Uproar over UT student newspaper’s use of term “pro-abortion”
A reporter for The Daily Texan, the student newspaper for the University of Texas, got it right when calling abortion supporters what they are – “pro-abortion” – five times in an article about a counter-demonstration held during the annual pro-life Texas Rally for Life on January 24.
The term even made the article’s headline.
But she infuriated those who support abortion but who strangely aren’t proud of it. Complaints poured in:
- “First, someone who supports reproductive rights and access to abortion is not ‘pro-abortion.’”
- “The ‘pro-abortion’ label is completely inaccurate…. [O]ne can be personally opposed to abortion for themselves while still being comfortable supporting another person to make that choice for her own body.”
- “I just saw our paper’s “news” article about the pro-choice rally that was held on Saturday…. No one at that rally was pro abortion.”
- ”I found that the title ‘Pro-abortion rally draws support…’ to be inappropriate. I am a pro-choice person, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that I am pro-abortion.”
- “I was horrified to see today’s headline at the top of The Daily Texan…. I find this headline to be insulting and embarrassing, not just to your paper but to those of us on campus who call ourselves pro-choice. To be clear, there is no such thing as a ‘pro-abortion’ group. No one is pro-abortion. To characterize the pro-choice movement in such a way is to demonize those involved….”
Seems to me they doth protest a tad too much. What other supposed constitutional right are supporters so uncomfortable with?
At any rate, the headline and terminology were quickly removed from the online story….
… and replaced with “abortion rights.” The only evidence remaining is the hard copy of the newspaper, snapshots above (click all graphics to enlarge).
I certainly didn’t mind that the story’s author labeled us as “anti-abortion.” It is the fair counterpart to “pro-abortion.” And I’m proud of it. But it was overused a bit…
But the newspaper’s real bias was making a protest by 200 abortion supporters a front page story, while that which they were protesting – a pro-life rally with 4,000 in attendance, was only mentioned at the end, after a warning to watch out, they could be violent.
Further, the author totally misrepresented why the pro-lifers gathered in the first place. It wasn’t “to protest Texas Judge R. H. Wallace Jr.’s order to take pregnant and brain-dead Marlise Munoz off life support.” To be sure, pro-lifers opposed Wallace’s decision, but the Texas Rally for Life is an annual event.
[HT and photos via Jill’s Wilberforce mentee Rachel Bush, a pro-life leader at UT]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
When someone demands they not be called ‘pro-abortion’ just ask, ‘Why not? What’s wrong with being pro-abortion?’
That’s true. And here’s another example, I don’t like the idea of divorce, but I personally feel that it could be necessary if couples develop problems in their marriages that simply cannot be fixed, so if one wants to refer to me as “pro-divorce.” go ahead!
Yep, if you really want to get a pro-abort’s hackles up, speak the truth.
When Snowball gets out of line, it’s time to make sure he is accurately relaying the high command’s bellyfeel; every human being is equal, but born human beings are more equal than others, of course.
““First, someone who supports reproductive rights and access to abortion is not ‘pro-abortion.’”
Hmmm…gee…maybe they should re-read that line…??
There is no diference whatsoever btw pro-abortion and “abortion-rights advocate” in terms of meaning. Same thing. So what did the pro-aborts gain? Seems to me that the entire hoopla was only over semantics but when all is considered, “abortion-rights advocate” still means pro-abortion anyway. The headline is truly the same and readers of the on-line version will figure it out. Btw, the word “choice” is nowhere to be found as opposed to the word abortion still apppearing everywhere. . Pro-life 1, pro-aborts 0.
The pro-aborts still have control of the language. They can still ignore the very large pro-life crowds (except to mention that we “might be violent.”)
It is fun to see them squirm a bit. But the newspaper did back down from their accurate description of the pro-abortion bunch.
The good news: The Culture of Death is still afraid of the truth. For all of their strength of position and accomplices in the media, they are still afraid of being named as they really are. This gives us hope.
Being pro-choice does not neccessarily mean someone is pro-abortion. They may find abortion horrid and never dream of having one themselves. They simply recognise the rights of others to make choices for themselves.
I am pro-choice regarding marriage equality but I’m not particularly pro-marriage.
I am pro-choice regarding church attendance but I can assure you I am not pro-church attendance.
MemyselfandI: I don’t like the idea of divorce, but I personally feel that it could be necessary if couples develop problems in their marriages that simply cannot be fixed, so if one wants to refer to me as “pro-divorce.” go ahead!
That does not make sense. You really are not “pro-divorce.” You yourself said you don’t like the idea of it. If nobody wanted to get divorced, you’d be okay with that, wouldn’t you?
You are really not “for divorce,” per se, and thus not “pro-divorce,” stated like that in an unqualified way. It could be properly said that you are pro-the choice of divorce, and likewise, people are pro-the choice of abortion, but that is not the same thing as being “for abortion,” per se. If you have somebody who thinks that abortions should be had even when the mother/couple does not want to end the pregnancy, *then* you’ve got somebody who is “pro-abortion.”
So, those who call themselves “prolife” are really antichoice or antiabortion.
I’m anti-abortion. I’m also pro-life. Either one suits me fine. Anti-choice is just stupid because I’m pro- lots of choices, just not pro- choices that kill human beings.
You wish to deny women from accessing all the available choices Lrning, therefore you are anti-choice.
“anti-choice” = stupid euphemism. Everyone is anti- some choices.
Anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-euthanasia, anti-assisted suicide = terms that actually communicate something.
Well, lrning, prolife can have several meanings. Do you oppose the raising and killing of animals for human consumption? Do you place value on plants?
Yes, pro-life can have a multitude of meanings. The one most commonly understood is pro-life = anti-abortion. Which, as I already said, is fine with me.
Lrning: I’m anti-abortion. I’m also pro-life. Either one suits me fine.
Okay, sure, but you are also anti-choice. The context here is the abortion debate – that is understood. It is also understood that you are against the legal choice of abortion.
RSD: “First, someone who supports reproductive rights and access to abortion is not ‘pro-abortion.’” Hmmm…gee…maybe they should re-read that line…??
Well, *somebody* should re-read it. ;)
Being pro-legal access is in no way necessarily the same thing as being “for the thing.” I’m for it being legal for people to get tattoos, piercings, and getting the tip of their tongue cut. But I am “for people getting their tongues cut”? Am I “pro-snake-tongues”? Nope. (Gad…..)
Why would someone find abortion horrid? What the world is horrid about “women’s healthcare??!!”
Why would I be forced to fund something horrid? Horrid healthcare!!!
If you are prochoice on abortion you are proabortion.
Own it.
Thomas R: There is no difference whatsoever between pro-abortion and “abortion-rights advocate” in terms of meaning.
That’s incorrect, Thomas. By your logic, pro-lifers are “woman-slavers” and “girl-slavers” because you want their will subverted to your own.
Wanting a thing to be legal is *not* the same as “wanting that thing.” Do you want people to smoke cigarettes? Do you want cigarette smoking to be legal?
And hey – it’s possible that you do, on both counts. But for most of us, I’d say the answer is no.
I don’t want abortion to be totally illegal, but it’s also not like “I want people to have abortions.” If nobody wants abortions – fine with me.
What the world is horrid about “women’s healthcare??!!” – are you saying I’ve been misled about procedures such as hysterectomies being a less than enjoyable experience?
Why would I be forced to fund something horrid? – careful what you wish for.
If you are prochoice on abortion you are proabortion. – it has already been explained why this statement is not correct.
I’m “anti-choice” and proud of it.
I’ve said before that I’m fine with anti-choice. Yes, I am anti-the choice to kill an unborn baby. Why would I care if people labeled me with what I am?
I think pro-life fits my overall views a lot better though. Anti-death penalty, anti-abortion, pro-animal rights (vegetarian) etc etc. Pro-life ftw. But if we’re strictly talking about the abortion debate, let’s go with anti-abortion and anti-choice-to-kill-an-unborn-child.
Reality you’re pro-legal abortion. Pro-abortion. It’s not even pejorative so I don’t know why you stick on this one so much. Pro-abortion being legal = pro-abortion. Anti-choice to kill an unborn baby = anti-choice. We can call each other pro-abortion and anti-choice to our heart’s content.
Here’s a question for the pro choice ones.
If a girlfriend or your sister was pregnant and she told you she didn’t want an abortion,would you help her find a crisis pregnancy center and drive her there?
I’m a preborn-human rights advocate.
Jack, you’re making the same error – acting as if not wanting a thing to be illegal is the same thing as wanting the thing itself.
Pro-abortion being legal = pro-abortion. – Doug’s 6:41pm covered that pretty well LDPL. I’ll just add that supporting someone’s right to do something does not necessarily mean you support the activity itself.
If a girlfriend or your sister was pregnant and she told you she didn’t want an abortion,would you help her find a crisis pregnancy center and drive her there? – certainly not, I’d provide better help and support than that.
Ah whatever, the hand-wringing over this issue is the funniest thing to me.
Please call me anti-choice to kill babies and I’ll call you pro-choice to kill babies and we’re all done here. :)
If I were a pro-choicer and I thought abortion was truly morally neutral and no different from removing a wisdom tooth, I’d have no issue with the label pro-abortion. You guys are strange.
Watchman: If a girlfriend or your sister was pregnant and she told you she didn’t want an abortion,would you help her find a crisis pregnancy center and drive her there?
I don’t know about the “CPC,” but it’d be fine with me if she didn’t want to have an abortion. I do have one sister, and she has 3 kids.
Same here Doug! On both points :-)
Jack, do the think that the provision and sale of animal meat for human consumption (dare I say enjoyment? ;-) ) should be illegal?
That’s a bad analogy Reality because I don’t think killing animals is neutral. You claim to see abortion as morally neutral.
Reality,
“I’ll just add that supporting someone’s right to do something does not necessarily mean you support the activity itself”.
So when slavery was legal, one could have supported the right to enslave another human being, but not slavery itself?
One could have supported the right to lynch a person, but not lynching itself?
