Why no argument for abortion has ever worked.

[Lexicus]

Honestly, yes. I'm hoping harsher language sways your binary views, where you get to paint your political opponents as mindless or latently hypocritical and thus mostly deserving of your superior contempt.

Well you're gonna be damn disappointed then. Because on this issue the mindless hypocrisy so obvious that no amount of internet sophistry is going to dissuade me from pointing it out.

An average Republican voter is not, in any way, 'pro-death' when it comes to the discussion that the abortion debate is held. One can believe that the welfare state inherently holds people down rather easily, since oodles of welfare policies clearly do so. On can believe that certain types of force can only be countered with force very easily. None of these are 'pro-death', inherently, they're a different opinion on the best way forwards at those levels of policy.

Nonsense. The average Republican voter is pro-death in a large variety of ways.
Just rattling off a few of the most obvious:
Republican voters are overwhelmingly pro-war, the most unambiguous way in which they're pro-death.

Republican voters are mostly in favor of capital punishment, another way in which they're unambiguously pro-death.

Republican voters believe that millions of Americans should not have access to health care if they can't afford it.

Republican voters believe that the federal budget should be balanced at all costs, even when those costs include unemployment and poverty (this leads indirectly to death via a large number of mechanisms).

Republican voters are generally in favor of removing the safety net completely, and many I've talked to are quite open in their belief that if you can't afford food you deserve to starve to death.

Republican voters are in favor of scrapping environmental regulations and making it easier for corporations to kill people without legal ramifications.

Republican voters are in favor of reducing labor protections and union power, which causes workers to be much more likely to be killed on the job.

Republican voters want to make abortion illegal, which leads to women and unborn children dying in back-alley botched abortions.

Republican voters apparently now support a Presidential candidate who openly promises to commit war crimes and to kill the families of people who fight against US interests abroad.

Republican voters support draconian immigration laws that cause people to die while attempting to enter the US.

But to paint the pro-life movement as inherently hypocritical is a total waste of your time if you're trying to have a discussion. Great for whipping up partisan anger though, I guess.

Well again, that depends on what we mean by 'pro-life movement.' I explicitly restricted it to the organized political component in my last post.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Nope. Just the opposite. There's a compelling public interest in stopping global population growth.

There is more than one public interest. While there may be one for stopping global population growth, there is an at least as important public interest in increasing the number of younger workers to support aging populations in developed countries. These developed countries generally don't have much problem feeding their population, so population growth isn't as large a concern for them anyways.

Did I say that ALL pro-lifers only care about the fetus before it's born? No, I did not.

Yes, I'm aware that there are Christians and their churches that do charitable works. Well, guess what: They don't have the monopoly on doing charitable works. There are plenty of people of a variety of faiths - and no faiths - who do charitable works. However, the only ones I've ever heard of who obnoxiously wave signs in women's faces and harass them if they're entering or exiting a women's health clinic are those who self-identify as Christians.

The pro-choice side has been using the argument that pro-lifers don't care about you after you're born to dismiss the entire pro-life side for quite some time. The fact remains that very significant portions of the pro-life crowd care very deeply about life from beginning to end.

Who does more charitable works is completely irrelevant. Who harasses women going to get abortions is really irrelevant as well to the point I'm making...and yes, it happens - of course it does. There are plenty of pro-lifers who go way too far...but the vast majority of pro-lifers go about their business without waving a picture of an aborted fetus in your face.

Do not sit there and tell me that there aren't any Christian pro-lifers out there who really don't care about the welfare of the baby, once it's born and has legal standing as a person. They put the blame on the mother, if she's not able to provide an adequate life for herself and the child, and often blame her for getting pregnant in the first place.

Did I say that? How about actually reading my post...

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Politeness. Sensitivity towards your fellow posters. Avoiding tedious side-arguments like this one.

You've got options.

I've not been IMpolite, I've just used a term that others don't like or don't agree with for ideological reasons (despite it being objectively quite descriptive) and repeatedly stated why I think it's applicable because I've been repeatedly challenged on it.

