.

Regards,
Shodan

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I never said I wasn’t pro-abortion. I think abortion is a beautiful thing. it should be encouraged and rewarded with cash IMO.

[Shodan]

It’s the pro-life side that is coopting the debate, by trying to put pro-life and pro-choice in opposition. They are not opposites; it’s quite possible to be pro-life and still respect a woman’s right to choose.

This is simply incorrect.

No one who opposes abortion would describe themselves as “anti-choice”. This is a perjorative term concocted by the other side to denigrate their philosophical opponents. The same goes for the term “anti-life”, which no self-respecting abortion-rights supporter would accept as a designation.

You claim that it is possible to be pro-life and still respect a woman’s right to choose (abortion). In the same way, it is entirely possible to be pro-choice, and still oppose abortion. Since (in their view) a fetus is a separate human life, “pro-choice abortion opponents” want to allow this separate person the right to his/her own choices, not to cut them out by killing him/her. “Choice” about one’s own body does not extend (obviously) to choosing to attack the body of another.

Putting “pro-choice” and “pro-life” in opposition is the attempt by people of good will to allow each side in the debate to choose for themselves how they want to be designated, And each side has chosen a term that reflects what they see as the key issue in the abortion debate - protecting innocent life, or protecting the right of a woman to have an abortion.

In my experience, resistance to applying to either side whatever term they have chosen is characteristic of those who are afraid to admit that the other side might possibly have a point. People who are sure of their position do not, in my experience, fear to extend common courtesy to their opponents.

Regards,
Shodan

[sqweels]

Must we get so bogged down with bickering over terminology? And must we cling to euphamisms? Indeed I seldom use the term “pro-choice” and “anti-choice” is far too backhandedly euphamistic. Heck, you can call me an “it’s-ok-to-kill-a-fetus-ist”, but I prefer the term “abortion rights”.

On the other side, what’s wrong with “anti-abortion”? It’s as straightforward as you can get. “Pro-life” sounds smug and glassy-eyed.

[Mangetout]

The problem appears to be that both sides seem to see the others’ self-chosen title as smug and glassy eyed.

[Cat_Fight]

** Do you know anyone who has had an abortion? Do they just say “it was nothing, zip, zap, problem gone”? **
[/QUOTE]

Of course I know girls and women who have had abortions, as do most people, I would assume. One girl has even had at least three, even after using Norplant and a condom. She also has major health problems that would threaten her life if she got pregnant, yet she leads a normal and happy life. Another was date-raped but didn’t press charges. She couldn’t afford an abortion (and wasn’t sure how she felt about it), and ended up punching herself in the stomach until she miscarried. Obviously, she’s got issues. But I’m not sure she feels worse about the self-inflicted abortion than about getting raped (both of which are major issues about which many people are more than ready to cast judgment). A pretty hardcore Christian friend of mine who had an abortion is part of a “survivors” support group, though she refuses to take part in abortion clinic protests or postering. She has commented on the surprising amount of girls who were not “bad girls” before having the abortion and finding Jesus, but regular churchgoers and mostly antiabortionists who had perfectly timed slips in faith and judgment when they got pregnant, had the abortion, then went back to condemning those who give and get abortions. They are the tip of the iceberg, the ones from “good” homes who probably could have supported the children financially. Emotionally? I wouldn’t rule out suicide in at least two of the cases, had they had the children ('cause post partum depression doesn’t go away when the baby does).

How would I wake up pregnant tomorrow? Well I wouldn’t (not counting immaculate conception), but that must be what it feels like. One second you’re throwing up in the toilet, the next, you’re suddenly important to people, perfect strangers, who, before, couldn’t have cared less about you.

Sue the Evil Boss? Are you kidding? People working crappy jobs who have five kids can barely get time off (not to mention proper nutrition, housing, schooling, etc.), let alone someone who is only pregnant. Can’t we at least take care of those people, maybe get rid of some of those pesky abusive foster parents, make sure our old people aren’t living on crackers and soda water, get some people off of the streets, stop companies from dumping toxic waste in our rivers (adding a new dimension to the whole debate- Is it human if it’s got six eyes and hooves?), quit cutting down the rainforest to raise food, get some textbooks printed after WWII in some of them inner city classrooms… Details, really. But we have to choose our battles, and I prefer the problems I observe every day, the ones I am sure people suffer from, helping those who actually request it.

(But at least we’re not getting bogged down in semantics).

[Shodan]

Cat Fight -

I missed something. What exactly does saving the rain forest have to do with abortion?