You guys are strange.
Jack, maybe so. : P
But that does not preclude being logical and sensible. ”Pro-life” and “Pro-choice” are both understood just fine in the context of the abortion debate. This does not mean that you have to “be for every choice there is” (nor “for every life,” really), nor does it mean that someone would not be “anti-choice” because they support other choices that are beyond the current context – a context that is a given. Such arguments are just plain silly.
So is trying to spin things out beyond where they logically apply.
Doug,
I would have no problem saying I am pro divorce. Especially when there is a very troubled or violent marriage.
I will not insist on being called pro choice on divorce. Why? Because I have no issue with it at all. In the perfect world all marriages are blissful and happy. In the real world they are not.
Jack, you think abortion should be illegal because you don’t find it morally neutral. Do you find the sale and consumption of meat products to be morally neutral?
Why not toss a few dozen more analogies in Mary. You could make some positive, some neutral and some negative. Not sure which might be which to whom though :-)
I like that Mary!!
You are fine with abortion proaborts. You are for abortion.
For=Pro. PROABORTION
Embrace who you are. Be free. Be empowered. Proabortion. You are for it. You are “fine with it.” It’s all good if someone has one or not.
Proabortion.
Prodismemberment
Propartialbirthabortion
Proinfanticide
Prolegalizedkillingofprebornhumans
Prokillthefetus
Prokillthenonviable
Prosuctionthatbabyout
Prochoicewhenthechoiceistoendthelivesofinnocentprebornhumanbeings
Reality,
Kindly address my post.
Does YOUR argument apply across the board or is it highly selective?
Jack, I take it you are against the killing of animals in order to feed us people, right? Would you have it be illegal?
My goodness why all the fuss from the proud abortion supporters??
You have been here for years supporting those that abort and not giving a flying funion about the babies or women that die in abortion.
Be Proud! Be Loud! PROABORTS UNITE!!!
You support a woman’s RIGHT to have her baby dismembered by an abortionist. THAT Is what you have been arguing here.
THAT is why you come here in the first place!! You have crowed about it forever and a day……proabortion. FOR abortion.
Stop whining.
Yes, Doug, but most of you remove the logic when it becomes the labels for our side. “Anti-choice” is silly because we’re not against all choices ever, or even most choice (some of us). One specific choice is in question when it comes to that one. But like I said I don’t care when y’all call me that, I actually think it’s funny that it’s intended to be pejorative. Why would I care if you called me anti-the choice to do something I abhor? Lol.
I actually rarely call pro-choicers pro-abortion though, btw. Mostly because I find this argument boring and unproductive. Call yourself pro-fairysprinklesandcupcakes or whatever, I don’t like arguing labels. I’ll argue the actual issue, that you’re approving of the killing of living human beings in utero.
“Jack, you think abortion should be illegal because you don’t find it morally neutral. Do you find the sale and consumption of meat products to be morally neutral?”
I actually think pro-abortion might be a poor label for the “personally pro-life” people. You couldn’t call me “pro-helpless animal murder” on meat products but you could call me pro-choice on them. But I would refer to those who dislike abortion but want it legal as “pro-legal abortion” and the ones who think it’s morally neutral or good as “pro-abortion”. Or I would if I actually cared about what you call yourselves lol.
Just don’t call yourself pro-life, because you ain’t! :D
Doug I would actually have killing animals for food be illegal if it were at all feasible and if 99.9% of the world weren’t against me, lol. I hope to get there one day but it probably won’t be in my life time. But I’ve heard they are starting to make artificial meat that seems like it has the same nutrients and taste as the real thing. If that takes off I’ll campaign on stopping animal murder so fast I’ll make your head spin.
Oh but lets talk about animal killing and any number of other things that have NOTHING to do with being proabortion.
And yes methinks you doth protest too much Reality and Doug.
Wahhhhhhhhhh. They call me proabortion and I don’t wike it. Cause I am really prokillingthefetus.
Mary: I would have no problem saying I am pro divorce. Especially when there is a very troubled or violent marriage.
Mary, I do not believe that you are “for divorce,” per se or on balance. When you bring in the troubled or violent marriage, then you’ve qualified it – and that makes perfect sense. There are plenty of pro-lifers who favor it being legal to have abortions in cases of rape and/or incest. They very likely do have a problem being deemed “pro-abortion.”
I will not insist on being called pro choice on divorce. Why? Because I have no issue with it at all.
Okay, but you are pro-choice there. It’s not like you want divorce over continuing marriage, just on its own.
In the perfect world all marriages are blissful and happy. In the real world they are not.
Yeah, of course.
Doug,
First of all I see nothing inherently wrong with divorce. I won’t go ballistic or consider it an insult if you say to me, “Mary, you support divorce”. I am also not pro staying married no matter what.
Now you can call that “pro-choice” on divorce. Call it what you want. The point is I could care less what you call it.
BTW Doug, as I have told you, pro abortion people called themselves that, pro abortion. It was “abortion reform”, not “choice reform”. It was “abortion on demand” not “choice on demand”. It was “we demand free abortion” not “we demand free choice”. It was “abortion is our right”. Not “choice is our right”. The trailblazers of what is now called ”choice” called it what it was. Why won’t you?
Jack: Doug I would actually have killing animals for food be illegal if it were at all feasible….
Well, you surprised me there, Jack. I do think you see the point though – were you not to the point of wanting it made illegal, that still in no way would mean you were actually “for it,” (eating animal meat), necessarily.
most of you remove the logic when it becomes the labels for our side. “Anti-choice” is silly because we’re not against all choices ever, or even most choice (some of us). One specific choice is in question when it comes to that one.
Jack, if there is silliness at work, it is in pretending that “all choices ever” apply, here, given that this is the abortion debate. C’mon, man…. ;) Everybody knows what choice we are talking about. Are you for it, or against it? You are against it. You, here, are anti-choice.
I don’t care about the “anti-choice” deal – I am fine with “Pro-life” and “Pro-choice.” Everybody understands what’s going on, nothing else needed. But if we are going to argue about it, you cannot truthfully say you are not against-the-legal-choice of abortion.
Well Mary, as I stated earlier, I am pro-choice regarding marriage equality but I’m not particularly pro-marriage. Have a straight marriage, have a gay marriage, have a faux marriage. Fine. I believe you should have the choice to do so. Me, I choose not to have a marriage of any sort. I find marriage pointless.
And I am pro-choice regarding church attendance but I can assure you I am not pro-church attendance. You wanna go to church, fine. Me, I’ve got better things to do. I find going to church pointless.
In both cases I support peoples right to do so but I do not support the activities. It may be different for you.
So when slavery was legal, one could have supported the right to enslave another human being, but not slavery itself? – some may have. I would like to think I wouldn’t have but then again I have no idea of what my place might have been in that era, that culture, those circumstances. How about you?
One could have supported the right to lynch a person, but not lynching itself? – when was lynching legal?
THAT is why you come here in the first place!! You have crowed about it forever and a day……proabortion. FOR abortion. – I support women being able to have a choice of all the available options. You aren’t. I’m pro-choice, you’re anti-choice.
First of all I see nothing inherently wrong with divorce. I won’t go ballistic or consider it an insult if you say to me, “Mary, you support divorce”. I am also not pro staying married no matter what. Now you can call that “pro-choice” on divorce. Call it what you want. The point is I could care less what you call it.
Mary, nothing there changes the fact that you are not “for divorce” on its own.
BTW Doug, as I have told you, pro abortion people called themselves that, pro abortion.
When abortion was illegal, it was a given that what was wanted was legal abortion, there. Did not mean that every such person would have an abortion themselves, nor did it mean that they were “for abortion” in an unqualified manner, any more than you are “for divorce” in an unqualified manner – without there being a situation that you think justifies it.
It was “abortion reform”, not “choice reform”.
Well of course not – they wanted abortion to be legal. Nothing more than that.
It was “abortion on demand” not “choice on demand”.
Being able to have a thing “on demand” *is* having the choice of it.
It was “we demand free abortion” not “we demand free choice”.
It’s the same thing – they wanted people to have the legal choice of abortion.
It was “abortion is our right”. Not “choice is our right”.
They *did* think that *that* choice was the right of women.
The trailblazers of what is now called ”choice” called it what it was. Why won’t you?
It is not the case that people now want abortion to go from almost entirely illegal to mostly legal, as it was back then. Things are not the same now as they were 40+ years ago. Back then, pro-legal-abortion or “pro-abortion” was being “for abortion being legal.” Now, being “pro-choice” is for women retaining the rights they have, here. If you can point to somebody who truly is “for abortion” in an unqualified manner, i.e. all other things being equal, then I’ll agree that they are “pro-abortion.”
Jack: I’ve heard they are starting to make artificial meat that seems like it has the same nutrients and taste as the real thing.
Ohmigod is this the “hotdog”?
Reality,
http://www.greatblacksinwax.org/Exhibits/lynching.htm
First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt tried to get her husband, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to give his moral authority to anti lynching legislation in the Democrat controlled congress. Much to her chagrin he would not.
Now, does your argument apply across the board? Do you agree that since slavery and lynching were legal, then one could oppose these acts yet support the enslavement and lynching of human beings?
Do you agree that since slavery and lynching were legal, then one could oppose these acts yet support the enslavement and lynching of human beings? – some might, I wouldn’t. That’s my choice. Yours too.
Why are you trying to tell me I can’t be pro-choice when it comes to the options available to women but not anti-choice regarding slavery? You’re pro-choice on divorce but anti-choice on womens reproductive choices.
Reality,
So your argument does not apply across the board. Its not always morally possible to oppose an activity yet support someone’s right to commit it.
Reality, I didn’t try to tell you anything.
I think that’s quite obvious Mary.
You on divorce.
Me on attending church.
Us on abortion.
Jack on eating meat.
Choice.
Mary, do you think FDR was really “for lynching”?
