What really motivates people with extremely strong opinions on abortion

[wonky]

@furt

I’d say I’m pro-legalized guns and drugs.

“I am pro-legalized drugs” versus “I am pro-drug.”
“I am pro-legalized guns” versus “I am pro-gun.”
“I am pro-legalized SSM” versus “I am pro-SSM.”
“I am pro-legalized abortions” versus “I am pro-abortion.”

To me, for each of these, what comes before the “versus” is saying something different than what comes after the versus. Just like “I am pro- the KKK having the right to speak” is not the same as “I am pro-KKK speech.”

In other words, your examples bolster Frylock’s argument (and mine).

[villa]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

This is simply untrue and is nothing more than you trying to redefine terms to suit you. Have you totally forgotten about the “Well, I’d never do that, but I’d never stop someone from doing that!” or the “Well, I’m personally opposed to that but…” lines that people typically like to apply to a host of activities? There are plenty of people who think that owning guns are a bad idea and that the world would be better off without guns, or that SSM’s are a bad idea and that the world would be better off without them, or who think that smoking pot is idiotic and lead to the degradation of society, who nevertheless argue that people should be able to own as many guns as they want and marry whomever they want or even smoke as much pot as they want. The pro-before the action denotes a choice, not being forced to engage in that action nor thinking that action is good idea. The fact is that you’re not pro-choice; that’s an empty euphemism, as you have to be chosing something, which could be anything. You’re pro-abortion. That doesn’t sound as pretty as pro-choice, but it is what it is.

No - your gun person here is pro-gun rights. Which is why I will absolutely accept being referred to as pro-abortion rights. Because I am. What I am not is pro-abortion. Well, except for some retroactive ones.

[Frylock]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

And you can dispute it all you want. As I said, I’m not going to waste my time trying to find you multiple examples of people calling themselves “pro-something” while claiming they are personally opposed to it. Even moreso since the crux of your entire opposition to what I wrote out seems to be you fixated on the word “plenty”, which is nothing more than senseless nitpicking to the nth degree. At this point, you’ve just diverted attention away from everything I’ve actually written out to debate whether or not there are “plenty” of people who do something which, was a pretty small part of my post. And with that, I’m done responding to that, so if you want to continue then by all means go ahead. I won’t respond to it.

Then you concede the point: Pro-abortion does not mean “willing that abortion be legal but not willing that anyone have an abortion.”

That’s what I took issue with, and you’ve refused to support the claim–because you can’t. if you could, it would be easy–because you said there are “plenty” of examples out there. (The word “plenty” is crucial here, not nit-picking.) But it’s not easy, as evidenced by the fact that you didn’t just produce some examples.

And the reason it’s not easy is because none, or almost no, examples exist at all. Meaning you were wrong about the meaning of pro-X. Meaning you were wrong about the reason pro-choicers typically refuse the label pro-abortion.

You’re wrong about something. I’m sure you don’t take this to be the first time that has happened. But the right thing to do now is own up to it.

Let us Dopers all watch to see whether you pass this test of intellectual honesty! The result should have an important effect on our future interactions with you.

Really? That’s a shock.

Way to be helpful.

[Frylock]

@furt

I’d say I’m pro-legalized guns and drugs.

Thanks, that’s exactly what I needed to know.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

It’s entirely honest debate. Perhaps you should re-read what you wrote out? You said, and I quote verbatim:

This is you explicitly stating that you’re going to trust the judgment of a doctor when it comes to when and under what circumstances an abortion is allowed under the implicit assumption that doctors know more than the legislature does and would operate in the best interest of everyone involved. On it’s face, this isn’t exactly a problem; it is a problem, however, when you’re dealing with an unscrupulous doctor, or pretty much anyone, who will perform an abortion on a woman for any reason at any time, even going so far as to kill viable babies after they’re born alive, stuff them into a trash bag or even put them on display in a jar.