I don’t necessarily disagree with some of your laundry list of issues, but I don’t see the relevance to the thread. If you are arguing that we shouldn’t do anything about abortion because other problems are more pressing, I would ask two things -
[ul][li]Would you say the same thing if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow? Or is abortion only a non-issue because one side has gotten its way? [/li][li]If you assume that a fetus is a separate human life, wouldn’t you agree that preventing its murder is at least as important as buying textbooks? And, therefore, doesn’t it seem that dismissing abortion as a non-issue is an attempt to bypass the debate?[/ul][/li]
Regards,
Shodan

[NaSultainne]

*Originally posted by Cat Fight *
Of course I know girls and women who have had abortions, as do most people, I would assume. One girl has even had at least three, even after using Norplant and a condom. She also has major health problems that would threaten her life if she got pregnant, yet she leads a normal and happy life.

It is precisely this level of callous nonchalance which makes me cringe. Three abortions, two methods of birth control failing, major health issues and you describe her as “happy”?

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
No one who opposes abortion would describe themselves as “anti-choice”.

I’m sure some of them would.

You claim that it is possible to be pro-life and still respect a woman’s right to choose (abortion). In the same way, it is entirely possible to be pro-choice, and still oppose abortion. Since (in their view) a fetus is a separate human life, “pro-choice abortion opponents” want to allow this separate person the right to his/her own choices, not to cut them out by killing him/her.

By that logic, abortion-rights advocates are pro-life, since they are pro- people who are already alive.

This is a perjorative term concocted by the other side to denigrate their philosophical opponents.

If someone opposes choice, and I call them “anti-choice”, and they consider it perjorative, that’s their problem, not mine. If they think opposing choice is a bad thing to do, then why are they doing it? You yourself said that abortion is not a valid choice. So if it’s not a valid choice, then why is saying that you’re against it perjorative?
The term “pro-life” is used to describe two positions:

1. Abortion is wrong, and we should do everything we can, short of coercion, to prevent it.
2. We should make abortion illegal.

Granted, those two positions have a lot in common, but they aren’t the same. The term “anti-choice” is an attempt to distinguish the second position from the first. The only attempt to denigrate the opposition I see is from you and Bob Cos, in attributing malicious motives to attempt to clarify the issue.

Putting “pro-choice” and “pro-life” in opposition is the attempt by people of good will to allow each side in the debate to choose for themselves how they want to be designated,

Even if done in good faith, it still presents an inaccurate picture of the situation. If someone asked “How do you feel about the flag burning issue? Are you pro-choice or pro-America?” would you see nothing wrong with that?

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**Insults and misrepresentations of my position don’t make for a convincing argument.

**It’s not my objective to insult you, but your position is illogical. Whether or not any individual point you have raised is accurate, they do not collectively hold together to support the position you are taking. My point was, and is, that you are not applying your logic consistently. Let’s take a look, shall we?

**Where did I ever say that “pro-life” can only have one meaning? I specifically said that its current manner of use obscures the fact that some people described as “pro-life” are not opposed to choice. However, there are those that are opposed to choice, and there is nothing wrong with distinguishing them from the rest of the pro-life crowd by describing them as they are: anti-choice.

**You first concede that “pro-life” need not be interpreted in only one manner. Having done so, you then apparently support your belief that “anti-choice” gains clarity over the “pro-life” because it could possibly be interpreted in a manner that make certain people both pro-life and pro-choice. This is a curious assertion. I’m not sure which interpretation does this, but let’s grant it for the moment and ignore the fact that this is by definition contradictory to the most widely accepted interpretation of the term “pro-life.” By most people’s definitions, if you are “pro-life,” you are not “pro-choice.”

Now consider this. One possible and reasonable interpretation of “pro-choice” is someone who supports the right to make personal decisions, where personal means decisions that do not affect others. By that interpretation, there are lots of pro-lifers who are also pro-choice. IF YOU APPLY YOUR LOGIC CONSISTENTLY, then you must abandon the term “pro-choice” for the same reason you’ve refuse to accept “pro-life.”

You have yet to successfully address this, which is the same basic point I have raised over and over. If you respond yet again by pointing out a flaw in the term “pro-life” (a flaw I may actually agree with and probably have already acknowledged), while ignoring the identical flaw in the term “pro-life,” then yes, you will have continued the proud tradition of argumentum ad nauseum.

**I don’t have a problem with people using the term “pro-life” to describe a commitment to prevent abortions. What I have a problem with is it being presented as the opposite of pro-choice. To resurrect an analogy I presented earlier, I don’t have a problem with someone describing them as “pro-American”. But I do have a problem with people describing themselves as “pro-American” as opposed to those that believe flag burning should be legal.

**Play out you analogy. Suppose the “keep flag burning legal” gang officially described themselves as “pro-freedom.” Unless you also took exception with this term, I would have the same argument. You are picking and choosing where you demand “logical” names. Be consistent.

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by Bob Cos ***
…while ignoring the identical flaw in the term “pro-life,”… **

That should read, “pro-choice,” of course.