On slavery – there were plenty of people who were personally opposed to it, but did not simply want it made illegal. Thomas Jefferson was one – he was writing laws and pushing for laws that would make slavery illegal in some Territories, and that would make it illegal to import slaves to Virginia, in the 1770s and 1780s. He called slavery a “hideout blot” and “moral depravity,” etc. But he didn’t want the federal gov’t to just abolish it.
Doug,
I’m not going to get in a silly argument here. My point is I have no issue with divorce itself, in fact I wholeheartedly support it in many situations. Since I have no moral qualms about divorce, I won’t be offended or defensive if you say I support divorce instead of saying I support the choice to divorce.
Doug, my point is they called it what it was. They wanted abortion, they said so. They saw no need to call it anything other than what it was. It was not viewed as offensive to call these folks “pro abortion”. We had “abortion” shoved in our faces. They wore it like a badge of honor.
Reality,
Thank you, you have already addressed my question.
Doug,
No I don’t think FDR was pro lynching. Would it be more accurate to call him pro choice? Either way made no difference to those who endured the horror of lynching.
Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. He wasn’t really PC on slavery though since he wanted to deny others the “right” he enjoyed. Well, maybe he was PC on the issue since he didn’t want it outlawed altogether.
If you’re happy I’m happy Mary ;-)
“Pro Choice” is a product of conditioning-basically
straight from the play book of Saul Alinsky.Say one thing and really mean something else. The phrase has been used to achieve and maintain certain goals for 41 years now.In recent years it’s been called the “Culture of Death.” That’s hardly news to anyone in the Pro Life movement.
The chief deception driving the idea of “choice “is the errant belief that the human mind is the final judge of right and wrong.
Whatever one decides is okay-now get on with your life…
Legal abortion has never been about choice for it was forced upon the nation by a cowardly Supreme Court-7 justices who feared the power of the Rockefeller family.Abortion was the pet project of the family,and they heavily financed the work of Margaret Sanger.
What have 41 years of “choice” brought us?
We all know the numbers and many of us can talk about the pain and tragedy “choice” brought to our lives over the years.
Pro Choice crowd has little,if anything, to say about such matters.Instead they ignore the slaughter to support a “right” invented by cowards; a right found nowhere in our Constitution.
“I tremble for my country when I realize God is just…” – Thomas Jefferson
“I tremble for my country when I realize God is just…” – Thomas Jefferson – wasn’t abortion illegal back then?
Reality,
Yes it was. More importantly abortion remains illegal in the eyes of God.
Then how do you know what Jefferson was referring to? What he might have considered god may or may not deem ‘just’?
Just as well the US isn’t a theocracy.
Now.Now. You’re playing games with words here.
Jefferson’s statement stands on its own. The issue here is accountability before God.Perhaps you’re not familiar with that.
I’m going back to sleep
Jill,
Why would this journalist change her wording?
Why do we cave when we read their whining?
Why not stand your ground and call em as you see em?
It never worked with my toddlers it shouldn’t work with the proaborts.
I saw a sign at a rally that said PROUD FETUS KILLER.
And that is proabortion. PROFETUSKILLING!!!
And to you faithful proaborts that have spewed your lies here for years…..WHAT ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF?
Pro3500+killingofinnocenthumanbeingsviaabortiontoday
The biggest problem about “pro-choice” is that it refuses to finish its own statement. The “choice” is whether to let the child live or not.
Are you “pro-choosing to kill a child”? Then own it.
I am not. No one should have a “right to choose the death of another person.”
I have to agree with Carla and Del. Those who support “reproductive rights” are pro-abortion. Why do you work so hard to deny this?
And I am curious Reality. How is it that you find so much time to spend commenying on this blog? Seems counterproductive. You actually reinforce my pro-life views rather than make pro-abortion people more sympathetic. This discussion as a case in point.
“Thomas R: There is no difference whatsoever between pro-abortion and “abortion-rights advocate” in terms of meaning. ”
Doug, your objection to my statement is noted but consider the following:
– remove the words “abortion” and “abortion right” from my statement and lets examine the terms “pro” and “advocate.” Those two are identical in meaning, yes or no? So it is the same thing. I think that those that are gung-ho for abortion attempt to convolute a simple logical premise for a reason, but whatever..
pro-choice is a nice euphemism that allows the user to support abortion sans the label, pro-abortion BUT it carries the same meaning. No-one can dispute that…In my comment I stated that nowhere in that article the words “choice” appeared, rather it was replete with the word “abortion.” So discussing “choice” is a moot point truly. The student paper won hands down due to not derailing off their original message.
And your smoking examples are debatable as well. I have not yet met a smoker that wants smoking made illegal. One’s ideology is reflected in what they stand for.
Anti regulations
Anti safety
Anti licensed doctors only
Anti truth
Anti life
Anti child
And couldn’t ignore Carla harder if you held you hands over you ears, crying lalalalaicanthearyou!
I support a lot of choices, in terms of the abortion debate, the only choice I don’t support is abortion (I don’t oppose contraception or a woman choosing parenting or placing for adoption), therefore I’m anti-abortion, not anti-choice. Also this is where saying a person is anti-choice because they “don’t support women having access to all their legal options/choices” is disingenuous because it is purposely vague & does not define the terms it is referring to.
I have been a commenter here for over 7 1/2 years. And a moderator here for 6.
Doug has been here for longer than I have!!
And while you insist Doug on puffing up like a rooster and crowing, “I am prochoice!” It falls on deaf ears man. We KNOW what you do and do not support. You support the killing. You support a woman walking into a mill and paying for an abortion and you support the abortionist making his living by suctioning a living preborn human being from her womb!! YOU SUPPORT THAT!
And by stuttering…..”Well I, ahhhhhhh…ummmmm…ALSO support a woman having her baby!!” it hardly negates the FACT and the TRUTH that you SUPPORT those that pay someone to kill their growing child in utero.
CUT THE CRAP.
What it boils down to is being an “abortion-rights advocate” or “pro-choice” supports the act of abortion itself. Pro-aborts want to dance around that by crying about supporting the woman’s “choice,” but ultimately they support the woman in aborting her own developing child. That is both explicit and implicit in taking such a position.
A man who is “pro-choice” will not ask his girlfriend to carry the baby to term and seek adoption but will do everything to coerce her to abort. Its all a matter of a belief system and that translates into action.
I agree one hudred percent with Ladybug’s articulation of the meaning of “choice.”
I have to apologize for something.
Students for Life published an article with the photo of someone holding her sign at a rally. I thought it said PROUD FETUS KILLER.
The sign actually said PROUD FETUS SLAYER. I am sorry.
So profetusslayers UNITE!!
Carry on.
I’m late to the party, and I’ve been a very sparse commenter as of late, but… just for the moment:
Doug wrote, in reply to Lrning:
Okay, sure, but you are also anti-choice. The context here is the abortion debate – that is understood. It is also understood that you are against the legal choice of abortion.
So… you wouldn’t object to being called “anti-life”, since (in the context of the abortion debate), since it is understood that “pro-life” = “advocating for the right to life of the unborn child”, which you reject?
Lrnings point, I think (which is a very good one) is that each side has picked a title which is descriptive, but limited… and they were not designed to be used negatively (i.e. with the prefix “anti-” replacing the “pro-“). I really do think that “anti-choice” is just as silly as would be “anti-life”; don’t you agree?
For the record: I am absolutely (and I do not at all mind being characterised as) “anti-abortion”!
The issue here is accountability before God. – the problem Watchman, is that you can’t have any real knowledge of what Jefferson might have believed god would consider warrants his being just.
Perhaps you’re not familiar with that. – I’m familiar with the concept. That’s all it is to me.
How is it that you find so much time to spend commenting on this blog? – the joys of self-underemployment :-)
Seems counterproductive. You actually reinforce my pro-life views – my views get reinforced here too Sharon @ MLT. Someone needs to point out misinformation and errors for the benefit of those who may not have made up their mind. Like when it is claimed someone has been a victim of ‘pro-choice violence’ when such is not the case at all.
Yes. Please stay and point out all of the misinformation and errors.
Have them in Jill Stanek’s email ASAP!!! Let’s clear all of this up for the “benefit” of those that come here and might be proabortion and leaning toward prolife.
If you see abortion as a acceptable option for a pregnant woman, then you’re for abortion. Pro-aborts, say it loud, say it proud!
Mary: My point is I have no issue with divorce itself, in fact I wholeheartedly support it in many situations. Since I have no moral qualms about divorce, I won’t be offended or defensive if you say I support divorce instead of saying I support the choice to divorce.
Mary, “in many situations,” yes – and the same for me. There, you’ve qualified it, and that makes all the difference. No different than many ‘pro-lifers’ being okay with abortion in cases of rape and incest.
You support divorce being legal, but you still don’t want people to get divorced, per se (said in an unqualified manner like that.)
In addition, your own ‘druthers really do not impact the logical truth, here, well-stated by Reality: “supporting someone’s right to do something does not necessarily mean you support the activity itself.”
Mary: No I don’t think FDR was pro lynching. Would it be more accurate to call him pro choice?
I really doubt that. However, you said:
First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt tried to get her husband, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to give his moral authority to anti lynching legislation in the Democrat controlled congress. Much to her chagrin he would not.
So, I really don’t know what the deal was, there.
____
Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. He wasn’t really PC on slavery though since he wanted to deny others the “right” he enjoyed. Well, maybe he was PC on the issue since he didn’t want it outlawed altogether.
Yeah, Jefferson was contradictory on a good bit to do with slavery. I think he saw no good way out of it.
Reality: “I tremble for my country when I realize God is just…” – Thomas Jefferson – wasn’t abortion illegal back then?
Not totally sure where this is going, but abortion was not illegal before “quickening” under common law, i.e. at about 5 months gestation.
In addition, even when technically illegal by the “letter of the law” (if such a thing can be said to exist with common law), it was widely tolerated; a private thing between doctor and patient.
Hi Doug,
As I said I’m not going to get drawn into a back and forth on the divorce analogy.
