It’s more that I disagree with you about their goals; pragmatically, it’s best for them to oppose better birth control in favor of illegalizing abortions, because that will cause the maximum oppression and harm to women, which I believe is the real goal of most of them. Compromise would only be pragmatic if they actually cared about abortion as something other than a club to beat women with, which I don’t believe the majority do.
While I agree with you that there is some weird freaking logic (or illogic) used by some on the pro-life side, I disagree that everyone on the pro-life side has the goals you’ve laid out for them.
Given that at least some on the pro-life side are mentioned in the article I linked to as rejecting the all-or-nothing approach that hasn’t garnered them a whole lot, I think it’s unfair to say those specific people have any other goal but to reduce abortion numbers.
Frankly, I think the resistance to certain programs is more about the money than any sort of goal.
Everyone ? No. Most of them ? I think so. Everything I’ve seen of them tells me that the vast majority are fundamentally hostile to women, and that opposition to abortion is at most a secondary aspect of that hostility.
I don’t know the motives of the anti-abortion contingent, but the pro-life contingent has always held things like pre-natal care and adoption as good things. Unfortunately, in this country, the anti-abortion folks are a lot more vocal than the pro-lifers, even to the point of co-opting the name.
Where are all these pro-life pragmatists hiding?
I have never understood the idea that anyone who is pro-life is anti-choice, any more than I understand the idea that anyone who is not pro-life must be pro-abortion.
The Master speaks* a lot better than I do. But let me try: the problem is that there are two different paradigms which, although not opposites, currently compete with each other. Of course a woman should have control over her own body. And of course a human being has the right to be exist. The problem is, with abortion, these two concepts are in direct competition. Where do we draw the line?
Finally, attributing malice to your opponents is a surefire way to lose an argument. The only way an argument is won is if both sides agree.
*Search is being crappy and I can’t find the article. “human life begins” and “abortion” get me nothing.
ETA: Apparently, leaving the s off helps. Still, I would think this would be indexed under “abortion”, as it is Cecil’s main take on it.
Because they are out to restrict a woman’s choices, her control over her own body.
No they aren’t, because a mindless fetus isn’t a person.
You can’t win an argument with people who are fundamentally your enemy. You don’t convince them; you defeat them. And they’ll STILL hate you and disagree with you in defeat. Or in victory, for that matter.
Some limited common ground between pro- and anti-abortion rights people can be found through programs such as those to improve education, access to health care and adoption services and possibly even access to birth control measures.
The key elements in the debate are not going to go away, what with the most committed elements on the one hand devoted to the proposition that all abortion (including certain forms of birth control) is murder, and on the other hand that anti-abortion laws are a threat to the lives and autonomy of women.
Time continues to be an important factor. If as expected Obama names pro-abortion rights justices to the Supreme Court, Roe vs. Wade will be further entrenched, public opinion will increasingly view the (relative) status quo as settled, and future courts will be even less likely to tamper with a long-established right.
Yeah, I was probably being a little too Pollyanna there.
Let me rephrase as I think there’s the potential for way more pragmatism if people feel like their current tactics aren’t working.
Some things John Roberts said made it sound like he might already be at that point, though I wasn’t eager to put it to the test.
Assuming the SC follows its normal pattern for retirement and nomination, I would expect Roe to be still in effect for quite a while longer. That might be a big assumption, though I think it’s the same assumption the people in the article are making.
I’m a little confused why this is relevant to this thread, though I may just be missing your point.
If you’re pro-life in the “traditional” sense of that word, you are opposed to abortion rights. I think that can reasonably be called “anti-choice” or “anti-abortion” or “anti-abortion rights,” along with “pro-life” as the conventional term.
If you’re pro-choice in the “traditional” sense of that word, you are for abortion rights. But you are not necessarily for abortion. I think that can reasonably be called “pro-abortion rights” or “pro legal abortion” but not “pro-abortion.”
One side is against something. The other side is for something. The something is “abortion rights.”
To avoid a hijack, I’ve started a new thread where this particular discussion can be pursued further:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10470903#post10470903
No, they are out to protect the fetus at all costs. They have no problem with a woman controlling her own body, but they have problems when she controls the life of the fetus/embryo/zygote (which they consider a person).
I don’t know why you brought this one up. Since I linked to Cecil’s column, I obviously agree with that statement. The problem is, some abortions are carried out after the fetus is no longer mindless. This is what I consider immoral.
How, pray tell? How can you defeat a person if they don’t think you defeated them? If you are arguing, the point is to convince the other side that you are right. If they don’t believe you are right, how can you say you’ve won? The only way I can see is by pure arrogance. But, then, both sides will have thought they won, and cancel each other out.
There are three possible outcomes to an argument.
[ol]
[li]One of the arguers convinces the other that she is right.[/li][li]Both sides convince the other to an extent, and thus come up with a compromise[/li][li]One or both parties just refuses to argue any more.[/li][/ol]
You seem to be advocating that the person who chooses to walk away in option 3 has lost the argument. But that person could easily have walked away because they think the other person is so [DEL]stupid[/DEL]closed-minded (or “the enemy”), that further argument is pointless. Which again leads to both sides thinking they won.
Unless you have a moderator or judge, there is no way to win if the other person disagrees. And if you have one of those, it’s no longer an argument, but a debate.
I can’t really argue with anything you wrote. This includes the part where I don’t think you got my point. I believe that some people in this threadwere committing the fallacy I mentioned.
Pro-lifers aren’t anti-choice, but anti-abortion. As I mentioned to Der Trihs, they have no problem with a womans ability to “control her own body”.
Pro-choicers aren’t anti-life or even pro-abortion, put “pro-abortion rights” as you mentioned.
So my point is that these are not inherently opposites, even if they are in the traditional sense. In the traditional sense, I would be considered neither pro-choice or pro-life. But, in a more literal sense, I am both.
Wrong. They want to force women to serve as brood animals. And as a rule they also oppose birth control, and want to control who she has sex with. Abortion is just a club to beat women over the head with for most of them; if they ever succeed in outlawing it, they’ll pick some other avenue of attack.
No, they don’t. What they want is for people to avoid pregnancies using means that do not require the destruction of what they see as an innocent life. You and they obviously disagree on whether this is possible, and what legal protection a fetus should have, but that does not make your opponents moustache-twirling villains.
Oh, nonsense. They’ve never shown any concern for the life or welfare of mother or child. Only for forcing her to give birth, or die in the trying.
The great majority of them are woman hating scum as far as I’m concerned, who would like to impose a Christian version of the Taliban regime.
I do think anti-abortion is the most accurate term, yes. “Choice” can be carried past the abortion debate, I suppose, and I’ve heard some pro-life people try to coopt the term “pro-choice” because they believe a woman should have the right to chose adoption or chose to raise the infant. To me, that’s an obvious weaseling, and so anti-abortion is both more accurate and more weasel-proof.
So…pro-“choice”, then. As in, pro = in favor of choice=the right to chose to carry a fetus and mother it or abort a fetus or the right to seek adoption.
I don’t understand how pro-choice is a bad term.