If avoiding tedious side-arguments is the issue then the fault lies just as much with the people repeatedly challenging my use of language. It takes two (or more) to have a tedious side-argument.

Sensitivity... I thought I was talking to adults, not delicate petals who can't handle dissenting opinions.

 

[Lexicus]

I've not been IMpolite, I've just used a term that others don't like or don't agree with for ideological reasons (despite it being objectively quite descriptive)

As I have already explained to you, it is not remotely "objectively descriptive."

 

[Manfred Belheim]

This is a neat observation, and I think I'll disagree a bit. I mean, obviously I agree that the terms are kind of intended to be manipulative. But past that.

It's neat that they're not opposites. Culturally, we view the pro-life and pro-choice sides on 'opposite' sides of the discussion ... but they're not. Not really. They just have different weightings of priorities, and those different weightings cause different outcomes.

The prolife side is actually pro-life. Way, way more than they're 'anti-choice'. Sure, some are anti-choice, but they're not the lion's share. And the pro-choice side is just that. It's not like they're 'anti-life'. Only a small portion of us are 'pro-abortion' in any meaningful sense.

The two discussions are each on a different axis. Different vectors.

Well, I 100% agree with you, so if you disagree with me that can only mean I didn't express my thought very well.

Yes the topic is complicated and involves lots of competing issues, some good some bad. And yes, anyone reasonable will recognise that there are pros and cons and that their stance comes as a result of weighing these against each other and choosing the best option on balance.

The problem is that the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life" identify ONLY the pros (or the main pro) that each side sees as being the most important issue and completely ignores the cons (that they most likely do acknowledge). This then (possibly) leads to the kind of nonsense we see in threads like this where "pro-choice" proponents describe their opposition as if their sole motivation is to deny choice to women out of some inherent misogyny, without acknowledging WHY they think this particular choice should be denied. Likewise you'll see "pro-life" proponents describe their opposition as if their sole motivation is to kill babies/foetuses/embryos because they have no humanity.

Both "arguments" are equally vacuous and if it seems I rail against one more than the other then it's because I seem to see more (or more egregious) examples of it.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

As I have already explained to you, it is not remotely "objectively descriptive."

Yes, you have explained your opinion and I am aware of what it is.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I tend not to enjoy the more villifying portions of the debate. I find it to be a very important one, and I made fetal sentience a priority in my neuroscience studies as a result. But, I can't figure out how to so easily divide the camps. I'm not technically pro-choice, since I will consider regulations regarding late-term abortions, and balance them against practical considerations and this is certainly not something within my authority according to pro-choice precepts.

I find the pro-life stance mystifying, but only because I don't hold the fetus as morally important. I understand that others do, but cannot wrap my head around why. Different paradigms. That said, given their axioms, I can understand their concerns. If one conflates babies with fetuses, then the moral calculus certainly changes.

 

[tetley]

I have had pro-lifers freely admit they are anti-choice. And a few more who freely admit they are anti-choice on the condition that pro-choicers admit they are pro-murder (their words, not mine).

 

[Lexicus]

Pro-life and pro-choice are just political buzzwords. They don't capture the reality of the situation very well at all, but pro-choice is certainly a better label than "pro-abortion" and "anti-choice" is better than "pro-life" at least as regards the majority of "pro-life" people in the US.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'd avoid "anti-choice" for the same reason I'd avoid "pro-abortion", to be honest. You can't ask people to respect your reservations around certain terms if you're not willing to return the favour.

"Pro-life", I agree, is a ridiculous term, equal parts dishonest and absurdly self-lionising, and I think it's reasonable to refuse to use that term. But "anti-abortion" is perfectly serviceable alternative that doesn't have the emotional baggage of "anti-choice".

At the end of the day, however wrong we think anti-abortion advocates are, however hysterically, toweringly, insultingly misguided we think they are, they're not Nazis, and the barest degree of civility is merited.