Whatever FDR’s reasons, they made no difference as far as the the victims of lynching were concerned. Their torment and murder would continue.
I would think Jefferson was pro choice on slavery, but yes inconsistent and certainly hypocritical.
“Thomas R: There is no difference whatsoever between pro-abortion and “abortion-rights advocate” in terms of meaning. ”
Doug, your objection to my statement is noted but consider the following: – remove the words “abortion” and “abortion right” from my statement and lets examine the terms “pro” and “advocate.” Those two are identical in meaning, yes or no? So it is the same thing.
Well, TR, you’ve got a preposition and a noun going there, so no, I’m not gonna say “same thing.” I’ve had a couple Gin & Tonics, so bear with me. ; ) Anyway, by removing “rights” you are taking away the qualification that makes for the logical point here, that not wanting a thing to be illegal is *not* the same thing as advocating that thing. There are untold numbers of things that we would not willingly choose, but that we would also not want made illegal.
If you find somebody that truly “advocates abortion,” said just like that, *then* you’ve got somebody who is pro-abortion. And there are such people out there – I’d think that some hardcore worriers about the planet’s population (for one example) could well be in that group.
I think that those that are gung-ho for abortion attempt to convolute a simple logical premise for a reason, but whatever.. pro-choice is a nice euphemism that allows the user to support abortion sans the label, pro-abortion BUT it carries the same meaning. No-one can dispute that…
I can certainly dispute that – you lead off saying, “gung-ho for abortion,” and right there you are mischaracterising things.
In my comment I stated that nowhere in that article the words “choice” appeared, rather it was replete with the word “abortion.” So discussing “choice” is a moot point truly. The student paper won hands down due to not derailing off their original message.
Frankly, that is nonsensical. You’re saying they stuck with their logical fallacy all the way through, thus it gives it some type of “credibility.” Please…
And your smoking examples are debatable as well. I have not yet met a smoker that wants smoking made illegal. One’s ideology is reflected in what they stand for.
So what? What about non-smokers? Plenty of them don’t want smoking made illegal.
Paladin: Doug wrote, in reply to Lrning: “Okay, sure, but you are also anti-choice. The context here is the abortion debate – that is understood. It is also understood that you are against the legal choice of abortion.”
So… you wouldn’t object to being called “anti-life”, since (in the context of the abortion debate), since it is understood that “pro-life” = “advocating for the right to life of the unborn child”, which you reject?
No, I don’t reject that. “Pro-lfe” and “Pro-choice” are understood just fine, and are indeed applicable. I see nothing at all wrong with “Pro-life.” If I wanted all pregnancies to be ended, then “anti-life” would apply, but that is not the case.
______
Lrnings point, I think (which is a very good one) is that each side has picked a title which is descriptive, but limited… and they were not designed to be used negatively (i.e. with the prefix “anti-” replacing the “pro-”). I really do think that “anti-choice” is just as silly as would be “anti-life”; don’t you agree?
I think Lrning was being illogical. (And I’ve always liked Lrning.) “Anti-choice” is indeed applicable since they are “against the choice.” Period. Who can argue with that, really? *If* somebody is really “anti-life,” then fine, call them that, but in no way does that apply to pro-choicers, per se. Joe Blow comes in here and says he want all pregnancies ended/aborted, well then you got one.
If nobody wanted to have abortions, fine with me.
Mary: As I said I’m not going to get drawn into a back and forth on the divorce analogy.
Well, you brought it up. The logical facts remain.
______
Whatever FDR’s reasons, they made no difference as far as the the victims of lynching were concerned. Their torment and murder would continue.
Of course, and how does that matter? How does that reinforce or take away anything from the topic, here? There is no debate that the dead are dead, etc., but there seems to be a large portion of posters who wish to be illogical and maintain that not wanting something to be illegal is the same as desiring that thing, necessarily. And that is just plain not true.
______
I would think Jefferson was pro choice on slavery, but yes inconsistent and certainly hypocritical.
It’s a complicated thing, there. I cannot think that he was anything except “against slavery” from his writings, yet he certainly didn’t want the federal gov’t to ban it, then.
Doug,
I had gotten in a discussion with Reality on the legality of lynching when I brought up the FDR matter. You asked if I thought FDR was really for lynching and I addressed your question. That’s how this subject got going.
Sure sounds like Jefferson was pro choice on slavery then. He was supposedly against it though he owned slaves, yet didn’t want the gov’t to ban it. Sounds kind of like the arguments we hear from the PC crowd.
I’m not for abortion, but I want the right to have one and I don’t want the gov’t telling me I can’t.
You PC people are consistent, I’ll give you that.
I have been a commenter here for over 7 1/2 years. And a moderator here for 6.
Doug has been here for longer than I have!!
Carla, I’m not sure about that. I was on the America Online boards practically “forever,” (since 1996) and when they closed down, I came here. I think. Maybe there was overlap.
______
And while you insist Doug on puffing up like a rooster and crowing, “I am prochoice!” It falls on deaf ears man. We KNOW what you do and do not support. You support the killing. You support a woman walking into a mill and paying for an abortion and you support the abortionist making his living by suctioning a living preborn human being from her womb!! YOU SUPPORT THAT!
You’re gettin’ pretty shrill there, girl.
I do think you have a type of deafness – an insistence on hearing what you want to hear. I also don’t think that it’s really doing you any good.
Carla, I’ve always liked you. I know your story, and I do believe it. It may sound like “crap” to you, but I can feel your pain – it comes through in many of your posts. I haven’t directly replied to a lot of your posts lately because while I love to argue and debate, I do feel like I know you, and more than another set of replies/replies/replies, I would rather you had peace.
You shouldn’t have had the abortion. Based on all that I’ve seen, I don’t think there is any question about it. Best thing would be to go back in time and change history, but can’t do that, of course.
Every day, there are many implantations which fail, and many abortions where it’s by the woman’s wishes and she’ll be glad, on balance, forever. We can say that ” a human life ends,” there. With miscarrianges, it can be sad if the woman or couple wants to have a kid, but very often there’s no knowledge of it. And that does not really hurt us as a society. All those hundreds and thousands of occurrences, and the end result is less momentous than your pain, alone.
If we could change history for you, that would be good. And if we can prevent women from being coerced into having abortions against their will, and if we can prevent women who want to have abortions from being legally prevented from it, those too would be good things.
Care to address anything I said?
Own what you support. You are proabortion.
Mr. Fine With Me If Women Abort
Mr. Fine With Me If Women Don’t Abort
What’s illogical is fighting tooth and nail to support the legality of something you say you don’t support. The fact that the term “pro-abortion” causes an uproar among those that support the abortion choice is very telling. If no one is pro-abortion, why is it legal? Why is elective abortion the #1 cause of death in the US if no one is pro-abortion? The hypocrisy of supposedly being personally anti-abortion but politically pro-choice hurts and everyone wants to reject the term pro-abortion. Very telling.
because while I love to argue and debate
This is very telling as well. And what it is really about to some proaborts. Many of those who come here over and over love the arguing and debating and could care less about their fellow humans.
Praxedes, I do think the abortion debate is an important one, a “good” one in that it takes us down to the unprovable assumptions we all make.
As far as “caring about fellow humans,” many pro-lifers are “taking the side” of embryos and fetuses where there is no awareness, no will, no caring of any type, over pregnant women, and that’s really what I object to.
Every day, there are huge numbers of failed implantations. You can say that “human organisms” die, there, but in general we do not know about it, directly. Sometimes, nobody at all knows about it, not even the woman or couple involved. And the world goes on and we are just as fine as before.
I grant you it is “sad” for the woman/couple if they want to have kids, as an idea if we are considering them in their desire for children, or likely much more so if they know the pregnancy is fact and then it’s lost.
But when there’s no knowledge of it, or when they don’t want to have kids, or when by their own desire they are having an abortion, then that is not nearly as sad as a woman not being allowed to have an abortion when she wants one, or a woman being forced to have one against her will.
Lrning: What’s illogical is fighting tooth and nail to support the legality of something you say you don’t support.
Not at all. There are many things that you would not have made illegal, even though you don’t really “support” them yourself, though you would not choose them for yourself, where you would be fine if nobody chose them, I am sure.
The fact that the term “pro-abortion” causes an uproar among those that support the abortion choice is very telling.
Do you want to be called a “woman-slaver,” even though you do support their will being subverted to your own, in this case, many times? So much of the abortion debate is subjective, but here, with the terminology, a rational argument can be made. Again, as Reality said, “supporting someone’s right to do something does not necessarily mean you support the activity itself.” The logic of that is clearly apparent.
If no one is pro-abortion, why is it legal? Why is elective abortion the #1 cause of death in the US if no one is pro-abortion? The hypocrisy of supposedly being personally anti-abortion but politically pro-choice hurts and everyone wants to reject the term pro-abortion. Very telling.
You are mischaracterizing things there. Enormous numbers of things, an infinite variety of things, are legal, despite them not being popular as choices, perhaps even chosen by no one. The general way it works is that we begin with freedom, and unless the state has a compelling enough interest otherwise, we keep that freedom.
You say, “if no one is pro-abortion.” Well some people actually are, based on the desire to have the population go down, or at least for the increase to stop. And there are situations where the majority of people would be “pro-abortion.” There are also situations where many people who would be ‘pro-life’ in the mainstream would be more properly classified as ‘pro-choice.’ Situations where incest or rape is present. Situations where there is considerable danger to the woman, and/or where there is profound fetal deficiency.
In no way is it necessarily hypocritical to be pro-choice while one would not choose to have an abortion themself. I don’t smoke, and it would be a good thing in general if nobody did – but I don’t say that it should be illegal. I would prefer that people prevented unwanted pregnancies, versus having abortions. And if nobody wanted to have abortions, fine with me.
Carla: Own what you support. You are proabortion.
Carla, for whatever reason, you are determined to ignore logic, here.
“Supporting someone’s right to do something does not necessarily mean you support the activity itself.”
