Pro-life or Pro-choice
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
Pro-life or Pro-choice
Even if Roe v Wade was reversed tomorrow, there is no way that "THE STATE" can force a woman to have a full term pregnancy against he will!
International studies have shown that government legislation has little to do with the abortion rate!
With the high costs of health insurance and having a baby, coupled with unforeseen medical complications and the current uncertainty about the state of healthcare in America, all contribute to the misgivings young women will experience about having a child in America!
Last edited:
Being against universal or single-payer healthcare does not correspond with being pro-life.
You mean they aren't necessarily pro life as you define it.
Certainly anti the choice to end life and therefore pro birth.
I'm also for forcing people who are swinging an ax at your head to stop doing that. Or, for forcing them to let go of the ax before they hurt someone. You, for instance.
Rather, they largely are. They are for abortions where the woman desires it, to one extent or another.
Nah. No one has to be for a woman's right to have a baby, so there's only one choice they're really supporting.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
right - the choice to murder an innocent child
you'd think everybody would be against that, wouldn't you?
WizardofOz
New member
[MENTION=10712]The Horn[/MENTION] is an idiot - something even [MENTION=7640]Town Heretic[/MENTION] and [MENTION=17501]ok doser[/MENTION] can agree on 
:cheers:
:cheers:
WizardofOz
New member
:chuckle: We are all painfully aware...
I only speak for myself in saying I have always referred to myself as ANTI-abortion due to my stance on the DP.
There is no such think as ANTI-choice because the word *choice* indicates an action that has no great bearing. Choosing to kill your child is not a valid choice. It's a decision to end their life.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I am PRO-birth of innocent unborn babies.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I am FORCED birth as opposed to the allowance of FORCED killing of an unborn baby. IF a woman is incapable or unwilling to take care of her child, she has the option of allowing the father to raise him/her (if they are willing/capable/fit) OR giving the child up for adoption.
Of course they are pro-abortion. You wish to keep it legal AND you promote it as a valid option. THAT is pro-abortion. It makes no sense that you are an advocate FOR abortion, but opposed to being labeled as such ... if you really feel it is not a big deal.
glassjester
Well-known member
Yep, you said it. That is pro-abortion.
If an individual thinks that any man has power over life and death then he is blind.
"I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death".
gcthomas
New member
The whole thrust of the OP is that there are only two positions on abortion, pro- or anti-abortion. The whole middle range of opinions is missing.
At one end is someone who encourages abortion, who is more for abortion that someone who considers it something to be avoided but not at all costs.
At the other end is the person who is against all abortions under all circumstances, even if the lack of emergency abortion will kill both mother and baby, which is different to someone who is against voluntary abortions but accepts the need for some life saving or other emergency abortions. And there a many nuanced positions between all these.
So why not have more than the extreme ends represented in the categorisation? If you are anti-abortion, then you would surely want people to move from the extreme end of the pro-abortion scale and move to the 'only in emergencies' position, but the need to make this black and white prevents you from accepting this as a change in position.
Whether you are pro- or anti-, you can make the world a better place in your opinion by recognising the value of the middle positions over the disliked extreme.
At one end is someone who encourages abortion, who is more for abortion that someone who considers it something to be avoided but not at all costs.
At the other end is the person who is against all abortions under all circumstances, even if the lack of emergency abortion will kill both mother and baby, which is different to someone who is against voluntary abortions but accepts the need for some life saving or other emergency abortions. And there a many nuanced positions between all these.
So why not have more than the extreme ends represented in the categorisation? If you are anti-abortion, then you would surely want people to move from the extreme end of the pro-abortion scale and move to the 'only in emergencies' position, but the need to make this black and white prevents you from accepting this as a change in position.
Whether you are pro- or anti-, you can make the world a better place in your opinion by recognising the value of the middle positions over the disliked extreme.
glassjester
Well-known member
Yes - it's possible for our country to become more pro-life (as opposed to absolutely pro-life). No one expects a sudden ban on all abortions.
On the other hand, I don't see how pro-abortion people could gain any more ground. They've already won legal abortion, on-demand for any (or no) reason, whatsoever. What would be next? Fourth trimester abortions?
I guess maybe euthanasia is the next logical push for abortion lovers.
gcthomas
New member
Just there — you are turning the topic all black and white on me again. I suspect that there are very few abortion lovers, but it suits you to class all infavour of legal abortions as being at the extreme end regardless of the nuances of opinion that people hold.
There is much to be lost for the anti-abortion folks by refusing to recognise that there is some middle ground that might be better than one of the extremes.
WizardofOz
New member
The middle ground is pro-choice. Why would the varying degrees of choices matter to anyone who is pro-life? That's the point of the OP.
gcthomas
New member
Because valuing someone's change of opinion from "all abortions ok" to "only for medical reasons" would save, in your terms, lots of lives. Why allow the pursuit of abolishment to stop you achieving reductions?
In other words, the 'continuum' view allows for 'better' versions of pro-abortion to replace 'worse' versions, whereas the 'excluded middle' version prevents piecewise movements on the issue, forcing people into the extreme position.
glassjester
Well-known member
Anyone that believes abortion must remain legal, is an abortion lover. They see it as the highest good - a right to be protected, equal to the right to life (the life of a born person, of course). If you see abortion as a fundamental human right, it's accurate to say you love abortion.
glassjester
Well-known member
Yes, that's right.
Why would the pursuit of abolition preclude reduction?
gcthomas
New member
I don't like abortion, and would not procure one, so I see it as a necessary if distasteful procedure for certain circumstances. That is not 'abortion loving' in any sense of the term, so you are severely mistaken.
Because if you keep falsely classifying people like me in the middle as being your tribal opposition, then you inflate the size of that opposition. Without any encouragement to take a middle road position, people will stick with their extreme ones. No-one will move from one end to the other in one go, so you need to recognise small softenings of position.
But how can you encourage a softening of someone's abortion position if even after a change you still name them 'abortion lovers'? What sort of encouragement is that? You need people closer to your side if you are to change the laws, and you are disincentivising the very changes you need.