[Shodan]

*Originally posted by The Ryan ***

quote:

Originally posted by Shodan
No one who opposes abortion would describe themselves as “anti-choice”.

I’m sure some of them would.
**

Perhaps you could cite one or two.

*Originally posted by The Ryan ***
If someone opposes choice, and I call them “anti-choice”, and they consider it perjorative, that’s their problem, not mine.
**

Right. And if anyone on the pro-abortion side objects to being called a “baby-killer”, that’s their problem as well. And you, of course, would have no objection to being so characterized. And all your attempts to force a perjorative label on those with whom you disagree are hypocritical.

*Originally posted by The Ryan ***
If they think opposing choice is a bad thing to do, then why are they doing it?
**

And if advocating for the right to murder is a bad thing, why do you do it?

*Originally posted by The Ryan ***
You yourself said that abortion is not a valid choice.
**

Nope, never said that.

*Originally posted by The Ryan ***
The term “anti-choice” is an attempt to distinguish the second position from the first. The only attempt to denigrate the opposition I see is from you and Bob Cos, in attributing malicious motives to attempt to clarify the issue.
**

No, it is an attempt to co-opt the debate from the beginning, and to shut off discussion by defining your opponent’s position as untenable de novo. And you already admitted that the term “anti-choice” was perjorative. You simply shrugged your shoulders and told me it was their problem if they objected to being insulted.

*Originally posted by The Ryan ***
Even if done in good faith, it still presents an inaccurate picture of the situation. If someone asked “How do you feel about the flag burning issue? Are you pro-choice or pro-America?” would you see nothing wrong with that? **

Which is exactly what you are attempting to do by labelling your opponents as “anti-choice”. And what the other side does by labelling you as “anti-life”.

“Are you in favor of killing babies or not?” “Are you in favor of women’s freedom, or not?” “Are you pro-life, or not?” “Are you pro-choice, or not?”

Possibly you see that all these are loaded questions. Every time one side labels the other as “anti-life” or “anti-choice”, they are accusing the other side of being against something that everyone else is for.

Your entire argument seems to boil down to repeatedly asserting “it’s OK for me to label the other side, because I’m right and they’re wrong”, as Bob Cos pointed out.

Repetition is not refutation.

Regards,
Shodan

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Bob Cos *
You first concede that “pro-life” need not be interpreted in only one manner. Having done so, you then apparently support your belief that “anti-choice” gains clarity over the “pro-life” because it could possibly be interpreted in a manner that make certain people both pro-life and pro-choice. This is a curious assertion.

Why is it curious?

Now consider this. One possible and reasonable interpretation of “pro-choice” is someone who supports the right to make personal decisions, where personal means decisions that do not affect others. By that interpretation, there are lots of pro-lifers who are also pro-choice. IF YOU APPLY YOUR LOGIC CONSISTENTLY, then you must abandon the term “pro-choice” for the same reason you’ve refuse to accept “pro-life.”

1. What is “my logic”, and how does it lead to rejecting the term “pro-choice”?
2. Why are you claiming I reject “pro-life”, when I specifically said I don’t?

You have yet to successfully address this, which is the same basic point I have raised over and over. If you respond yet again by pointing out a flaw in the term “pro-life” (a flaw I may actually agree with and probably have already acknowledged), while ignoring the identical flaw in the term “pro-life,” then yes, you will have continued the proud tradition of argumentum ad nauseum.

But “pro-choice” does not share the flaw of “pro-life”. Simply refusing to abandon a position because people have repeatedly disagreed with it is not argumentum ad nauseumm, in fact it’s the opposite.

Play out you analogy. Suppose the “keep flag burning legal” gang officially described themselves as “pro-freedom.” Unless you also took exception with this term, I would have the same argument. You are picking and choosing where you demand “logical” names. Be consistent.

What is illogical about describing someone who promotes freedom as “pro-freedom”?

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
Perhaps you could cite one or two.

It is a common belief among Christians that one should surrender one’s will to God, and not act on one’s wishes. Do you really need a cite for that?

Right. And if anyone on the pro-abortion side objects to being called a “baby-killer”, that’s their problem as well.

No, because most pro-abortion advocates don’t kill babies. If someone calls me a baby-killer when I am not, then obviously they are the ones with a problem. I don’t understand what’s so hard to comprehend about this: people who want to make abortion illegal are against choice, therefore “anti-choice” is accurate. People who don’t want it to be illegal do not kill babies (generally), so calling them baby killers is inaccurate.
You seem to be saying “they’re kinda the same, so if you accept one, you have to accept the other.” This argument is bizarre.
“Calling me yellow-shirted is perjorative”
“But you’re wearing a yellow shirt! It’s an accurate description! If you find something wrong with wearing a yellow shirt, then don’t wear a yellow shirt!”
“So you wouldn’t have a problem with me calling you a rapist?”

