Pro-life? or anti-abortion?

[spectrumc01]

And that's my question to you. If we are going to worry about semantics, then perhaps we should use "pro-abortion and anti-abortion" or "pro-life and -anti-life?" Is that your point?

It's not really semantics. If your name is Sue and people called you Jane would you get upset? a name is a name right? If Bob sent me to get Jane from room A and I came back with no one does Bob have the right to get mad at me? No because there is no Jane, only Sue. What people call themselves only matters if it is accurate, if it's not we call them liars, and liars can't be trusted, thats my point. We should think about what we claim to be before we claim it.

 

[Immanuel]

I happen to be pro-choice sky (with reasonable restrictions). I just think the OP was being hypocritical. And yes - there are pro-abortion folks. They are just ashamed to admit it. Wonder why.

I agree. I think the 'pro-life' crowd should just call themselves what they are, anti-abortion, pro-FETAL life only.

There are some who would call you and I who are pro-choice, pro-abortion. That's wrong.

Yet you are more than happy to apply negative labels to the other group, but you stand by your statement that you are, in fact, pro-choice. However, Pro-choice in this case only means one thing... the choice to take a life. When liberals are asked about many other choices, such as the choice to transfer one's wealth to one's children upon death, that choice is squelched by liberals. The choice to teach abstinence only (which I do not support) is squelched by "pro-choice" people who just happen to claim that abstinence doesn't work... when, in fact, abstinence is the only thing that truly does work. There are so many choices that people who claim to be "pro-choice" do not support that this discussion is actually laughable.

No one is for all choices. So, if you are going to demand that the pro-life movement be accurate in labeling itself, you ought to be accurate in your own as well.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

It is funny how labels tend to be mis-applied isn't it?

If the Pro-choice movement had not been so successful in making "anti-choice" or "anti-abortion" sound like such a horrific point of view, the pro-life movement would not have been forced to seek a more appropriate label for themselves. BTW the same can be said for the pro-choice crowd. They had to find a label for themselves that did not carry the negative connotations of pro-abortion.

As for me, I am proud to call myself pro-life whether or not you think the term applies. I am not so opposed to the death penalty that I will fight it tooth and nail. Some killers, i.e. Charles Manson, deserve the death penalty. That does not mean that I want them to die, but even God has sanctioned the death penalty even for things less damning than being a serial murderer.

I would starve if I had to be a vegetarian.

As for the war in Iraq, I supported only the capture of Saddam Hussein; nothing beyond that.

By your definition, no one fits the pure "pro-life" description. But then no one fits the pure pro-choice description either. The so-called pro-choice movement is for one choice and one choice only. Ask them to promote adoption and many of them will balk and claim adoption is too hard on a woman. Ask them to promote the choice of abstinence and an awful lot of them will condemn you to hell.

Pro-life, pro-choice... it is all in the label.
Immie

No, it's not. Pro-choice means you are not in favor of re-criminalizing abortion and you support women having safe and effective contraception. It has nothing to do with being anti-abortion. I am anti-abortion and pro-choice. While I may morally agree with abortion being wrong, I do not identify with the anti-abortion, pro-fetal life fanatics. I find their movement aversive. So many of them are anti-contraception except for abstinence. That's ridiculous to think ALL people, regardless of moral compass will take up THEIR morality, especially when they are so mean in calling these women murderers.

The anti-abortion, pro-fetal life moralists are against anyone having sex unless they plan to have babies.

It's interesting that you are ok with the death penalty and war.

 

[Immanuel]

Abortion is legal. That said, I'm pro contraception. One ought to ask the question why those who oppose abortion oppose educating anyone capable of conception on the ways and means of preventing pregnancy? While doing that maybe the ways and means of preventing STD's?

In the anti-abortion movement training manual I provided, those folks are NOT PRO-CONTRACEPTION. They are abstinence only folks.

Which are just more labels you throw around.

Immie

 

[AllieBaba]

I happen to be pro-choice sky (with reasonable restrictions). I just think the OP was being hypocritical. And yes - there are pro-abortion folks. They are just ashamed to admit it. Wonder why.

Asking people to call themselves by the correct name is hypocritical how?

So when black people refer to themselves as *black* is that the *correct* name in your book? Because after all, they aren't truly crayola black...

