For one, because you refuse to see that their goals are in themselves an “evil intent”. For another, willful self deception isn’t an excuse for hurting and killing people. And for yet another, it’s very unlikely that they are actually “agaisnt abortion” in the first place; as has been repeatedly pointed out by multiple people, the anti-choice movement consistently fails to take actions that would actually reduce the number of abortions.
I, personally, know several people who are anti abortion and pro-choice. These are my friends, and they tend to be intelligent and reasonable people. They
- Want to reduce the number of abortions
- have come to terms with the idea that an embryo isn’t actually a human being, and that there is no biblical support for a total ban on abortion
- Recognize that a late term abortion is worse than an early term abortion, in fact, the later the worse
- Recognize that there are sometimes medical necessities that require unpleasant choices, like killing a fetus
And those people vote for improved access to birth control, sex education, medical access for the poor, and the availability of nutritional food. They would never have an abortion themselves, unless their life was at risk. Because they feel abortion is a horrible thing to intentionally do. But they recognize that the way to reduce abortions overall is to reduce unwanted pregnancies and to help pregnant women stay healthy.
(Very few people fret about all the embryos that are naturally shed before they implant, because liberals don’t think those have huge moral value, and conservatives feel it was God’s will.)
So I’m going to say that “anti abortion” and “anti choice” (or “pro-life”, to take their preferred moniker) do not mean the same thing.
And many people who dislike abortion are good people who don’t feel malice or act maliciously towards women. The anti-choice crowd is a little different.
You usually have no idea what actually motivates them, only what they tell you, and we can’t debate them at all because we get what they tell you from you, making them second-hand anecdotes at best.
I would say that your “anti-abortion” friends, who are not “anti-choice” are more “pro-life” than the people who are anti-choice.
Oh yeah, absolutely.
Oh, for Pete’s sake. That is not exactly an incisive criticism. I am not excusing them. I am telling you, not what they tell me in, according to you, their sly, manipulative, vicious, devious way, but just what they project – these are just not complicated people. These are the same kinds of people who free lobsters from seafood restaurants, adopt mangy pariah dogs from Haiti … don’t you know any of these people? They don’t have thoughts and rationales. They don’t have cites, or structured plans. They have EMOTIONS. That’s IT. I don’t see what is so fucking hard for you to accept.
It is a whole nother type of person who organizes pacs and inserts legislation and creates propaganda campaigns. A much smaller group, often with hidden agendas. Not the people I am talking about.
I can easily name a lot of perfectly innocent-sounding and laudable goals that many people would agree with, which, when implemented, have stunningly horrible consequences, some seen as an acceptable price, others seen as tragic but unavoidable, and most, blithely ignored. The goals in themselves do not imply evil intent. They just imply a blindered view of reality.
NONE of which I said.
There is something supremely smug, arrogant, condescending and self-righteous about insisting that someone who disagrees with you is self-deluded as to their own motivations, and insisting their real motivations are not what they insist to your face that they are. It doesn’t even come up to the standard of dismissing them as (as one critic once quipped about Ronald Reagan) “insane, evil, or just plain stupid?”. It’s irksome, like someone with a freshman knowledge of Freudianism looking for hidden meanings in everything people say and do, or Marxists deconstructing every feature of modern society as “bourgeoisie false consciousness”.
Moderating:
This post appears to be offered for the sole purpose of slyly attempting to personally attack another poster in this thread and adds nothing to the discussion. Knock it off.
Willful blindness to reality is not a defense. And it’s telling that in order to defend them, you’ve been forced to resort to variations on calling them stupid and irrational.
- I am not defending them except from undeserved insults. Deserved insults are fine with me.
- I would never say willful blindness is a defense. An explanation is not a defense.
And claiming it’s “undeserved” is a standard defense. No matter how blatantly and loudly malignant the Right is we aren’t supposed to admit it, no matter how many people have to suffer and die in the process. We’re supposed to make up stories about how well-meaning they are, no matter how loudly they scream otherwise or what they do to people.
I’m heading toward the You Do You exit.
I stand corrected.
But if you look at your own link there is a picture of a large crowd holding up a banner. It does not say anti abortion. It says pro life. Which is what they demonstrate on.
When their banners start putting the pro life positions in a more prominent place then their anti abortion position we can reconsider a renaming of their movement.
That is the term used by the anti-abortion movement, yes. That’s exactly why we’re saying you’re using their terminology.
Because they lie about themselves and their cause. And it’s foolish to let such horrible people set the narrative.
If I were to use their terminology it would be anti-baby killer.
They’re pretty up-front about their cause. You’re attempt to speak on their behalf notwithstanding.