I am completely mystified as to how you think that this is a rational argument.

And if advocating for the right to murder is a bad thing, why do you do it?

I don’t advocate the right to murder.

Nope, never said that [abortion is not a valid choice].

So what did you mean when you said “‘Choice’ about one’s own body does not extend (obviously) to choosing to attack the body of another”? Did you mean that a person is physically incapable of abortion? Or do you not consider abortion to be withing that category?

No, it is an attempt to co-opt the debate from the beginning, and to shut off discussion by defining your opponent’s position as untenable de novo.

Calling someone who is against choice “anti-choice” isn’t defining, it’s providing an obvious description. Opposition to choice is not untenable, either.

And you already admitted that the term “anti-choice” was perjorative.

When?

You simply shrugged your shoulders and told me it was their problem if they objected to being insulted.

No, that is not what I said. What I said is that if you dislike one of your attributes, that is your problem, not mine, and you shouldn’t criticize me for mentioning it.

Which is exactly what you are attempting to do by labelling your opponents as “anti-choice”.

What is exactly what I’m attempting to do?

“Are you in favor of killing babies or not?” “Are you in favor of women’s freedom, or not?” “Are you pro-life, or not?” “Are you pro-choice, or not?”

Possibly you see that all these are loaded questions.

Loaded? Perhaps. But not false dichtomies. That’s the problem I have with it. “Pro-choice or pro-life?” is a false dichtomy.

Every time one side labels the other as “anti-life” or “anti-choice”, they are accusing the other side of being against something that everyone else is for.

I don’t get the point of this.

Your entire argument seems to boil down to repeatedly asserting “it’s OK for me to label the other side, because I’m right and they’re wrong”, as Bob Cos pointed out.

How is that an invalid argument? If I called you a human being, and you called me a horse, it would be perfectly valid for me to say “It’s okay for me to use my label, because it’s accurate, but it’s not okay for you to use your label, because it’s not accurate”. I don’t see anything wrong with saying that my label is okay because it’s accurate, and yours isn’t because it’s not. You seem to be saying that once I present one nonstandard term, I must accept all nonstandard terms. That position is ridiculous.

Repetition is not refutation.

… his opponents repeatedly said.

[Shodan]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
It is a common belief among Christians that one should surrender one’s will to God, and not act on one’s wishes. Do you really need a cite for that?

For heaven’s sake, don’t you read your own posts either?

You claimed that those who opposed abortion would refer to themselves as “anti-choice”. Here is the direct quote:

quote:

Originally posted by Shodan
No one who opposes abortion would describe themselves as “anti-choice”.

I’m sure some of them would.

Now, either produce a cite for any abortion group that refers to itself as “anti-choice”, or admit that you pulled that out of your ass.

Originally posted by The Ryan *
**
I don’t understand what’s so hard to comprehend about this: people who want to make abortion illegal are against choice, therefore “anti-choice” is accurate.*

And people who want to keep abortion legal are against allowing fetuses to live. Therefore, “anti-life” is accurate.

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**
I am completely mystified as to how you think that this is a rational argument.
**

I am not surprised. Rational argument does not seem to be your strong suit, in this thread at least.

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**So what did you mean when you said “‘Choice’ about one’s own body does not extend (obviously) to choosing to attack the body of another”? Did you mean that a person is physically incapable of abortion? Or do you not consider abortion to be withing that category?
**

Which word did you not understand?

If being pro-choice means that you have to support any and all choices, including the choice to attack another, then calling someone pro-choice means that they must support the right to attack another person.

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**
Calling someone who is against choice “anti-choice” isn’t defining, it’s providing an obvious description. Opposition to choice is not untenable, either.
**

Just as obvious, and just as tenable, as referring to abortionists as “baby-killers”.

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**I don’t see anything wrong with saying that my label is okay because it’s accurate, and yours isn’t because it’s not. **

Precisely as Bob Cos stated - your entire position consists of repeatedly stating “but it’s OK for me to call you names, because I’m right and you’re wrong”. The whole point of labelling the other side as “anti-choice” is to avoid the question of “how do we know you are right?”

Look - you are obviously having trouble understanding my position, and you aren’t doing too well with your own. Put it like this -

Fetuses are alive. Abortion involves their destruction. Therefore, all abortion supporters are anti-life.

Do you feel like that is a fair and accurate description of your position? Would you object to news coverage where people demonstrating in support of Roe v. Wade were described as “anti-life protestors”?

Or would you object that supporting abortion does not constitute being anti- all life, only fetal life, and that therefore the term is too sweeping?

If so, why is it not too sweeping to refer to the other side from you as “anti-choice”? They don’t oppose all choice either, just the choice that involves the destruction of innocent life (by their lights).

Why does it only go one way?

Regards,
Shodan