No, they would not be “by definition” (it’s possible of course that some of them *could *be), and I already explained why not. Try rereading what I posted above.
But heck, I’ll throw in a little something more to illustrate. You’ve heard of “the straw that broke the camel’s back”, right? Maybe that one piece of straw was added to an already very heavy load of corn. That doesn’t mean straw is the only thing the camel found heavy.
Or here’s one more, that’s actually much closer to this question: you’re familiar with “battleground states” in presidential elections? For shorthand, we talk about the election coming down to winning those states, or a majority of them. That doesn’t mean you don’t have to win a bunch of non-battleground states as well–and those non-battleground states will be completely different whether you are a Democrat or a Republican.
Hopefully that clears up this strange little tangent.
I didn’t read the thread that way. Social programs are here already. The question, at least in my mind, was that there was some sort of personal obligation on the side of the pro-life movement to contribute.
You are pro-choice. She can have an abortion or she can have a baby. Pro-choice means nothing more than that.
Pro-life is the same. She may not have an elective abortion. That position means nothing about one’s opinion about what type of social welfare system we should have for indigent mothers to help them care for their children. You can be pro-life and support a socialist worker’s paradise with wide governmental help for poor mothers. You can be pro-life and support the system we have now. You can be pro-life and believe that helping the poor is best done through private charities and that government programs are an ineffective way of treating the overall problem. You can be pro-life and say fuck these women, I paid for my kids, so you pay for yours.
Pro-life simply means an opposition to elective abortion, nothing more.
But they shouldn’t be allowed to just own that label, any more than someone on one side of some other hotly debated question should be able to label their side “pro-ethics” and have neutral observers describe them that way.
The label itself is a kind of spin, propaganda even. Those outside of that faction should not help them spread this propaganda. And make no mistake: they invented this label knowing it was propaganda. It would have been much simpler to just call themselves “anti-abortion”.
I have read it. I just don’t think it’s realistic. I don’t believe there is any significant number of voters who would fit the description you’ve given. You’re saying these hypothetical voters are currently voting consistently for Republicans. But they’re right on the fence between voting for Democrats or Republicans. Enough so that one minor shift on a single issue would tip them over and turn them into people who will consistently vote for Democrats.
I don’t think people like that exist. Anybody who is that close to switching parties is already doing so. They’re not consistently voting for Republicans or Democrats. They’re swing voters who go back and forth between the parties.
Yes…and attracting swing voters to our side, even if just for one election, is a MAJOR part of what politics is all about! Lives (and quality of life for millions or even billions) depend on it.
Again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with who’s responsible for whom, who deserves what and so on. It’s about what works. Forcing poor people to carry their pregnancies to term and not helping them any does not, can not work.
The charity model is what we had before state-run social securities - throughout the Middle Ages, Renaissance, Enlightenment. In a time when a lot more people believed in god and charity and the church was vastly more active there. Oh, and monasteries were rich as fuck and took some foundlings in, too.
It didn’t work, and it wasn’t enough. It most certainly wouldn’t work in the era of “fuck you, got mine”. That’s why we moved on to state-run social programs funded with taxes rather than voluntary charity.
But that is not the question. That you have chosen to interpret it that way, and insist upon continuing to interpret it that way in spite of being told that that is not a valid way to interpret it is not my fault. I do not know why you would choose to do that. Can we agree at this point that the way that you read the thread is not he way that anyone on the pro-choice side actually thinks?
Yes, social programs are here. However, not only do those social programs not do enough to assist those who are in need, but they are being threatened to be cut further by pretty much the same folks that want more babies, babies of which, will stretch these already inadequate programs to the breaking point.
And there you are wrong again. She can have an abortion or a baby is only one plank in the platform of the pro-choice movement. We are also for giving her choices of birth control, and education to use it properly. We are for supporting her in whatever choice she wants to make. We want to make sure that she doesn’t feel forced to have an abortion because she can’t see how to support herself and the baby. We want her to make a choice not based on fear or coercion. We want her and her child to have many options that are currently denied to less fortunate families.
So yeah, while pro-choice doesn’t cover every possible choice, for instance, we do not advocate for your choice to murder your neighbor, or if you come whining that you only have 700 guns to choose from, we will not lobby to expand your choices there, we do want women and families to have many choices in how to raise their families. So, when it comes to anything to do with reproduction or family planning or family raising or education or nutrition or education, the vast majority of those who are for a woman’s right to choose are also for giving them the resources to support those decisions.
Right, which is why the label is intentionally deceptive, as it has nothing to do with any sort of respect for life. Just as the PETA has nothing to do with ethics, NAMBLA has nothing to do with love, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has nothing to do with democracy. They are labels that have been chosen to put a positive spin on an odious policy position.
Since you are being honest here about the utter falsehood that is the label, “Pro-Life”, how do you feel about the “Pro-Birth” label? It is far less of a lie, and far more descriptive. You still can use it for the “feels”, people like babies, they like births. Be honest with your followers, if you have to resort to deception and outright lies to get your way, is your way really the morally superior one?
