Um… no. Most pro life people think that a woman should have the right to chose if she will engage in the activity that may lead to pregnancy - so it is not accurate - no more so then pro-abort - which is the decision a person who is having one is for.
Now come on – this is stetching things quite a bit. By this reasoning one could then say you (or at least most pro-life advocates) are pro choice and you could not object even were it so stated out of context. And when stated oout of context, you’d certianly not agree with the sentiment everyone would expect it was making. The phrase “pro choice” means “Pro choice concerning abortion”. Why does it mean that?. It means that for the same reason most words and phrases mean something – most people agree that’s what it means.
Well, no. This is incoherent as long as rape is capable of leading to pregnancy.
Besides, you’re changing the topic. The whole debate is over abortion, not the events leading to pregnancy. On a deeper level, saying ‘Nobody should get themselves “in trouble”.’ is not a very persuasive argument on multiple levels.
The issue which defines the debate is whether a woman should have the legal “choice” to terminate a pregnancy and everybody knows that’s the “choice” that we’re talking about. The choice to “engage in the activity that may lead to pregnancy” is irrelevant to the debate and amounts to little more than a ttempt to change the subject (and not all women who become pregnant actually had a choice about it, FYI).
OK, we’re on a whole different topic than the OP’s question. This conversation needs to happen in Great Debates - it’s not going anywhere productive anytime soon. Once again I apologize for derailing the original topic.
But the term “anti-choice” that you used is must as much a propaganda term. To turn around your phrase, no one is anti-choice.
Yes they are. They don’t believe women should have a legal right to choose to abort a pregnancy. The term is accurate. There is no propagandistic symmetry between “pro-abortion” and “anti-choice.” The latter term is an accurate description of a particular position. The former term is not.
The is perfect propaganda symmetry. And of course, neither side will concede that to the other. Each side will insist that their term is accurate, and their opponent’s term is not. And no one will get anywhere.
There is no symmetry. That’s just factually incorrect. One term is accurate, the other is not. That’s not an opinion, it’s an objective observation of reality.
Well, there are people who are pro-abortion. They just aren’t always pro-choice. And most pro-choicers are not pro-abortion. Believe it or not there are people who think certain demographics/groups need to be exterminated through mandatory abortions. That would be pretty much pro-abortion and anti-choice.
It’s mostly coherent, if not laser-like in that respect. Tolerably few abortions are on account of rape, but that does make a useful excuse for the enormous majority of abortions that are not.
Well, quite, but “anti-choice” is not a very useful term given the huge range of activities we are already anti-choice about; wife-beating, euthanising my inconveniently-alive grandmother (hypothetical; both of mine are long dead); burgling your house; robbing your pension fund. “Anti-choice” is just too durn vague and begs the question: whether this ought to be a matter of free choice about in the first case.
N’encoulons pas des mouches. You were, as usual, perfectly comprehensible.
:dubious:
That makes no sense. Child rapists are procecuted every day without the child becoming pregnant. There are plenty of other ways to detect child rape than a big belly.
Re: terms
The thing about this one, and why the symetry holds, is that both sides approach the issue differently, instead of just disagreeing in the sides of a single approach. The pro-abort crowd sees it as a reproductive choice, hense the opposing side is anti this choice, but the anti-abort crowd sees it as a government approved murder of one’s offspring - so the term choice does not fit, but pro abort does.
I think “pro” and “anti” choice are the most accurate terms. It’s true that pro-choice only referring to abortion is a bit odd, but as it stands, it does. The logical opposite is anti-choice. I can’t stand the term “pro-life” because it insinuates that people who have abortions are anti-life. This is extremely inaccurate because a) few women get abortions with the expressed purpose of killing life and b) some people don’t believe a human is a human until birth.
I’d be curious to know which term came first: pro-choice or pro-life.
Which is why “pro-abortion-rights” and “anti-abortion-rights” are better terms than “pro-life” or “pro-choice”, since they explicitly indicate that the disagreement is about whether one recognizes a right to have an abortion.
However, due to widespread use of the more common terms, it is easy to recognize what “pro-choice” and “pro-life” mean when the two sides apply those names to themselves, and what “anti-choice” and “pro-abortion” mean when they use them to insult each other.
Whether you think “pro-choice” or “pro-life” or “anti-choice” or “pro-abortion” are accurate terms is very much linked to your opinions on the issue. No, there is no dispassionate, “logical” take on this issue.
Those who use the term “anti-choice” focus on process, not object. Those who use “anti-abortion” focus on object, not process. Those who use “pro-choice” or “pro-life” emphasize the agreeable qualities associated with the words “choice” and “life”.
Actually, 100% of abortions are with the intent of preventing something from reaching the point at which it’s inarguable that it is life, whatever your opinions of whether it is life at the point at which it’s got rid of. So it’s definitely “anti-life” from that point of view. The foetus is often compared to a hangnail, blood clot or papilloma, but the important distinction is, none of the latter is ever going to become an inconvenient baby. (And from the stats I’ve seen cited, “inconvenient” rather than “insupportable” is the more applicable adjective in the typical case.)
True. But I find it plausible that there are some cases where the pregnant girl (and any family members who might know) is not going to pursue charges for whatever reason, and thus the impregnator will not be prosecuted. Those who would pursue charges - teachers, family doctor, other family members, etc. - may not know of the sexual activity involved. But they would know if she appeared pregnant. So the idea is that in some (not all) cases, the abortion protects the pedophile by not forcing the issue into public light.
It’s an inaccurate poster by definition. (Keeping in mind of course the rare 7 year old who gets pregnant.)
**Kimstu ** got it right. When I was an ink-stained wretch (i.e., writing for newspapers), those were the terms we used, based on The Associated Press style.
These are long phrases, and inconvenient to say and write, but they are as neutral as possible, I think.