A pro-abortion government stance: “You can’t afford the child you are carrying, we will pay for an abortion, but not pre-natal care, delivery, or any social welfare benefits.”
A neutral government stance: “Government will pay for pre-natal care and delivery, or pay for an abortion.” Or, of course, “Government does not pay health care costs.”
A pro-life government stance: “The government will not fund abortions, we will pay for prenatal care and delivery.”
IzzyR:
Huh? If “pro-abortion” accurately describes people, they should accept it. I do not encourage abortion, thus I am not “pro-abortion.”
Or are you telling me that if I do not actively oppose all abortions, I must therefore be in favor of increasing the number of abortions? That’s just silly, IMO. And incorrect.
Yes, that’s what I said.
I’m sorry you see it that way. See, I simply don’t see it as my place to decide what is “right” or not. But I want women to have the ability to decide for themselves what is “right” for them. What am I not explaining about this?
Note of clarification:
We’re having problems with “increase” and “decrease.”
Because I want people to have the right to decide to have a safe abortion, then yes, I am willing to have the number of abortions greater than zero. Whereas many who oppose all abortion want that number to be zero.
However, I do not want the number of abortions to increase from their current number. I, in fact, want that number to decrease.
Therefore, I do not want the number of abortions to increase.
Y’all follow me?
Agreed, wholeheartedly. But I think you’ll find that most people who support the rights of women to choose abortion do not seek government funding for abortion.
Stoid:
Granted. But your ideal solution would be for people simply not to get pregnant in the first place, right? Thus fewer abortions. Again, though we get there by different paths, we both ultimately would like to see no abortions at all.
k2dave:
Well, it is “Great Debates” after all.
Please see my above discussion of “increase” vs. “decrease.” I understand what you’re saying, and I agree–I accept a higher number of abortions that you. But, again, I do not want the number of abortions to increase.
:shrug: I’m not trying to remove myself from anything. But for the most part I do not consider abortion to be “killing babies,” or equated to murder. I understand that you do.
:shrug: Fair enough. I do not understand how you can live in the US and not understand what people mean when they say “pro-choice.” Whether you agree with it or not, I think it’s been very well publicized that they refer to the choice of the mother.
Of course not. And I disagree with your opinion, and I think your personal experience is biased. No harm, no foul.
I think your idea that those who support the availability of safe abortions are commies is laughable at best. Some of the staunchest pro-choice advocates I know are libertarians who want the government and religion to keep out of their bodies.
There may be some confusion here. The premise of the posters in the thread to which I linked was (apparently) that no one was to be referred to as “pro-abortion”. I was reacting to this notion in creating this thread, and interpreted your comments in that context. If you are limiting yourself to merely declaring that you, andros, should not be called pro-abortion, as you now seem to be doing, you will get no argument from me.
Ah, you see, I didn’t see it that way at all. Seems to me that the majority of people who are pro-choice are not accurately described as “pro-abortion,” and that is the origin of the contention.
I’ve attempted to show this, but of course I cannot speak for anyone but myself.
It sure looks like the number of people who actively encourage abortion, and want the number of abortions to increase, is blindingly small. Those fery few might well want to describe themselves as “pro-abortion,” I wouldn’t know.
But if ther’s any desire for dialogue at all, those who are opposed to abortion would do well to avoid the inflammatory tactics they know full well will cause offense. Such as using the term “pro-abortion” when they know that term is considered insulting.
reprise writes:
This is an example of why “pro-choice” is not an accurate term for the position of some who do not oppose abortion.
If I am to have a choice about abortion, I need to be able to choose whether or not to have or to pay for abortion. If I think/feel/believe that abortion is morally wrong, I think it follows pretty clearly that I should not be funding it either. If I hate what the Ku Klux Klan stands for, obviously I would not give them money.
If my tax dollars are being used to fund abortions, I have been denied my right to choose. Thus those who support publicly funded abortions cannot logically claim the term “pro-choice”, since they are in favor of depriving others of the right to choose not to have or support abortions.