I don’t have a problem with her getting an abortion at any time for any reason, but are you under the impression that babies being killed after being born is a common occurence? That it’s not already covered by existing laws that address homicide rather that regulate abortion? And what kinds of restrictions did you have in mind, if any, to control the extremely rare “unscrupulous doctor”?

Would you trust the decision of a doctor who does the following to do the following over, say, a legislator who would pass legislation barring abortions after a certain period of time unless there’s a medical reason for them? Apparently, you would. The point, which you missed, is that you are somehow assuming that the doctor has the best interests of everyone involved and would act act accordingly, whereas the legislator would not.

No, my point is that this a medical matter which doesn’t lend itself to regulation by people who can be emotionally swayed by images of trash bags and jars. If you were attempting to convince a legislator to restrict abortion, would you invoke such images? Would you trust a legislator who could be swayed by them? I wouldn’t.

It’s not a failed analogy in the slightest though, since you’re operating from an extreme position, then you have no choice but to consider it an invalid response. The things is that, when it comes to abortion, location is completely inconsequential, even moreso when you consider the fact that even the vast majority of pro-choicers in virtually every country-- and quite possibly even on this site-- would never argue that the unborn can be aborted at any time during pregnancy for any reason the woman wants, solely because it’s in the woman’s body.

Well, if I’m extreme, than all of Canada is extreme, because that’s pretty much the situation we have here. There are no laws against abortion here. The woman does not need to give a reason. There are some regulations about later-term procedures that vary by province, and of course a significant chunk of the population is uneasy with the subject, but there’s not enough will at this time to put the laws back in place and I hope this continues because I don’t see that the laws are needed.

And, yes, I think a person has something in their bodies that they don’t want, the decision to remove it should be theirs, be it a fetus or a tumour. The only regulation I see the need for is medical ethics, and I will trust a doctor not to act against his patient’s best interest, including declining to act if a distraught woman in the late stages of pregnancy demands an abortion, or if a schizophrenic patient of either gender has the delusion their their kidneys are conspiring against them and wants them removed. If a doctor goes ahead anyway, the doctor can suffer loss of license and judgements in civil court as appropriate.

That they generally argue is that abortion is permissible up until point XYZ as, before that time, the fetus has no rights, and that after point XYZ abortion becomes impermissible unless there is a threat to the mother’s health or a severe fetal defect. Where someone is located at the time does not dictate whether they have moral status. The fact that it’s the woman’s body doesn’t come in to play when decidimg whether here for the majority of pro-choicers, outside of empty rhetoric.

But I don’t care about moral status, whether the fetus has some or not. Give it all the moral status you want, slather it on in great heaping quantities to your heart’s content.

No. It’s the assertion that one has a right to act paramount to one’s right to not be acted against, which is highly ridiculous, and flatly disgusting. Most pro-choicers, at some point in time, will take issue to a woman who has wanton sex over and over without regards to the consequence, and has multiple abortions. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that said individuals tend to cause people to rethink their abortion views.

So now the number of abortions a woman has had is relevant, in addition to how wanton her sex is?

A couple of things here.

First, you’re treating “against her will” to mean against her stated wishes. This is a slight conflation. Consent to an action or an action’s consequence(s) does not need to be explicitly stated. To illustrate the point, take the following example. If a man lies down and impregnates a woman, a court of law will make him responsible for his actions even if the pregnancy which resulted as a consequence of his actions was against his stated will, because it will be deemed that the fact that he chose to engage in sex means he was consenting to potential fatherhood. The fact that he didn’t explicitly content to potentially being a father will be deemed wholely irrelevant. On the other hand, if a woman lies down and is impregnated, the same court will turn around and state that she isn’t responsible for her actions

No, they won’t. She has the responsibility of arranging for an abortion or (if she sees the pregnancy through) an adoption or raising the child. It’s never been clear to me why “taking responsibility” covers the second two options but not the first, so the rest of your argument about how abortion avoids responsibility is dismissed until this rather glaring omission is addressed.

To say that a pregnancy which results from a knowledgable choice she made is therefore “against her will” is to argue dishonestly.

