Except that your previous posts seem to indicate that you think I have some kind of agenda to get everyone to start using my same terminology. Viz: “You’re free to apply labels as you wish, but I don’t expect you’ll get much traction with the people you’re attempting to classify.” If that was not your intent, then I officially retract any snark on the subject.
Which was said specifically in reference to the fact that you “can’t see why a pro-choice person, as you define it above, can’t also be a pro-abortion person.” Because a pro-choice person *would *be a pro-abortion-legality person. So if you’re confused about how they can’t be what they are, that, to me, implies a certain thickness of bone matter in the forehead region.
Especially since I consider “having sex for the fun of it” to be an important element in life. So, when I see anti-abortion-rights people who espouse anti-contraception positions, I can’t help but think that their self-applied label of “pro-life” is just a tad disingenuous.
Well, more accurately I’m confused about why this distinction is important to you and why it should be important to anyone else, but since everyone is free to choose what is important to them, I guess that’s… that.
It’s not all that different. And if you came to the Pit bitching about them, I’d call you a wuss too. Of course, people go to church presumably every week. Abortion clinics? Not so much. And at least pitting church protesters would be novel to the SDMB, unlike pitting abortion protesters, so it might actually be interesting to read.
So you honestly think it’s wussy to get upset when someone tries to prevent you from doing something by forcibly grabbing you? This isn’t an abortion thing to me–it’s a “I don’t want strange people laying hands on me to prevent me from going somewhere” thing. If one of those “Save the Children” people grabbed me to make me hear their spiel, I’d be equally pissed. And I do think it’s weird that you’re more annoyed by the people getting grabbed than by the people doing the grabbing.
Yeah, well, now that I contemplate it, I’m not sure how comfortable I am accepting “serial abortion” as a non-loaded descriptor. That’s probably an entirely different discussion. And only after that’s been settled is it useful to talk about how to use frequency in deciding who’s doing it, and who isn’t.
Anyway, I hope you’re feeling better. Sending healing thoughts your way!
If the anti-abortion groups don’t like abortion, they should be in Washington trying to have Roe v. Wade overturned (and good luck with that!). They should NOT be harassing and attacking women who are having a legal medial procedure.
An excellent bokk on this subject is The War on Choice. When the author wass on a talk show to discuss the murder of Dr. Britton by Paul Hill, the show’s producer insisted on having an anti-abortionist on the show “for balance.” If she were discussing the 9/11 attackers, would they have a member of the Taliban on “for balance.” Or Fred Phelpa defending the murder of Matthew Shepard?
Erm… would a woman be considered a ‘serial abortion’ consumer if there were three different fathers?
ETA that I don’t attach any particular moral judgement to ‘serial abortion’. I personally think it’s a pretty inconvenient form of birth control, but hey, if it floats your boat.
INMHO, if they anti-abortion groups don’t like abortion, they should be using their time and energy to reduce many of the reasons women choose to have abortions. Financial insecurity is a major factor for many women (i.e., they don’t want to have another child if it puts the children they already have in jeopardy). More social support programs and more flat out charity to the poor would be a better way of reducing abortions in those situations. But the anti-abortion movement seems to think it’s a better use of their time to scream insults at women rather than volunteer at low-cost day care centers or build homes.
Well, as I said*, I’m not really sure I want to get into that discussion.
But since ideally, only the woman can make the choice to have the abortion, it strikes me that one woman aborting the issue of three different partners is more legitimately termed “serial” than three women aborting the issue of one sperm donor.
Especially if the sperm donor has registered his objection to at least two of them, notwithstanding his cooperation in paying for them all.
If a man made a habit of impregnating women serially, and pressuring them into getting abortions against their will, “serial abortion consumer” might be an apt descriptor, but I somehow think that other, somewhat more robust descriptors would be applied by most observers of his behavior. IfyouknowwhatImean.
*I hope I said that. I certainly tried to imply it. My apologies if I didn’t succeed.
I’m 5 1/2 months pregnant and I so want to do this, but I’m afraid it’ll cause more trouble/danger than it’s worth from any overzealous protesters. I also thought it would be darkly funny to walk the gauntlet of protesters and say, “Hey! I was just coming here for some pamphlets for a friend but that’s it! The baby gets it! You just caused an abortion biotches”…
I am not a well person…
The way I was looking at it, doing it *once *would be learning from your mistakes. Doing it *three times *is *not *learning from your mistakes.
Well, he *was *the common thread among all three abortions. But then he went all sensible and pointed out that there really wasn’t a way to predict that his wife was going to want the third abortion, and for the second one, as far as he knew the woman was on birth control. So, yeah, it was just a knee-jerk reaction from me and not so much a legitimate characterization. Sorry, FGIE.
Not that I in any way agree with them or their methods, but from their perspective, they’re trying to prevent a murder. Legal change takes time, and in the middle, they see a whole bunch of babies dying. If it was legal to kill, oh, say, people with blue eyes, and you saw a guy with blue eyes about to be shot, would you try to talk down the person with the gun, or would you get on a bus to D.C.?
This is exactly why I think a lot of them qualify more as “anti-abortion-legality” than “pro-life.”