If pro-choice is really about choice, why do supporters fight tooth and nail any legislation that gives legal protection to healthcare workers who oppose abortion and demand they be compelled to participate in abortions? Why should a pharmacist be forced to choose between their career and supplying a drug that is not necessary to save a life? Why should a nurse be forced to choose between her livelihood and refusing to assist in an optional surgery? (not talking about the life of a mother here).
Why do so many arguments supporting abortion seem to be based on an assumption that all children from unplanned or unwanted pregnancies will have a life of misery so that they should be aborted to prevent that?
That’s like saying, cancer is a terrible disease. You might get it, so you should take no chances and end it all now.
Why do so many people reject adoption as a better alternative than abortion? There are millions of parents on adoption waiting lists, and God knows how many others who cannot afford to go through the process and will never be able to adopt.
It sickens me when a woman says that 9 months of convenience is more valuable than another human’s entire life.
I am sympathetic to that argument. But I would still like to know why anyone else should go along with the blatant propaganda inherent in using the label “pro-life” as nothing more than a synonym for “antiabortion”.
And not repelling other swing voters is another major part of what politics is all about.
You’re basically suggesting a presidential candidate should burn an American flag because he would attract the arsonist demographic to his side. But you’re ignoring the reality that most arsonists aren’t going to be impressed at seeing one flag being burned; they like to see entire building being set on fire. Meanwhile a lot of other people are going to be appalled at a candidate who burns an American flag. So five arsonists are impressed enough to vote for the candidate and five thousand other people decide to vote against him.
Because it’s not their body that’s involved so it shouldn’t be their choice to make.
If you’re a Jehovah’s Witness, you might believe blood transfusions are wrong. You have the right to refuse to receive a blood transfusion. But you don’t have the right to tell other people they can’t have a blood transfusion because you think they’re wrong. And that’s true even if you’re a medical professional.
If at some future point vegetarians become 70% of the population, would it be wrong for them to push for a federal law banning meat? (What if India did this now?)
As a general rule, you’re right. Being pro-life doesn’t necessitate that you have to support either babies or mothers. However, a good deal of the argument from pro-lifers is that life is sacred. This would imply that they believe all life is sacred not just fetal life. That being the case, one has to wonder why they feel they don’t have to support women and babies. If it’s sacred one would argue they have to be as supportive to those groups as they are to fetuses.
The majority of meat-eaters eat meat because they think it’s delicious and more satisfying than a plate full of greens.
No one is eating meat because they’d literally die without it (though I suppose there are some folks who think that’s what would happen to them).
And no one is eating meat because being a vegetarian would totally upturn their life by causing them to lose employment, housing, friends and family, and school opportunities.
No one is eating meat because they’ve already got a big household to support and they just can’t afford another celery-eater.
But I would protest a federal law banning meat. Why? Because I don’t want to live in a society where I have to be paranoid about being caught with “contraband” in my lunch pail. There are also ways to allow people to consume animal flesh ethically and sustainably. If I want to eat the vermin that wreck havoc in my backyard garden, by golly, I should be able to do that. Fuck what some anemic pretentious vegan might think.
But should a 70% majority have the right, ethically speaking, to make that the law? I assume there are some cases where you might oppose a bill, and if it becomes law you seek its repeal, but you would not claim it was fundamentally undemocratic for an overwhelming majority to exert its power in that way. I am wondering if a law against eating meat would be like that.
If a 70% majority voted to re-enslave the12% of the population with slave ancestors, wouldn’t you call this “undemocratic”?
I agree that a 70% majority voting for a meat ban wouldn’t be undemocratic. But a 70% majority voting to take bodily autonomy rights away from 50% of the population would be, IMHO.
It would not be wrong for them to push for such a ban, but that doesn’t mean that it would go through.
Most likely what would happen would be that there would be first a removal of the subsides that our tax dollars got to to make meat cheaper. Then maybe add on some excise taxes to offset the greenhouse emissions created by our four legged meat factories.
Unfortunately, it would be democratic. That’s why you need, and we have, a constitutional democracy and not an unlimited one.
Even a constitution providing minority rights isn’t a perfect protection, of course, because people can decide to change a constitution; and if no method is provided to change it, they can destroy the whole thing. There is no such thing as a perfect protection, against slavery or against anything else. But a constitution, or at least one with the equivalent of a Bill of Rights in it, is supposed to make it considerably more difficult to remove or ignore minority rights than a purely democratic system would allow.
ETA: if you remove subsidies, bear in mind you’re also removing them for the corn and soybeans that provide a whole lot of the products most vegetarians in this society are eating.
Yes…and attracting swing voters to our side, even if just for one election, is a MAJOR part of what politics is all about! Lives (and quality of life for millions or even billions) depend on it.