Is her will a fixed concept? She can’t make a decision during the months-long process? She can’t decide to deal with an unintended consequence when she becomes aware of it, five or six weeks later? She had sex, so the next nine months of her life (and possibly years afterward) are locked in?

If I’ve misunderstood you, I ask for a clarification. By analogy, let’s say I like to smoke, that I really enjoy smoking, and I got careless with a cigarette and set my couch on fire. By your argument, “taking responsibility” for my actions means letting the fire burn and grow, and then paying for the damage to my home (and possibly to my neighbors’ homes) afterward, instead of the more obvious answer of taking action and snuffing the fire while it is still small and paying the relatively minuscule cost of repairing my couch.

In the same vein, a pregnant which results from a knowledgable choice a man makes is also “against his will”, though I’m sure if ever a suggestion were to be made, he’d be received with boos, hisses and jeers.

I’m not booing, hissing or jeering him, but I do recognize the fundamental disparity of sexual dimorphism. It’s not entirely fair that she gets to make this decision, but I don’t see a good solution that gives him the choice without taking hers away, and in practice I find it’s better that the choice be hers.

Second, you completely ignored the whole privacy angle of my response. As I’m guessing you’re insinuating, a woman has a right to privacy which cannot be intruded upon by the government regardless of whether or not the other individual is a person or a human being or whatever, then why can I not drag someone into the privacy of my own home, do to them as I please, and then claim that my actions are protected as I have a right to privacy which cannot be infringed upon? Privacy is privacy.

I’m not ignoring the privacy angle, I’m just pointing out that you’re making an utterly ridiculous attempt at equivalence that ignores the key aspect of pregnancy - a growing object inside of someone’s body that they don’t want there.

If you’re going to treat the two as differently, then you’re burdened with explaining when privacy matters and what’s really private and what isn’t.

No, I don’t think so. If I indulge you in this, you could easily demand that I justify the “privacy” angle of ever-more-remote scenarios. If abortion is okay, why isn’t shooting up a schoolyard, for example. I can simply point to Canada again and say that here abortion is legal but kidnapping and rape are not, and nobody is seriously bothered by any claimed inconsistency.

I’m pretty positive I didn’t say the two were analogous.

Can I assume you won’t bring up the “kidnap/rape/privacy?” thing again, then?

The abortion rate will go down, the adoption rate will go up, the birth rate will go up, some women will have illegal abortions in the U.S. and some will travel elsewhere. That’s not a pretty hard question.

I get that’s what you want to happen, but you’re ducking the questions of who goes to jail, who dies, who remains stuck in cycles of poverty, i.e. the consequences that are less pleasant.

There’s nothing short sighted about my views. Please don’t tell me you’re going to use the whole “abortion should remain legal or else tons of women will die!” argument, as that’s quite laughable.

Tons, no. I don’t see why “a few” is acceptable, though. Even if it’s “none”, I don’t care. It’s a waste of law-enforcement resources to investigate and prosecute the matter and to what end - bringing babies into the world that their own mothers don’t want? What good is that?

This is also written pre-emptively, but why would that matter and how is it an argument for leaving abortion legal?

My argument is that there is not sufficient cause to make it not legal. The burden is on the state to prove the need for a law, not on individuals to justify their freedom.

Surely you’d agree that if we made theft legal, that fewer people would die each year than people who currently die as a result of being killed while in the process of trying to rob someone, yes? So would you agree that theft should be legalized in order to prevent fewer people dying yearly, or would you argue that it doesn’t matter how many people die per year, that the effects of making theft legal would negatively affect those who are stolen from?

Theft is not analogous to pregnancy, so I don’t see the relevance.

[SemperI]

It doesn’t matter what motivates them. All that matters is if their assertions are valid or invalid. By questioning their motivation you do nothing but muddy the waters and litter the debate with red herrings and ad hominem attacks. I have no intention or debating abortion any time soon, but if I did I would be pretty irritated by having to navigate the absurd mine field that is the abortion debate.