There are plenty of things where you don’t support the activity itself, but where you also would not have it made illegal.
Doug,
“Supporting someone’s right to do something does not necessarily mean you support the activity itself.”
So you would agree with Thomas Jefferson that one can oppose slavery, yet at the same time support slave ownership and oppose efforts by the gov’t to outlaw it.
Supporting someone’s right to do something does not necessarily mean you support the activity itself
Maybe Doug could start up some rape centers filled with brain-dead patients for those who want to rape (those patients have no will or awareness anyway). Give the rapists a nice, clean, regulated clinic.
For future reference, Doug, I’m not responding to you again. You already made the mistake of admitting how much you love to argue and debate.
“Supporting someone’s right to do something does not necessarily mean you support the activity itself.”
Mary: So you would agree with Thomas Jefferson that one can oppose slavery, yet at the same time support slave ownership and oppose efforts by the gov’t to outlaw it.
No, Mary, it is not the same thing. Jefferson was contradictory if we look at all his actions and writings about slavery. He was conflicted, but I do think he had a case to make about the gov’t outlawing it (at least in his opinion) – he was not saying that doing away with slavery was a bad thing, on its own – he was saying that some proposed gov’t actions would be a net negative; better to do it another way, or not at all.
To directly compare what you said, I don’t think it makes sense that one can oppose legal abortion, yet at the same time support legal abortion.
Praxedes: Maybe Doug could start up some rape centers filled with brain-dead patients for those who want to rape (those patients have no will or awareness anyway). Give the rapists a nice, clean, regulated clinic.
That’s nonsensical. I have no more desire for that than you do.
For future reference, Doug, I’m not responding to you again. You already made the mistake of admitting how much you love to argue and debate.
We all post here because we like it. Regardless of who we are or which side of the argument we’re on, if we didn’t like it, we wouldn’t do it.
You’re just taking your ball and going home.
Mary, can a conservative be against trolling but encourage a liberal’s right to troll?
Doug,
You’re really tripping all over yourself here. Let’s just call Jefferson what he was, pro choice on slavery. As you say, supporting one’s right to do something does not necessarily mean you support the activity itself. I think it makes perfect sense and applies across the board. You and I must respect the fact that no matter how abhorrent we find slavery, not everyone did, or does today.
Hi TS,
LOL. We have freedom of speech in this country so troll all you want!
“Not at all. There are many things that you would not have made illegal, even though you don’t really “support” them yourself, though you would not choose them for yourself, where you would be fine if nobody chose them, I am sure.”
This may be true. Would I fight tooth and nail to ensure that those things remain legal for the people that do wish to choose them? No. That’s the part you conveniently eliminated from your response. And it doesn’t ring true to me that anyone that advocates/fights/protests/lobbies for legal abortion is simply “pro-choice” and not pro-abortion.
Mary: You’re really tripping all over yourself here.
Heh. No I’m not, Mary.
Let’s just call Jefferson what he was, pro choice on slavery.
I don’t think he was. You read what he wrote, and the laws he proposed, and I don’t think you can rationally say he really was pro-choice, there. And this is with him having some slaves himself. By that alone, one could think he was not just pro-choice on slavery, but actually pro-slavery itself. Then by his writings, etc., one would think him anti-slavery. As stated before, he was conflicted about it. He was contradictory. He was both “pro-slavery” and “anti-slavery” depending on what one looks at. As for him thinking that it was okay for people to have slaves, as a matter of choice, I don’t think he was really that way. There, he was against it. In the 1770s he was trying to get the importation of African slaves made illegal, in Virginia.
Now then, there were other people who were pro-choice on slavery, who didn’t have slaves themselves but also did not want it outlawed.
As you say, supporting one’s right to do something does not necessarily mean you support the activity itself. I think it makes perfect sense and applies across the board.
Well good, although it doesn’t apply to Jefferson, here. It’s like he was both anti-slavery and pro-slavery (because in some situations he saw freeing a slave as worse for the slave than remaining un-freed). He freed a few slaves, and yet he also bought some – at times for more humane reasons like keeping families together, and at times just because he needed laborers.
You and I must respect the fact that no matter how abhorrent we find slavery, not everyone did, or does today.
Well sure, although I don’t see what bearing that has on the terminology. There were other things that Jefferson thought, as with laws that said a freed slave had to leave the state in which they were freed. Jefferson thought this was worse than the slave staying where he was.
“Not at all. There are many things that you would not have made illegal, even though you don’t really “support” them yourself, though you would not choose them for yourself, where you would be fine if nobody chose them, I am sure.”
Lrning: This may be true. Would I fight tooth and nail to ensure that those things remain legal for the people that do wish to choose them? No. That’s the part you conveniently eliminated from your response.
It’s not any necessary part of it. Vast numbers of people are pro-life, pro-choice, or even in a few cases, actually pro-abortion, and it does not matter if they are “fighting tooth and nail,” or if they’re fighting at all. It need be nothing more than their position, their opinion.
____
And it doesn’t ring true to me that anyone that advocates/fights/protests/lobbies for legal abortion is simply “pro-choice” and not pro-abortion.
As above, the degree to which they attempt to sway public opinion or affect laws makes no difference. They can still have the same opinion. “Pro-lifers” don’t have to have any certain level of activism, either, the same as for the other groups.
“I think things should stay the way they are right now.” = Pro-choice
“I devote an average of ten hours every day to trying to ensure that women retain the rights they currently have.” = Pro-choice.
“We need there to be more abortions than there are.” = Pro-abortion.
Well, Doug, thanks for defining what those terms mean to you. I disagree. According to my definition, anyone that acts as a clinic escort, works in the abortion industry, donates money to the abortion industry, protests at pro-life events, contacts their legislators to act against pro-life legislation, writes articles or uses their airtime to persuade others that abortion is a “right” that needs protecting, etc, etc, is pro-abortion.
Well, Doug, thanks for defining what those terms mean to you. I disagree.
Lrning, I don’t think it’s only that. “Supporting one’s right to do something does not necessarily mean you support the activity itself.” And, “One can have a given position without a certain level of activism being required.”
Can those be shown to be illogical?
____
According to my definition, anyone that acts as a clinic escort, works in the abortion industry, donates money to the abortion industry, protests at pro-life events, contacts their legislators to act against pro-life legislation, writes articles or uses their airtime to persuade others that abortion is a “right” that needs protecting, etc, etc, is pro-abortion.
Not going to totally disagree with you there. Some of them could well actually be “pro-abortion,” depending on what they think, and what their motivation is – if somebody’s work has them standing to benefit from “more abortions, per se,” then they may well feel that way. And they may not – right across the board, if they want the choice to end a pregnancy to remain legal, that may be all.
The clinic escort – if nobody wanted to have abortions, would they be sad? If yes, then I’d say that “pro-abortion” applies, for example.
Come on Doug,
Jefferson was no more conflicted on slavery than modern day abortion advocates are on abortion. He wanted the luxury and wealth slavery afforded, but knew there was something inherently wrong about it. Still he didn’t want it completely outlawed. It would seem that he enjoyed the “right” to choose to own a slave, but was, well, conflicted on the morality of slavery itself. In the meantime, not outlawing slavery only permitted this evil to persist so for the slaves of then, as for the unborn of today, whether or not one supports the activity itself or the “choice”, the end result remains the same.
Doug,
Any idea why abortion advocates claim they want abortion to be “rare”?
Maybe Jefferson was hoping slavery would become “rare” as well. Could that be the reason he supported the ban on importing African slaves to Virginia?
Doug, I don’t define pro-life or pro-abortion based on a person’s opinions or thoughts. I define those terms based on actions. If a person has never taken an action for or against abortion, I would not call them pro-life or pro-abortion. So when you say “supporting one’s right to do something does not mean you support the activity itself”, I call b.s. because apparently I am defining support differently than you are. Like I already stated, the illogical part is fighting tooth and nail to keep abortion legal all the while claiming not to be pro-abortion. The active support, the fighting tooth and nail, is everything to me. I don’t care about opinions people keep in the confines of their own brains and don’t use to inform their actions. When a politician (or anyone) claims to be pro-life, they better have some actions to back it up or I’m not buying it. And when a politician (or anyone) takes action to ensure that abortion remains legal or accessible, they are pro-abortion. IMO.
Hi again Doug.
I am not shrill. Do not call me girl.
Own what you support. Abortion. You support abortion. You are proabortion.
Good luck Mary and Lrning. I wish you well on the Doug Go Round.
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/09/25/11-things-pro-choicers-dont-get-about-abortion/
#1 from the above article
1) It’s not about choice; it’s about abortion.
I mean, really, what “choice” are we talking about here? The “choice” to what? We’re not debating the “choice” to keep your child and raise him yourself. We’re not arguing over adoption, either. The sole thing we have a difference on is abortion. That’s what we’re debating here. So let’s get real.
You’re either pro-abortion or you’re pro-life. If you support the “choice” to abort, then you are pro-abortion. And if you have a hard time with that, maybe you should reconsider your beliefs…
Sorry, again… work schedule isn’t letting up very much!
Doug wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
So… you wouldn’t object to being called “anti-life”, since (in the context of the abortion debate), since it is understood that “pro-life” = “advocating for the right to life of the unborn child”, which you reject?
[Doug]
No, I don’t reject that. “Pro-lfe” and “Pro-choice” are understood just fine, and are indeed applicable. I see nothing at all wrong with “Pro-life.” If I wanted all pregnancies to be ended, then “anti-life” would apply, but that is not the case.
That was my fault: I wrote that ambiguously (in a hurry)! Here’s more of what I meant to convey:
“So… you wouldn’t object to being called “anti-life”, since (in the context of the abortion debate), since it is understood that “pro-life” = “advocating for the right to life of the unborn child”–a worldview which you personally reject [i.e. with which you personally disagree, and do not subscribe]?”
In other words: you are not pro-life, in the canonical sense of the term within the abortion debate; but does it follow that you wouldn’t mind being called “anti-life”, on that basis? I wouldn’t expect so.