I'm not technically pro-choice, since I will consider regulations regarding late-term abortions, and balance them against practical considerations and this is certainly not something within my authority according to pro-choice precepts.

Eh? Almost every pro-choice advocate I've encountered is willing to accept restrictions on late term abortions, and the exceptions are just that, the exceptions.

 

[Lexicus]

Well I'm fine with using pro-life and pro-choice, because everyone knows what they mean.

My point is that (obviously) both are propaganda terms, nothing more or less.

they're not Nazis,

No, but I genuinely believe that the Republicans are about as dangerous as Nazis. I don't think the Republican Party has anything positive to offer. And it's not just because of Trump - I have thought this way since the early days of the Bush administration.

 

[tetley]

Unfortunately, in this Information war we live in, Republicans are not the same as the Republican Party (particularly, the GOP). So-called "neo" conservatism hijacked the Republican party a couple administrations ago, and many less-than-discerning Republicans went along with it thinking that is what they were supposed to believe. Despite the words "conservatism" and "neo-conservatism" being close to one another, they are nothing alike. That was not by accident.

 

[El_Machinae]

Eh? Almost every pro-choice advocate I've encountered is willing to accept restrictions on late term abortions, and the exceptions are just that, the exceptions.

How is that 'pro-choice', then?

 

[Traitorfish]

How is that 'pro-choice', then?

Well, do you think that opposing infanticide should also disqualify a person from the identified "pro-choice"?

Everyone draws a line somewhere, no self-evident reason that "pro-choice" should mean drawing it at the moment of childbirth.

 

[El_Machinae]

Everyone draws a line somewhere, no self-evident reason that "pro-choice" should mean drawing it at the moment of childbirth.

How is 'certain choices are forbidden' within the Venn circle of 'pro-choice'?

What does 'pro-choice' mean, other than the woman gets to choose whether she has an abortion or not? Does it cease to be solely her body at any point before childbirth?

 

[Lexicus]

How is 'certain choices are forbidden' within the Venn circle of 'pro-choice'?

Because very few (to my knowledge, zero) people actually calling themselves pro-choice would support unrestricted late-term abortion.

This is what I mean about grounding our terms in reality rather than pointless logic-chopping. Pro-choice is a meaningless term when used the way you're implying it should be used. Well, not meaningless but it doesn't mean anything that actually exists in reality.

 

[El_Machinae]

Because very few (to my knowledge, zero) people actually calling themselves pro-choice would support unrestricted late-term abortion.

I get that lots of people who call themselves pro-choice don't actually support late-term abortions. Lots do, though. And a LOT of the dialogue on the pro-choice side doesn't seem to have a natural exemption for the late fetus.

So, when someone says "that's a decision between the mother and the doctor", it's not really what they mean? It's more "that's a decision between the mother, doctor, and me"?

 

[Lexicus]

Lots do, though.

What is your evidence for that?

 

[El_Machinae]

Anecdotal conversations with activists. I'd honestly say I'd call it the 'true' pro-choice position, much like I consider the 'true' Christian position to be one who follows the golden rule. Calling someone pro-choice when they're pro-restriction seems ... counter-intuitive.

 

[Traitorfish]

How is 'certain choices are forbidden' within the Venn circle of 'pro-choice'?

What does 'pro-choice' mean, other than the woman gets to choose whether she has an abortion or not? Does it cease to be solely her body at any point before childbirth?

Well, speaking for myself, the distinction I'd make is that it's no longer just her body. Before a certain point, the foetus is a non-person, so it's purely an issue of the mother's choice to continue or terminate the pregnancy. It's not that a woman always has absolute sovereignty over her body, but that for most of a pregnancy, her sovereignty is the only morally significant factor. By the third trimester, things are less simple.

After all, there's no strong biological distinction between a baby the day before and the day after birth, and we'd hardly see drop-kicking an unwanted newborn off the roof of the hospital as a logical extension of a pro-choice politics, so it doesn't follow that a pro-choice politics dictates unconditional access to abortion up until the exact point of birth.