We use branding, catch phrases and standardized terms to identify concepts. Kentucky Fried Chicken is misleading as well...the chicken in Oregon is not fried in Kentucky. Likewise, according to every single source I've hit, Pro-Life is a very specific reference to a specific set of beliefs. We all know how the dead baby crowd like to dictate to others what meanings they may attribute to certain phrases and words (think *marriage*).

But this thread starts with a false premise, and your own ignorance of what the term Pro-Life means is not sufficient reason for the movement to rename itself.

I'll standby for more Sky weirdness. This is where she will wig out with some proposal to punish or silence those who don't agree with her. It's always something interesting...maybe she'll suggest interment camps this time.

 

[Immanuel]

It is funny how labels tend to be mis-applied isn't it?

If the Pro-choice movement had not been so successful in making "anti-choice" or "anti-abortion" sound like such a horrific point of view, the pro-life movement would not have been forced to seek a more appropriate label for themselves. BTW the same can be said for the pro-choice crowd. They had to find a label for themselves that did not carry the negative connotations of pro-abortion.

As for me, I am proud to call myself pro-life whether or not you think the term applies. I am not so opposed to the death penalty that I will fight it tooth and nail. Some killers, i.e. Charles Manson, deserve the death penalty. That does not mean that I want them to die, but even God has sanctioned the death penalty even for things less damning than being a serial murderer.

I would starve if I had to be a vegetarian.

As for the war in Iraq, I supported only the capture of Saddam Hussein; nothing beyond that.

By your definition, no one fits the pure "pro-life" description. But then no one fits the pure pro-choice description either. The so-called pro-choice movement is for one choice and one choice only. Ask them to promote adoption and many of them will balk and claim adoption is too hard on a woman. Ask them to promote the choice of abstinence and an awful lot of them will condemn you to hell.

Pro-life, pro-choice... it is all in the label.
Immie

No, it's not. Pro-choice means you are not in favor of re-criminalizing abortion and you support women having safe and effective contraception. It has nothing to do with being anti-abortion. I am anti-abortion and pro-choice. While I may morally agree with abortion being wrong, I do not identify with the anti-abortion, pro-fetal life crowd. I find their movement aversive. So many of them are anti-contraception except for abstinence. That's ridiculous to think ALL people, regardless of moral compass will take up THEIR morality, especially when they are so mean in calling these women murderers.

The anti-abortion, pro-fetal life moralists are against anyone having sex unless they plan to have babies.

It's interesting that you are ok with the death penalty and war.

You must remember and be accurate. You are for one choice and one choice only the choice to take a human life. That is pro-abortion whether you admit it or not and regardless of your reasoning. It is still a favorable position regarding abortion.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

Abortion is legal. That said, I'm pro contraception. One ought to ask the question why those who oppose abortion oppose educating anyone capable of conception on the ways and means of preventing pregnancy? While doing that maybe the ways and means of preventing STD's?

In the anti-abortion movement training manual I provided, those folks are NOT PRO-CONTRACEPTION. They are abstinence only folks.

Which are just more labels you throw around.

Immie

It's not a label, it's the truth. Check out this training manual. Not only are these folks against abortion, they are also against contraception.

They are abstinence only proponents.

 

[Sky Dancer]

It is funny how labels tend to be mis-applied isn't it?

If the Pro-choice movement had not been so successful in making "anti-choice" or "anti-abortion" sound like such a horrific point of view, the pro-life movement would not have been forced to seek a more appropriate label for themselves. BTW the same can be said for the pro-choice crowd. They had to find a label for themselves that did not carry the negative connotations of pro-abortion.

As for me, I am proud to call myself pro-life whether or not you think the term applies. I am not so opposed to the death penalty that I will fight it tooth and nail. Some killers, i.e. Charles Manson, deserve the death penalty. That does not mean that I want them to die, but even God has sanctioned the death penalty even for things less damning than being a serial murderer.

I would starve if I had to be a vegetarian.

As for the war in Iraq, I supported only the capture of Saddam Hussein; nothing beyond that.

By your definition, no one fits the pure "pro-life" description. But then no one fits the pure pro-choice description either. The so-called pro-choice movement is for one choice and one choice only. Ask them to promote adoption and many of them will balk and claim adoption is too hard on a woman. Ask them to promote the choice of abstinence and an awful lot of them will condemn you to hell.

