And yet somehow I can’t recall any time I’ve seen/heard ‘I’m anti-baby killer’ but I couldn’t count the number of times I’ve seen/heard ‘I’m pro-life’.
Pro-life is their terminology. Anti-abortion is the neutral term and you’ve been shown that.
Just pretend you’ve never seen signs that say “abortion is murder”.
Which also is not the way the movement identifies the movement.
That’s like saying “pro choice” is the left’s terminology and “pro-abortion” is neutral term.
So what you’re saying is that “pro choice” and “pro life” are the preferred terminology used by both sides.
Nope. Because “life” is a much more general term. We had that discussion already in the thread.
Pro Choice is used because it sanitizes abortion. We’re not for killing fetuses, were just pro-choice.
You’re just going to have to deal with the fact that both sides have chosen how they wish to be referred to.
I’ve got no problem with that. I’ve got a problem with you using one side’s terminology while claiming you don’t agree with them.
I don’t wholly agree with either side which is why I presented the legal side of it. It’s going to end up back in court and they will have to rule on what constitutes human life.
Your problems are your own.
No, they are highly dishonest, hypocritical, and malignant. They care nothing for “life”, fetal or otherwise; only hurting women. They are murderous and sadistic, not “pro-life”.
Annnd then what? Even if the SCotUS rules that fertilized eggs are human life that in no way addresses the question of bodily autonomy.
As far as I know there is no legal requirement on a parent to even do something as minimally invasive as giving a pint of blood to save the life of their, post birth, child.
And we’re back to the violinist, if human life trumps bodily autonomy then why can’t the state require a parent to be a living dialysis machine for their child for nine months?
No, “pro abortion rights” might be a neutral term.
“Pro abortion” is a false description. There is no political movement in favor of abortions in the US. Back when China was enforcing their “one child” policy, they were pro abortion. Literally no one in the US is pushing women to get abortions.
I’m okay if you describe my position as pro-abortion-rights. I’m not trying to sanitize anything. But I think abortions are unpleasant and unfortunate, and I am not in favor of abortions. I just think they can be less bad than the alternative, so I want abortion to be an option for women when the alternative is worse.
Have you (or they) ever heard the saying “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”?
Where did you read that I thought they are justified or right? I was only pushing back on the idea they are evil, malign people who want to grind (other) women under their heel and cackle at their screams. But no one wants to figure out why people do things they wouldn’t do themselves. They’d rather believe them to be monsters. Go figure.
The point of that saying is that good, conscientious, well-meaning people can make decisions that have horrific consequences.
You don’t need malice to perform an action with negative consequences.
I do agree with you that many people who vote against any and all forms of pregnancy termination are not malicious, evil people. Nor are they all identical in their motivations and what they will and won’t approve of. Nonetheless, their votes have consequences.
they sure as hell do.
Again, so what if they aren’t? They act exactly like that, so what does it matter if they secretly feel otherwise? Why should the people they torment and kill care if their tormentors “meant well”?
Again, we are talking past each other, and there is no point continuing.
[sarcasm]
Because of infinite social responsibility, there’s no such thing as having a personal belief about anything. If you oppose legal abortion, every death due to a botched back-alley abortion is YOUR FAULT!!! just as much as if you’d personally cut their throats.
[/sarcasm]