[Paladin]
Lrnings point, I think (which is a very good one) is that each side has picked a title which is descriptive, but limited… and they were not designed to be used negatively (i.e. with the prefix “anti-” replacing the “pro-”). I really do think that “anti-choice” is just as silly as would be “anti-life”; don’t you agree?
[Doug]
I think Lrning was being illogical. (And I’ve always liked Lrning.) “Anti-choice” is indeed applicable since they are “against the choice.” Period. Who can argue with that, really?
:) Well… anyone who uses logic, actually! (No offense meant!) There’s a vast difference between “anti-a-particular-choice” and “anti-choice-in-general” (which is what “anti-choice” can be expected to mean, if there are no qualifiers); the first certainly applies to any pro-lifer, while the second is a caricature whose absurdity can be seen by any reasonable person. (I, for instance, do not want to take away anyone’s choice of ice-cream, automobile, house or flat in which to live, etc.)
[Doug]
*If* somebody is really “anti-life,” then fine, call them that, but in no way does that apply to pro-choicers, per se. Joe Blow comes in here and says he want all pregnancies ended/aborted, well then you got one. If nobody wanted to have abortions, fine with me.
Yes, but… don’t you see that the label “anti-life” (without qualifiers) is misplaced [for those who support legal abortion] for the very same reason that “anti-choice” (without qualifiers) would be misplaced [for those who reject legal abortion]? Someone who is “anti-life”, without qualifiers, would be an utter nihilist who wanted every living thing to die! The occasional maniac (God protect us from him!) might have that proclivity… but to apply that to anyone else would be misplaced; just so, the occasional maniac (God protect us from him!) might want to deny every last human being every last possible choice (in a totalitarian’s dream-world), but to apply that to anyone else would be misplaced.
Doug: “So what? What about non-smokers? Plenty of them don’t want smoking made illegal.”
Your statement makes me wonder what non-smokers you talk to? HAHA…
Hey Doug: Obama praises CVS for pulling tobacco off shelves and ceasing the sale of tobacco products from October 2014. Fresh off the presses this morning. Obama, an ex-smoker on the verge of supporting the demise of tobacco!!! Your smoking analogies shot-out of the water!!! So methinks you made up that spiel about non-smokers supporting smokers. Please consider another argument to support ”legal” abortion :)
Mary: Jefferson was no more conflicted on slavery than modern day abortion advocates are on abortion. He wanted the luxury and wealth slavery afforded, but knew there was something inherently wrong about it. Still he didn’t want it completely outlawed. It would seem that he enjoyed the “right” to choose to own a slave, but was, well, conflicted on the morality of slavery itself.
Okay, so he really was conflicted, as I said. I don’t think there is any question of this, looking at all of what he did and wrote.
Mary: Any idea why abortion advocates claim they want abortion to be “rare”?
You are oversimplifying things, Mary. People that actually are “pro-abortion” would not want abortion to become more rare. When you find somebody that wants there to be more abortions, then you’ve got somebody that is pro-abortion.
Maybe Jefferson was hoping slavery would become “rare” as well. Could that be the reason he supported the ban on importing African slaves to Virginia?
I do think he was against it, basically. He couldn’t see any good, immediate way to get away from slavery, however, and thus he was not for an outright federal ban.
Lrning: Doug, I don’t define pro-life or pro-abortion based on a person’s opinions or thoughts. I define those terms based on actions. If a person has never taken an action for or against abortion, I would not call them pro-life or pro-abortion.
That is at odds with how most people are. Most people have their opinions, their position. If they take part in a poll, and describe themselves as supporting abortion being legal, or not, that right there makes them either pro-life or pro-choice, as the nation sees things.
____
So when you say “supporting one’s right to do something does not mean you support the activity itself”, I call b.s. because apparently I am defining support differently than you are. Like I already stated, the illogical part is fighting tooth and nail to keep abortion legal all the while claiming not to be pro-abortion.
You’re messing up on logic, right there, Lrning. Being for something being legal is not the same thing as actually wishing the thing would occur, necessarily, and somehow you are not realizing that.
____
The active support, the fighting tooth and nail, is everything to me. I don’t care about opinions people keep in the confines of their own brains and don’t use to inform their actions. When a politician (or anyone) claims to be pro-life, they better have some actions to back it up or I’m not buying it. And when a politician (or anyone) takes action to ensure that abortion remains legal or accessible, they are pro-abortion. IMO.
Well, most people don’t “fight tooth and nail,” either way. The degree to which a person is vociferous and active in supporting their position really does not change their position. However – even looking at it your way – if you have somebody who is fighting tooth and nail to increase the number of abortions, versus what we have now, then I’d say you have somebody who is actually “pro-abortion.” Moreover, they would likely not argue the point with you.
____
Carla: I am not shrill. Do not call me girl.
Carla, enough years have gone by that I can can call you “girl,” and you can call me “boy.” On the shrillness, I think some of your posts speak for themselves.
____
Own what you support. Abortion. You support abortion. You are proabortion.
You’re pretending things are other than they are. Supporting the choice of abortion being legal, and the choice of continuing pregnancies being legal, is being pro-choice. When you find somebody that wants people to have abortions, even contrary to their will, then you’ve got somebody who is actually “pro-abortion.”
____
I mean, really, what “choice” are we talking about here? The “choice” to what? We’re not debating the “choice” to keep your child and raise him yourself. We’re not arguing over adoption, either. The sole thing we have a difference on is abortion. That’s what we’re debating here. So let’s get real.
Getting real is not pretending that there is confusion about what choice is being debated. It is the legal choice to end a pregnancy. To have an abortion. It is also the legal choice to continue the pregnancy.
Not that it’s surprising to see something like this from Life News, but it’s beginning with a false premise. If somebody says that we are discussing some other choice than to continue or end a pregnancy per the wishes of the pregnant woman or the couple involved, then you should be arguing with them – and both pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike would see the silliness in their position.
[Paladin] So… you wouldn’t object to being called “anti-life”, since (in the context of the abortion debate), since it is understood that “pro-life” = “advocating for the right to life of the unborn child”, which you reject?
[Doug] ”No, I don’t reject that. “Pro-lfe” and “Pro-choice” are understood just fine, and are indeed applicable. I see nothing at all wrong with “Pro-life.” If I wanted all pregnancies to be ended, then “anti-life” would apply, but that is not the case.”
Paladin: That was my fault: I wrote that ambiguously (in a hurry)! Here’s more of what I meant to convey:
“So… you wouldn’t object to being called “anti-life”, since (in the context of the abortion debate), since it is understood that “pro-life” = “advocating for the right to life of the unborn child”–a worldview which you personally reject [i.e. with which you personally disagree, and do not subscribe]?”
In other words: you are not pro-life, in the canonical sense of the term within the abortion debate; but does it follow that you wouldn’t mind being called “anti-life”, on that basis? I wouldn’t expect so.
No, of course not (indeed, it does not follow) – because while being truly “anti-life” or “pro-abortion” does describe some people, at least in some situations, that is not the same as being pro-choice. Pro-lifers have their aims, to the exclusion of the legal choice of abortion, and if somebody is actually “pro-abortion,” again – to the exclusion of the legal choice of the woman (this time to continue the pregnancy), then obviously that is not the same as being pro-choice, which definitely is not excluding either choice.
____
Paladin: Lrnings point, I think (which is a very good one) is that each side has picked a title which is descriptive, but limited… and they were not designed to be used negatively (i.e. with the prefix “anti-” replacing the “pro-”). I really do think that “anti-choice” is just as silly as would be “anti-life”; don’t you agree?
[Doug] ”I think Lrning was being illogical. (And I’ve always liked Lrning.) “Anti-choice” is indeed applicable since they are “against the choice.” Period. Who can argue with that, really?”
Paladin: Well… anyone who uses logic, actually! (No offense meant!) There’s a vast difference between “anti-a-particular-choice” and “anti-choice-in-general” (which is what “anti-choice” can be expected to mean, if there are no qualifiers); the first certainly applies to any pro-lifer, while the second is a caricature whose absurdity can be seen by any reasonable person. (I, for instance, do not want to take away anyone’s choice of ice-cream, automobile, house or flat in which to live, etc.)
Once again, it’s not like there is confusion about what choice we are debating. Pretense to the contrary is false and silly.
____
[Doug] “*If* somebody is really “anti-life,” then fine, call them that, but in no way does that apply to pro-choicers, per se. Joe Blow comes in here and says he want all pregnancies ended/aborted, well then you got one. If nobody wanted to have abortions, fine with me.”
Paladin: Yes, but… don’t you see that the label “anti-life” (without qualifiers) is misplaced [for those who support legal abortion] for the very same reason that “anti-choice” (without qualifiers) would be misplaced [for those who reject legal abortion]?
Yet again, the context here is the abortion debate. If somebody wanted all pregnancies ended, then no argument that they would be “anti-life” here. If somebody is against the legal choice of abortion, then it’s obvious that they are “anti-choice” here.
____
Someone who is “anti-life”, without qualifiers, would be an utter nihilist who wanted every living thing to die!
Yes, of course. And here – on message boards such as this one – we have people who are anti-choice, the choice at hand being a given, and people who are pro-choice, same deal. To say “pro-life” is fine with me – again, it’s understood, even though that may in no way be any blanket pronouncement on the person’s position in regard to all life.
____
The occasional maniac (God protect us from him!) might have that proclivity… but to apply that to anyone else would be misplaced; just so, the occasional maniac (God protect us from him!) might want to deny every last human being every last possible choice (in a totalitarian’s dream-world), but to apply that to anyone else would be misplaced.
Well, you don’t see anybody applying it like that, here, do you?
Doug: “So what? What about non-smokers? Plenty of them don’t want smoking made illegal.”
Thomas R: Your statement makes me wonder what non-smokers you talk to? HAHA…
Why would that matter, or be funny? It’s just a given, Thomas. It applies to me, for one. It applies to many things for me, and for you too. There is a difference between choosing a thing for oneself, and wanting it to be mandated for everybody, i.e. obviously they are not necessarily the same thing. There is a difference between not choosing a thing for oneself, and wanting it to be made illegal for everybody.