It is similar to people who do oppose abortion describing themselves as “pro-life”, but still supporting the death penalty. What they are is really “pro-innocent life”, but that is too long, and would not be allowed by the media, since it too begs the question if the fetus is an “innocent life”.
FWIW, our local newspapers are fairly consistent in referring to one side as “abortion rights supporters”, and the other as “anti-abortion activists”. Think for a minute if you would like to be thought of as a supporter of a right, or as an activist against it. That begs the question a bit as well.
For the record, I am pro-abortion, pro-death penalty, and anti-public funding of abortions except in the case of rape or to save the life or health (stress does (not count as “health”) of the mother. Those who work for the government or the military, and those on Medicaid, should pay for insurance coverage of abortions out of their own pockets. If this means they cannot afford an abortion, go to NOW or NARAL and get them to pay for it.
I could never get elected to anything - I have something to offend all sides of the abortion debate.
Regards,
Shodan
Let’s say that someone doesn’t like guns. He would never have one himself, he believes that most of the people who have one should not, and in his perfect world, they would not exist.
However, he believes that the people have the right to bear arms, and that they are sometimes beneficial and necessary. He works as hard as he can to help reduce crime and promote gun safety, thus reducing the need for guns, but would not deny someone the right to own one.
How correct would it be to call such a person “pro-gun”? For the same reason, it’s ridiculous to call everyone who supports the right to an abortion “pro-abortion”.
That said, I’m not uncomfortable with “pro-abortion” myself. I would like to see abortion become a more acceptable choice, without the moral and societal stigma. I believe that a lot of people should probably have abortions that don’t. I’m of the “every child a wanted child” camp. Of course, I would like to see abortion become a thing of the past, as people use birth control more responsibly, just like the person in my example would like to see crime come to an end. Absent that, though, I would prefer more abortions to more unwanted children.
Dr. J
If we established that people have the right to not have the government spend money on things they don’t appprove of, what would be left?
Do social Darwinists have the right to not have their tax dollars go to welfare?
Do pacifists have the right to not have their taxes fund military forces beyond what is essential for self-defense?
Do anarchists have the right to not pay taxes at all?
Back when I was studying Mass Media, I think the reasoning my professors gave was that no one liked to be known as “Anti” something. Thus both groups use of the more positive “Pro” in nicknaming their political positions.
Italics mine
Whaaaat? Name one self-identified pro-choice person who has said someone should not be able to choose NOT TO HAVE an abortion.
Oh, and as RoboDude pointed out…goody - I get to stop funding some of the more morally objectionable CIA activities! Maybe I’ll stop paying my Rep’s salary, too, since I didn’t vote for him and don’t like his politics. And I think a couple places that we send foreign aid to don’t really have the human rights record to support it, can I stop paying for that? Not really in favor of capital punishment, don’t want my tax dollars going there, thank you very much…how do I exercise this new right not to have my tax dollars go to programs I find objectionable?
well yes, i’m pro-choice. i think a safe, legal and free abortion should be available to anywomen who desires one.
however, i would never choose to have an abortion, and when i graduate from medical school i will never choose to perform one. but that is my choice.
i would not any woman to feel she HAS to carry a child that she does not want to, but neither would i encourage a woman to abort a child she does wish to carry.
some people choose to abort their child when they discover it has a disease which will kill it in infancy, some choose not to. no-one in our society blames either set of parents for their choice, and it would, in my opinion be the height of churlishness to do so.
ideally this ethos should be applied to all circumstances where a hard choice has to be made.
I will just say this.
I am pro-life on everything. No abortion, death penalty, euthanasia, murder, suicide etc.
Taking of a life by someone’s hands either be it yours or somebody like a family member, friend, or complete stranger is wrong in my mind. (My basic point)
On the other hand, it isn’t my choice to make when it someone else. When they want to make that choice, I cannot do anything about it myself. It is not my place to interfere.
I will never take the life of another person if they want me to or not.