[Shodan]

@Frylock

I need to see examples …

No, you don’t. This is an attempt to forestall the debate.

Usually, AFAICT you debate honestly. It’s too bad that this is an exception.

Regards,
Shodan

[Frylock]

@Shodan

No, you don’t. This is an attempt to forestall the debate.

Usually, AFAICT you debate honestly. It’s too bad that this is an exception.

Regards,
Shodan

I stand 100% behind my claim that almost no one who describes themselves as “pro-gun” believes people shouldn’t have guns, and that almost no one who describes themselves as “pro-SSM” believes people shouldn’t marry others of the same gender.

OMG made an argument as to why pro-choicers elect not to call themselves pro-abortion. His argument rests on an assumption that the content of my claim is false–it rests on assumption that “plenty” of people match the description I say “almost no one” matches.

There, in a nutshell, is my claim, and my reason for bringing it up.

My claim is honest–I believe it without reservation.

My argument is honest–I am giving reasons which tell directly against one of OMG’s expressed views, moreover a view I consider to be genuinely important and worth refuting. It is not true, in my opinion, that the choice to refer to oneself as “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion” is due to any kind of avoidance. I believe that’s an unfair smear against most pro-choicers, and one worth fighting back against.

I couldn’t fairly complain about having my “debate honesty” called into question since I basically did as much toward OMG in my previous post. But I’ve now explained why you are incorrect to say I am doing anything dishonest here. The burden is on you to “take it back”.

And the burden is still on OMG to back up his substantive claim, or else retract his view concerning people’s motivations for cohosing the term “pro-choice”.

[donnie_darko]

I have a pretty unusual reason to be pro-life. I am not religious, but i am a pacifist, and I believe violence is NEVER the answer (aside from in self-defense or other extraordinary rare circumstances, such as protecting someone else - and even then it should be done without anger or hate). abortion is definitely a form of violence so I feel obliged to be against it.

The rape thing isn’t a good enough reason - rape is really bad and i feel really sorry for anyone who has endured it, but it’s not nearly as bad as murdering somebody. i know some rape victims and others will disagree and say it’s actually worse than murder but i think pretty much anyone would hope to get out alive if they were raped.

[Frylock]

@donnie_darko

I have a pretty unusual reason to be pro-life. I am not religious, but i am a pacifist, and I believe violence is NEVER the answer (aside from in self-defense or other extraordinary rare circumstances, such as protecting someone else - and even then it should be done without anger or hate). abortion is definitely a form of violence so I feel obliged to be against it.

The rape thing isn’t a good enough reason - rape is really bad and i feel really sorry for anyone who has endured it, but it’s not nearly as bad as murdering somebody. i know some rape victims and others will disagree and say it’s actually worse than murder but i think pretty much anyone would hope to get out alive if they were raped.

Presumbly you’re okay with surgery and other medical procedures, right? So what marks out abortion as a form of violence, if surgery and many other medical procedures aren’t violence?

[donnie_darko]

@Frylock

Presumbly you’re okay with surgery and other medical procedures, right? So what marks out abortion as a form of violence, if surgery and many other medical procedures aren’t violence?

the fact you are killing somebody.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well, it can be argued that abortion is a form of self-defense and it need not be administered out of anger or hate, but no matter. Certainly the circumstances of pregnancy are unique enough to merit special consideration.

[Frylock]

I don’t know why someone without religious beliefs would think that a fetus a few days old is “somebody,” can you tell me how you arrive at that conclusion?

[clairobscur]

@phantom_lamb

My country has a strong current of extreme conservative crazies.

What country would that be?

[clairobscur]

@Bryan_Ekers

Is her will a fixed concept? She can’t make a decision during the months-long process? She can’t decide to deal with an unintended consequence when she becomes aware of it, five or six weeks later? She had sex, so the next nine months of her life (and possibly years afterward) are locked in?
.

You’re advocating for allowing abortion at any point in time. So the issue isn’t “five of six weeks later”. It’s 5 or 6 month later, or even 8 and a half months later.