____
Hey Doug: Obama praises CVS for pulling tobacco off shelves and ceasing the sale of tobacco products from October 2014. Fresh off the presses this morning. Obama, an ex-smoker on the verge of supporting the demise of tobacco!!!
Okay, so what?
____
Your smoking analogies shot-out of the water!!!
No, it is not. Do you seriously think that all non-smokers want smoking to be made illegal for everybody? I don’t think you do, but here are you, pursuing this silly line of thinking….
____
So methinks you made up that spiel about non-smokers supporting smokers.
No, I don’t think you actually believe that. It should be obvious to you that what I say is true, and here you are, seemingly acting as if that is not the case. Well, I think it *is* true to you.
____
Please consider another argument to support ”legal” abortion.
Sorry, Thomas, but that is absolute nonsense. None of this was about supporting legal abortion, but rather the logical falsehoods that some are engaging in, for the apparent sake of some sort of “name-calling” they find attractive.
Doug wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
There’s a vast difference between “anti-a-particular-choice” and “anti-choice-in-general” (which is what “anti-choice” can be expected to mean, if there are no qualifiers); the first certainly applies to any pro-lifer, while the second is a caricature whose absurdity can be seen by any reasonable person. (I, for instance, do not want to take away anyone’s choice of ice-cream, automobile, house or flat in which to live, etc.)
[Doug]
Once again, it’s not like there is confusion about what choice we are debating. Pretense to the contrary is false and silly.
Ah… so you WOULDN’T object to being called “anti-life”, since there is no confusion about the context (i.e. you’re anti-protecting the life of the unborn child who’s targeted for abortion)? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, you know; if you’re content to let the context permit a very restrictive (but non-canonical) term such as “anti-choice” (knowing that it’s limited to one narrow choice), you should have no problems with letting the context permit your new title of “anti-life”!
…or, alternately (and preferably), you could simply abandon this silly idea of calling people “anti-choice”, and stick to the canonical term “pro-life”.
(Frankly, I prefer the terms “abortion-tolerant” and/or “pro-legal-abortion” to describe your view, since they avoid these sorts of distractions.)
Doug: “Once again, it’s not like there is confusion about what choice we are debating. Pretense to the contrary is false and silly.”
Paladin: Ah… so you WOULDN’T object to being called “anti-life”, since there is no confusion about the context (i.e. you’re anti-protecting the life of the unborn child who’s targeted for abortion)?
You’ve qualified the context, there, Paladin, i.e. it’s a premise that the desire is to end the pregnancy. That really does not make me or anybody else “anti-life,” anymore than it does pro-lifers who support legal abortion in cases of rape, incest, etc. I’m really not “against the life,” per se (any more than are the pro-lifers, there).
____
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, you know;
Well sure; of course. But things have to be the same. I’m not for this lame playing-around where somebody pretends they don’t know what the debate is here. Also not for generalizing from the particular, or pretending that wanting a thing to be legal is necessarily the same thing as wanting that thing, per se.
____
if you’re content to let the context permit a very restrictive (but non-canonical) term such as “anti-choice” (knowing that it’s limited to one narrow choice), you should have no problems with letting the context permit your new title of “anti-life”!
No, because it is not the same thing. We know the context here, no matter what. But it’s not “no matter what” as far as the unborn life. There, pro-choicers are leaving it up to the pregnant woman or the couple that are involved. Now, *if* they were not, i.e. if they wanted an abortion to be had, per se, notwithstanding the wishes of the woman or couple, then “anti-life” and “pro-abortion” would definitely apply.
____
…or, alternately (and preferably), you could simply abandon this silly idea of calling people “anti-choice”, and stick to the canonical term “pro-life”. (Frankly, I prefer the terms “abortion-tolerant” and/or “pro-legal-abortion” to describe your view, since they avoid these sorts of distractions.)
I certainly hear you there, Paladin. I’ve said many times that I’m fine with “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” You don’t see me going with “anti-choice,” usually; it mainly comes up in arguments just as this thread features. My point about calling pro-lifers “woman-slavers” is in the same vein – things can be stretched well past logic and sensibility, but they certainly don’t have to be for the sake of the debate/argument here – it functions just as well, even better, without doing that.
Doug wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
Ah… so you WOULDN’T object to being called “anti-life”, since there is no confusion about the context (i.e. you’re anti-protecting the life of the unborn child who’s targeted for abortion)?
[Doug]
You’ve qualified the context, there, Paladin, i.e. it’s a premise that the desire is to end the pregnancy.
Right… but since “ending the pregnancy” by abortion includes the awkward business of ending the life of the unborn child (unless they happen to escape the intentional killing inflicted by the abortionist–e.g. Gianna Jessen, Melissa Ohden, and the other spectacularly blessed few), the intention to “abort” cannot possibly be separated from the intention to end the baby’s life. Thus: “anti-life” (of the unborn baby targetted for abortion).
Mind you, there’s another perfectly valid way to end a pregnancy: give birth to the child! Novel idea, I know…
[Doug]
That really does not make me or anybody else “anti-life,” anymore than it does pro-lifers who support legal abortion in cases of rape, incest, etc.
Would it surprise you to know that I agree with you, on this point? The extent to which anyone condones/tolerates a child’s intentional death (even as an “exception”) is the extent to which they are anti-life (of that child), yes?
[Doug]
I’m not for this lame playing-around where somebody pretends they don’t know what the debate is here.
My dear fellow, you’ve said that repeatedly… and I am amazed, every time. Surely you know that you stand indicted by your own complaint? Whenever you talk about “ending a pregnancy”, you’re obviously not talking about having the mother carry her child to term; you’re obviously talking about ending the life of the child… but you seem rather prone to use euphemisms which don’t mention the life of the child at all! That’s rather removed from the parameters of the discussion (simply for the sake of not talking about killing), isn’t it?
[Doug]
Also not for generalizing from the particular, or pretending that wanting a thing to be legal is necessarily the same thing as wanting that thing, per se.
That specific point is true; but consider that our society (at least for the time being) still takes a dim view of those who fight for a neighbour’s right to murder his flat-mate (even though murder might not suit his personal tastes at the present time). Those who nod in approval at the legality of killing one’s own children can safely be called “anti-life” in the restricted sense that we mean, here, even though the analogy isn’t 100% identical (nor does it need to be). Consent to a murder may not be quite as bad as an enthusiastic zeal for it, but it’s still a character flaw.
Paladin: Right… but since “ending the pregnancy” by abortion includes the awkward business of ending the life of the unborn child (unless they happen to escape the intentional killing inflicted by the abortionist–e.g. Gianna Jessen, Melissa Ohden, and the other spectacularly blessed few), the intention to “abort” cannot possibly be separated from the intention to end the baby’s life. Thus: “anti-life” (of the unborn baby targetted for abortion).
So what? That, yet again, is only part of the deal. Pro-choicers are for the whole deal, whether it is the woman choosing to end the pregnancy, or to continue it. *If* you want to look at things situation-by-situation, fine, but that’s no different from “pro-lifers” who are okay with abortion for rape, incest, etc. This is what I mean about generalizing from the particular – while many people make those exceptions, they are still “pro-life” in the mainstream, the same as “pro-choicers” are for the choice, either way.
____
“That really does not make me or anybody else “anti-life,” anymore than it does pro-lifers who support legal abortion in cases of rape, incest, etc.”
Paladin: Would it surprise you to know that I agree with you, on this point? The extent to which anyone condones/tolerates a child’s intentional death (even as an “exception”) is the extent to which they are anti-life (of that child), yes?
No, not surprised at all. Here, you are being logical, Paladin. : ) Your subjective choice of terms notwithstanding, here you are correctly identifying things on a situational basis.
____
“I’m not for this lame playing-around where somebody pretends they don’t know what the debate is here.”
My dear fellow, you’ve said that repeatedly… and I am amazed, every time. Surely you know that you stand indicted by your own complaint?
No. First of all, I take it that we are agreed that the discussion and the argument and debate here is whether abortion should be legal, and if legal, then when, eh? We are not for forcing the woman to have an abortion (also taking that for granted) and thus we are talking about when she can choose to have an abortion. Where things get lame and silly is when people bring up other, unrelated choices, things which are not applicable here, and then act like it somehow negates obvious truths about what is a given, here.
____
Whenever you talk about “ending a pregnancy”, you’re obviously not talking about having the mother carry her child to term; you’re obviously talking about ending the life of the child… but you seem rather prone to use euphemisms which don’t mention the life of the child at all! That’s rather removed from the parameters of the discussion (simply for the sake of not talking about killing), isn’t it?
Again, no – this is not anybody not knowing what occurs nor acting as if logical fallacies necessarily weigh on the debate in a positive manner, this is you mentioning your chosen, subjective terminology. In no way does that necessarily bear on the discussion, any more than somebody saying, “It’s not a child until….” does. Or, “it’s not a baby until…” does.
____
“Also not for generalizing from the particular, or pretending that wanting a thing to be legal is necessarily the same thing as wanting that thing, per se.”
That specific point is true; but consider that our society (at least for the time being) still takes a dim view of those who fight for a neighbour’s right to murder his flat-mate (even though murder might not suit his personal tastes at the present time).
Oh come on – who are “those” people that do that? This is one of those zany examples that really does not apply, especially in the real world. In the real world, many such killings are not going to be murder because they are justified by present factors. It’s not going to be “murder” in the first place. And really – the same for your hypothetical people which apparently want quite an energetic free-for-all in the flat – it would not be “fighting for a right to commit a crime,” it would be seeing the action as not criminal at the outset.
____
Those who nod in approval at the legality of killing one’s own children can safely be called “anti-life” in the restricted sense that we mean, here, even though the analogy isn’t 100% identical (nor does it need to be). Consent to a murder may not be quite as bad as an enthusiastic zeal for it, but it’s still a character flaw.
