Sorry, you’re just way too hostile to try to have a conversation with.
I promise to be less hostile if you promise to be less silly.
Seriously… you make up ridiculous fantasies about women who just can’t get it together enough to schedule their fourth abortions, and pretend that giving the average woman a week or so from the time she realizes she’s pregnant to get an abortion is perfectly reasonable, and * I’m* hostile?
There are actually quite a few pro-choicers who will not allow any line whatsoever on the latest an elective abortion should be allowed to be performed. But like you say, making them harder to procure than they even are now wouldn’t make much of a difference because there are very few if any elective 3rd trimester abortions being performed currently.
“Pro-life” is inaccurate however. They’ve never as a group demonstrated any concern for life; they’ve generally been indifferent to the lives of women, or actively tried to endanger them. And they’ve never as a group shown any concern for the lives of the children they want to be forced into the world; they want it born, and if it dies immediately after they don’t care.
"Anti-choice " is accurate; it makes the position sound bad, because the position IS bad. They oppose women having choices, and that isn’t a moral position to take. If anything,“anti-choice” is soft-pedalling; that’s a mild, clinical sounding way of describing the anti- side.
I think your hostility has blinded you to the point I was actually making. If you read the first sentence in my op you’ll see that I was talking about the difference between “pro-life” and “anti-abortion”. I was merely take two extreme examples and saying that “anti-abortion” would view both the same, no abortions for any reason and “pro-life” sees them as two very different issues and supports abortion for one and not the other. This is only my opinion.
One last point I’ll make is this: I have had many opinions changed because of reading things here on the straightdope. Not one of them has been because of someone ranting and using roll eyes smilies.
The fact that I am very much in favour of same sex couples adopting is because of people here and things they’ve written.
What? You MUST agree with me! The rolleyes demand it!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Obey the rolleyes!! Obey!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Is it working yet?
No, but oddly Der Trihs, even though you’re kind of a psycho about some things, I happen to agree with you on a lot of things, even things that most people here seem to jump on you about.
Abortion is the one thing that doesn’t go with the rest of me. I’m a liberal, vegetarian, tree hugging, animal rights, anti-death penalty, pro-gay, anti-gun socialist.
I don’t see what’s wrong with the terms “Pro abortion rights” and “Anti abortion rights”. The terms “Pro Choice” and Pro Life" are ludicrous. Pro Life doesn’t make any sense because one side doesn’t believe it’s a life. Pro Choice doesn’t make sense because it is only a single issue that is being discussed. Pro Choice is like saying the Confederacy was about States Rights. They were only concerned with one right: the right to own slaves. Pro Choice is only concerned with one choice: the choice to be able to have an abortion.
Those are fine IMHO. Although I expect the anti abortion rights people would take umbrage.
I don’t like abortion much, and I do not think that it’s a preferable method of birth control, but I think that it’s a matter of individual choice.
I favor full rights for gays and lesbians, including marriage and adoption. This seems like a no-brainer to me. I am convinced that the sex that one is attracted to is not a matter of “choice” at all; it’s something that’s built into you. Therefore, it makes as much sense to deny equal rights to people with blue eyes as to deny them to men who are attracted to men or women to women.
I also support marriage and adoption rights. Calling the union between two gays or two lesbians “marriage” is an important legal point. It thereby applies existing law to that union. I would only support calling such a union something else (say “civil union” for the sake of argument) if all the laws that referred to “marriage” were modified to say “marriage or civil union”.
I think anti-abortion is a perfectly accurate description of my position: I’m against abortion in most cases. There are other people, however, for whom pro-life might be more accurate because they’re also concerned with the death-penalty, keeping people in vegetative states alive, and anti-war too; these people are probably the most offended by the anti-abortion label because it’s too narrow to properly encompass their ideology. But me, I’m just anti-abortion.
On the other side of the coin, there are people who are pro-abortion (see: the superbowl prolife ad protests; some anti-population growth folks, a few of whom I’ve encountered in real life) and those who far outnumber them who are pro-choice because they’re not threatened by people choosing to keep or give babies up for adoption but want abortion to be a legal choice too.
All four terms are at least somewhat valid, but they need to be applied properly, or people fuss.
If ‘pro-reproductive rights’ weren’t such a mouthful I’d use it more often than ‘pro-choice.’ It’s silly to think the issue can begin and end with each fetus, for either side.
In this argument, perhaps. For reproductive choice advocates, the issue is much larger than simply abortion, and always has been.
I’m for whatever gets the baby born and into a good, stable home. I’d prefer to see the child have a mom AND a dad, but ultimately I think any situation with gay/straight/single/traditional/etc parents is better than not making it out of the womb at all.
I don’t really care if you call me pro-life or anti-abortion. Both work just fine.
StG
That’s all hunky dory, but I really couldn’t give a flying fuck what the couples’ “rights” are as it applies to adoption. The only person I care about is the child. Language and rationale like this seems to equate adoption rights to that of home ownership and estate tax laws. Equating adoption to marriage misses the point entirely.
Since it’s already pretty well established that gay and lesbian couples are just as well equipped to raise a child as any combination of people or person currently empowered to do so, the child is not really the issue here.
You do realise there’s a shortage of qualified adoptive parents don’t you? If you cared about the kids that much you’d put their need for a stable and real home, however idiosyncratic, over being bumped continuously from one foster home to another for the whole of their childhood then dumped out of the system with zero support when they reach legal adulthood, particularly given the lack of any conclusive evidence that a gay couple are no less effective as parents than a straight couple are.
Pro-choice here. I think adoptions should give priority to gay/lesbian couples.
I’m anti-adoption/pro-life - but I couldn’t vote because it’s not that black and white for me.
The best situation is for the baby to be raised by a mother and father in a healthy familiy dynamic. That’s the ideal, but often not reality.
I’d say a less ideal option is a baby raised by a single parent, or a gay or lesbian couple, again assuming a healthy, loving environment.
Any adoption scenario that leaves the child in a bad family environment (unloving parents, abuse, whatever) is worse than any of the above. That’s irrespective of the sexual orientation of the parents.
So I can’t really say I don’t support gay/lesbian adoptions completely, although I think the traditional male/female parental pair is preferable all other things being equal.