At least not in the way that you paint it. There is no movement seeking to give mandatory abortions to all men, women and children!
The Catholic church have been on the offensive lately, seeking to restrict even more the rights of women, to the point of even banning abortion when the fetus is malformed or the woman has been a victim of rape. But that doesn’t bother me as much as the way the pro-choice movement has been painted on the press, it’s not the use of “pro-abortion” that grates me, it’s the dishonesty with which the “pro-lifers” argue the pro-choice arguments. They build giant strawmen and then set them on fire.
Thousands of women die every year because they seek illegal abortions. Illegality hasn’t stopped them, the threat of shame, or even jail time hasn’t stopped them. What we are acomplishing is leaving families without mothers, sisters, or daughters, only because of a religious argument.
Take into consideration that abortion is already illegal here. What the doctors disagree about is that it should be completely banned. They believe it should be an option when the fetus is unviable, the mother is danger or a victim of rape. For that our esteemed Cardinal Armani compares them to ‘criminals’.
Somebody else said it better:
And to Cardinal “Armani” Rodriguez: Fuck you! I am 36, married, in good finantial health and at any given time I am using at least two contraceptive methods, but I should not have more childrend for health reasons (and because I don’t want to). If I do get pregnant you bet your stinky ass that I will get an abortion. Regardless of what you think or feel. I am not going to leave my baby daughter orphaned on your say so. I am not going to fucking die because you don’t care.
The use of labels on the abortion issue has always been a source of confusion and deliberate attempts at smearing opponents. It would be more accurate to simply refer to anyone taking a stand as pro-abortion rights or anti-abortion rights, but this is an unrealistic expectation.
Is it really something new for the Catholic church to oppose abortion in the case of fetal defects, however severe or fatal?
You can add me to this list. You can make it illegal, you can do what you want. I. Don’t. Care. If I get pregnant today tomorrow or whenever I will abort it. I have made my choice and I also use two contraceptive methods.
I never get involved in these abortion threads, usually, but I am here just to say that. It doesn’t matter what laws are passed. No one who passes the laws is standing in my shoes and has to have the baby they would force me to have. This is something I will break the law for if I have to.
I know a few people who describe themselves as pro-abortion. They feel that the whole “necessary evil” view is wrong, because they believe there’s nothing wrong with abortion. There’s no reason not to be “pro”. These people are on the fringes, however, very extreme types.
Those “pro-abortion” people still aren’t pushing abortions on women who don’t want them. If a woman choses to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth to a rapist’s or a severely deformed child, that is her choice.
Those people’s flip side are the people who think no one should ever have an abortion, even if she is carrying a fetus that could endanger her own health and would not survive after birh. Even so, you conceived it, you deliver it.
Father Jose Luis Aleman, a catholic priest, would be surprised to find out.
The pro-choice movement here is very weak, and even for them abortion is not their main agenda. They usually stand for and for comprehensive sex education in school, making contraception readily available to all women in reproductive age , and if all else fails, giving the woman the choice of terminating pregnancy, if she so choses. Painting them as pro-abortion implies that all they are about is abortion, when that is not the case. It doesn’t help that the Catholic church disagrees with every point in their agenda.
What the Medical Association was protesting (en masse) was the possible total ban on abortion, in all cases. Which is just really criminal in my eyes.
And by the way, I hate the “pro-life” label too. What are we then, “pro-death”? Even when that means that we support a woman’s right to survive an unwanted (or gone bad) pregnancy?
I guess it is only pro-embryo’s-life. Grown women need not apply.
Well, I didn’t mean that automatically made one that way, but that the people I’m speaking of specifically are that way. Kind of a disclaimer that they’re not the best sample.
Besides the attempt to smear, you have a basic different view of the issue. On one side they see the fetus as a human worthy of human rights. As such it is a matter of life - so one side is pro life and the other pro death. The rights of one person do not supercede the rights of the other, so the ‘right’ for women to kill another human being is invalid. The process of this state sponcered killing is called abortion, so pro-abortion is also a correct term also - from this point of view.
OTHO you have the side that doesn’t see a fetus as human, or at least not worthy of human rights. As such it is one person’s decision what to do with this thing that if left alone should become a person sometime in the future, and it is reasonable to act now to decide if that person is to be formed. So the issue it choice, and the term pro-choice fits on this side of the isle.
You didn’t point out that “another human being” is a parasite in the woman’s own body. Does she have the right to end this parasitic relationship, or does the parasite’s right to stay in her body until it can survive on its own supersede it?
Your right I didn’t point that out as I was just highlighting the different points of views from the 2 sides. It’s not:
I support A vs I oppose A
it is:
I support A vs I support B, where A and B are mutually exclusive.
So to side A you have Pro A and Anti A sides , for side B you have Pro B and Anti B, and is why the terms pro-life/anti-life/pro-death/pro-abortion, anti-abortion, pro-choice, and anti choice are so different, depending on what side you are on and they are valid depending on your initial premise.
Actually, the reason I firmly support keeping abortion legal is because I sincerely believe that making it illegal will result in more women dying from illegal abortions. Just as some who believe abortion should be illegal believe that one abortion is one death too many, so I believe that even one woman dying because she didn’t have access to a safe, legal abortion is one death too many. It seems to me that supporting banning abortion even when the life of the woman would be endangered by carrying the child to term isn’t supporting both lives that are at stake.
Of course, that and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee.
I always thought that the pro-life and pro-choice labels were both effective and descriptive. Both labels emphasize the criterion that the group feels is of utmost importance. Some people infer that the other side has to be pro-death or against choice, but only because they try to take a complex issue and force exactly two sides out of it.
I realize you were generalizing, but this does not necessarily describe the logic of all pro-choice people. In my opinion, the most effective argument for allowing abortion does not rely on the fetus’ lack of humanity or lack of human rights, but simply on the fact that a “right to life” does not include the right to force another human to provide the necessary life support.
Very well said! I don’t understand people who think their side, and only their side, should be able to pick the label that both sides use to describe themselves. Shows a lack of willingness to accept that the other side has a legitimate point of view, if you ask me.
Using that logic, anyone who calls himself “pro-gay” believes that homosexuality should be mandatory. Would you care to explain that to these folks? Or these? Or these?
“But that’s different!” some would say. “They may call themselves ‘pro-gay,’ but obviously they don’t mean that everyone should be gay!” If you grant that distinction though, then one should logically conclude that the term “pro-abortion” does not mean that abortion should be mandatory. Not if consistency means anything, that is.
I disagree. For a lot of pro-choicers, we don’t believe that freedom of choice should come above life; we just don’t think that a person’s life is taken with an abortion. It’s not choice over life, it’s choice over no choice.
Of course, there are people who would consider freedom of choice to be above life. I’m just saying that you can’t generalize all pro-choicers that way.