Confusion about what is ‘murder’ will get us nowhere. Neither does banking on subjective terminology. *If* we are clear on the “restricted senses,” then all fine and good, but to maintain that they say anything with general applicability, necessarily, is false.
Thomas R: Please consider another argument to support ”legal” abortion.
Doug: Sorry, Thomas, but that is absolute nonsense. None of this was about supporting legal abortion, but rather the logical falsehoods that some are engaging in, for the apparent sake of some sort of “name-calling” they find attractive.
Sorry Doug but was is absolute nonsense is your refusal to accept a simple logical premise that supporting “the choice” is ultimately about supporting “legal” abortion. I am surprised you continue to feed these falsehoods on this thread. All the twisting and play on words will not persuade anyone who knows anything about premises and logical conclusions. This is simple Logic 101 material Doug!!!!
Thomas R: Hey Doug: Obama praises CVS for pulling tobacco off shelves and ceasing the sale of tobacco products from October 2014. Fresh off the presses this morning. Obama, an ex-smoker on the verge of supporting the demise of tobacco!!! Your smoking analogies shot-out of the water!!! So methinks you made up that spiel about non-smokers supporting smokers. Please consider another argument to support ”legal” abortion.
Doug: “Sorry, Thomas, but that is absolute nonsense. None of this was about supporting legal abortion, but rather the logical falsehoods that some are engaging in, for the apparent sake of some sort of “name-calling” they find attractive.”
Thomas: Sorry Doug but was is absolute nonsense is your refusal to accept a simple logical premise that supporting “the choice” is ultimately about supporting “legal” abortion. I am surprised you continue to feed these falsehoods on this thread. All the twisting and play on words will not persuade anyone who knows anything about premises and logical conclusions. This is simple Logic 101 material Doug!!!!
:: chuckling… :: Yes, Thomas, on that we are agreed. Indeed – “the choice of legal abortion.” I never have argued otherwise, and in fact, that’s a point of debate, from my side.
However, that is not what we were talking about. Your thing about Obama really does not matter here – do you now see that? The principle of people not wanting a thing to be illegal, many times, while not choosing it for themselves or being “for it,” per se, stands.
To be clear – you and I were not arguing about “legal abortion.” We were arguing about what has occupied a good bit of this thread – the difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. You said:
So methinks you made up that spiel about non-smokers supporting smokers.
With all due respect, I think this is silly. There are *lots* of non-smokers who do not favor smoking being made illegal. Do you really dispute this?
And do you not see the overall point, here? That supporting one’s right to do something does not mean you support the activity itself.
Doug: “:: chuckling… :: Yes, Thomas, on that we are agreed. Indeed – “the choice of legal abortion.” I never have argued otherwise, and in fact, that’s a point of debate, from my side.”
And again, supporting someone’s choice of “legal” abortion equates to supporting abortion itself. It’s that simple Doug and the only issue is that you have taken the position of pro-aborts in terms of wanting to philosophically distance yourself from the act itself by convoluting the ultimate conclusion. I am chuckling about that indeed….
[Paladin]
Right… but since “ending the pregnancy” by abortion includes the awkward business of ending the life of the unborn child […], the intention to “abort” cannot possibly be separated from the intention to end the baby’s life. Thus: “anti-life” (of the unborn baby targetted for abortion).
[Doug]
So what?
“So what”!? Good heavens… that came across as rather callous, friend. But I’ll expand on that, below.
That, yet again, is only part of the deal. Pro-choicers are for the whole deal, whether it is the woman choosing to end the pregnancy, or to continue it.
Hm. Some are, I’ll grant you… though a disturbing number of such people become very agitated when “the other side” promotes the “choice” not to kill the child. But again: ”end the pregnancy” is painfully vague; why not say “end the life of the fetus” [fetus (L.) = “small boy/child”]? Why skid around the core issue on two wheels? Surely you don’t think that pro-lifers object to the abstract idea of “ending a pregnancy”? Mothers (who give birth to their children) do so, all the time! One might as well say, “I’ve ended my noisy neighbour problem” (by killing him, as opposed to moving to a new domicile, etc.). If context is so critical, then why not include the absolute core issue–i.e. the death of the child?
First of all, I take it that we are agreed that the discussion and the argument and debate here is whether abortion should be legal, and if legal, then when, eh? We are not for forcing the woman to have an abortion (also taking that for granted) and thus we are talking about when she can choose to have an abortion. Where things get lame and silly is when people bring up other, unrelated choices, things which are not applicable here, and then act like it somehow negates obvious truths about what is a given, here.
Well… I think you’re avoiding one of the key reasons why “one side” uses specific (and different) terms for “the other side”: there’s a common tendency to choose a label for one’s own side which will make it look best (or “least bad”), and for using a more pejorative label for their opponent (which usually differs from what they call themselves). Case in point: completely aside from concerns about accuracy (I’ll address that in a moment), you elect to call pro-lifers “anti-choice”, despite the fact that you admit “no problem” with the title “pro-life”. So… why not simply call us “pro-life”? The reason for many abortion-tolerant people using the term “anti-choice” seems to be that it is designed to make pro-lifers look bad (after all, doesn’t it sound horribly unfair to deny someone a free choice?). The fact that the context (of abortion) is “known” *is* important… but it isn’t the whole story; labels have rhetorical weight which influence many people on a primal, sub-cognitive level. When a person hears any phrase prefixed by “anti-“, there’s a natural tendency to react against it (especially if the word following the “anti-” is something which most people hold dear)… yes? If someone is in favour of abolishing marriage, he will most likely prefer a term prefixed with “pro-” (e.g. “pro-freedom”, “pro-free-love”, etc.) to describe himself, rather than “anti-family”, “anti-marriage”, etc. So I think we can agree (can we not?) that your choice of “anti-choice” is used specifically to make the pro-life position less attractive to listeners and bystanders.
Case in point: those who use the term “anti-choice”, and then affect amazement or perplexity when pro-lifers take offense (and say, “Why, what did I do? I’m only telling the truth! Does the truth hurt? Then maybe you need to change your position… ha, ha!”) are being either dishonest or dense, if you’ll forgive my saying so. The same sort of phenomenon would be in play for those who call abortion-tolerant people “pro-death”; it’d be accurate within a limited scope (i.e. it describes the true fact that abortion-tolerant people support the free practise of putting an unborn child to death at the will of the mother [or those who coerced her]), but it’s needlessly inflammatory, and it’s deceptive when all of its connotations/rhetorical implications are considered.
Again, no – this is not anybody not knowing what occurs nor acting as if logical fallacies necessarily weigh on the debate in a positive manner, this is you mentioning your chosen, subjective terminology.
Oh, come now! I realise that you champion (and you see) subjectivity at every turn (as an utter relativist), but the plain sense of the words is against you, here. ”Child” is the term used to describe the biological (or adoptive) offspring of a human being–yes? Aside from metaphor (e.g. an idea being a “brain-child” which is “conceived” by someone’s mind, or calling a man a “child” if he behaves without sufficient maturity), what other meaning do you think exists? If you’re going to make a fuss about alleged “artificial imposition or restriction of contexts”, then shouldn’t you hold your use of “child” to the same standard, no matter how inconvenient it is for your abortion-tolerant position?
[Paladin]
That specific point is true; but consider that our society (at least for the time being) still takes a dim view of those who fight for a neighbour’s right to murder his flat-mate (even though murder might not suit his personal tastes at the present time).
[Doug]
Oh come on – who are “those” people that do that?
My dear fellow: that was known as a “hypothetical”; it really *is* used in philosophical/logical circles from time to time, to make a point or situation easier to recognise.
This is one of those zany examples that really does not apply, especially in the real world.
No? First of all, you’re appealing to the gallery, here (i.e. it’s not at all necessary for a hypothetical to happen, or even to be likely, in order to analyse its moral implications; if I were to have the magical ability to cause others to burst into flames, I don’t actually need to wait for its “reality” in order to know, beforehand, that such an action would usually be immoral. Or do you disagree?). Secondly, this sort of “throwing up your hands at the absurdity” has been done before: in the case of those in the USA who scoffed at the idea of homosexuality becoming mainstream (and tolerated/celebrated in law), in the case of those who warned that abortions in the USA would number above 50,000,000 before the year 2014, in the case of those who couldn’t fathom legally-married inter-racial couples, etc.; it’s simply gas, proving nothing. What is “zany” today is quite often the reality (and the sacred “right”) of tomorrow.
In the real world, many such killings are not going to be murder because they are justified by present factors.
“Justified”… by your flat-mate snoring, or refusing to take out the garbage, and so on? For someone who complained about my alleged “moving the parameters of definitions”, you’ve certainly done a bang-up job of your own, here! When I used the term “murder”, I meant it specifically (i.e. not justifiable homicide, not self-defense, etc.), and you really didn’t have any call to rearrange it to your own liking. Correct?
[Paladin]
Those who nod in approval at the legality of killing one’s own children can safely be called “anti-life” in the restricted sense that we mean, here, even though the analogy isn’t 100% identical (nor does it need to be). Consent to a murder may not be quite as bad as an enthusiastic zeal for it, but it’s still a character flaw.
[Doug]
Confusion about what is ‘murder’ will get us nowhere.
There is no confusion, whatsoever… merely two opposing views which are rather clear (e.g. I hold that the deliberate killing of an unborn child is murder, morally speaking… even if foolish people do not recognise it in law; you hold that the deliberate killing of an unborn child is a moral option [and should be a legally free option] for a mother).
Neither does banking on subjective terminology.
(!) My dear chap! That is quite possibly the most self-sealing and (forgive me) vacuous thing you have uttered, to date! You are an utter relativist, and you regard ALL such terminology as “subjective”… so your indictment really lacks weight, I think, since every last objection to your position can be safely (however illogically) labelled as “subjective, and therefore not a relevant concern”! (Can you imagine a single objection to your position for which you could *not* do so?)