Pro-life, pro-choice... it is all in the label.
Immie

No, it's not. Pro-choice means you are not in favor of re-criminalizing abortion and you support women having safe and effective contraception. It has nothing to do with being anti-abortion. I am anti-abortion and pro-choice. While I may morally agree with abortion being wrong, I do not identify with the anti-abortion, pro-fetal life crowd. I find their movement aversive. So many of them are anti-contraception except for abstinence. That's ridiculous to think ALL people, regardless of moral compass will take up THEIR morality, especially when they are so mean in calling these women murderers.

The anti-abortion, pro-fetal life moralists are against anyone having sex unless they plan to have babies.

It's interesting that you are ok with the death penalty and war.

You must remember and be accurate. You are for one choice and one choice only the choice to take a human life. That is pro-abortion whether you admit it or not and regardless of your reasoning. It is still a favorable position regarding abortion.

Immie

Bull. I am completely against abortion. I am NOT in favor of re-criminalizing it and I support women having safe and effective contraception. I think abstinence only programs are for the religiously extreme, not everyone else.

You're misrepresenting my position. That's what fanatics do.

 

[AllieBaba]

Abortion is legal. That said, I'm pro contraception. One ought to ask the question why those who oppose abortion oppose educating anyone capable of conception on the ways and means of preventing pregnancy? While doing that maybe the ways and means of preventing STD's?

In the anti-abortion movement training manual I provided, those folks are NOT PRO-CONTRACEPTION. They are abstinence only folks.

Which are just more labels you throw around.

Immie

SILENCE! If you disagree with Sky, you might make her *afraid* which means you must be SILENCED!

And whatever you do...do NOT call babies babies! Sky dictates they are fetuses and any contradiction will result in harrassment charges being brought against you, I'm fairly certain.

 

[Immanuel]

In the anti-abortion movement training manual I provided, those folks are NOT PRO-CONTRACEPTION. They are abstinence only folks.

Which are just more labels you throw around.

Immie

It's not a label, it's the truth. Check out this training manual. Not only are these folks against abortion, they are also against contraception.

They are abstinence only proponents.

Just labels you like to attack people with... note: think back to those two threads you have been maintaining the last few days where you claim everyone attacks you.

By the way, one choice you are clearly opposed to is the choice of Christians to share their faith with you. You are no more pro-choice than I am.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

No, it's not. Pro-choice means you are not in favor of re-criminalizing abortion and you support women having safe and effective contraception. It has nothing to do with being anti-abortion. I am anti-abortion and pro-choice. While I may morally agree with abortion being wrong, I do not identify with the anti-abortion, pro-fetal life crowd. I find their movement aversive. So many of them are anti-contraception except for abstinence. That's ridiculous to think ALL people, regardless of moral compass will take up THEIR morality, especially when they are so mean in calling these women murderers.

The anti-abortion, pro-fetal life moralists are against anyone having sex unless they plan to have babies.

It's interesting that you are ok with the death penalty and war.

You must remember and be accurate. You are for one choice and one choice only the choice to take a human life. That is pro-abortion whether you admit it or not and regardless of your reasoning. It is still a favorable position regarding abortion.

Immie

Bull. I am completely against abortion. I am NOT in favor of re-criminalizing it.

You're misrepresenting my position. That's what fanatics do.

Oh? And you are not mis-representing our position?

BS.

Immie

 

[emilynghiem]

To answer your question: I am Pro-choice on the level of legislation, and Pro-life in how these freedoms are used so they are never abused to terminate life unnaturally. This includes being pro-choice in abortion (unless all parties agree to a law restricting choice) and pro-choice for the death penalty and for use of military for war. Because I believe these things can be prevented more effectively without making them illegal (unless all parties agree).

The choices must always exist in order to be constitutionally inclusive of all views; but ideally the choices would never be invoked. I believe we can better work toward correction and prevention in a pro-choice setting, where we have freedom to solve the problems directly which we oppose, instead of relying on govt legislation to ban it. Only where people reach consensus on a religious matter would I say that a law supporting that is constitutional; if a law excludes or discriminates against a belief or imposes a religious bias, that conflict would have to be resolved first.

Trying to find clarity. Recently I have been involved in talks with people who claim to be "Pro-Life" in the "Anti-Abortion issue". Yet these people supported the war in Iraq, or support the death penalty.

It seems to me that if you are "Pro-Life" you are against war of any kind for any reason, against the death penalty in any form or for any reason, against leathal self defense, and a vegetarian. Anything other than that you are "Anti-something" i.e. anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, or anti war.

To all the pro-lifers please get your lable right as you tend to confuse others by mislabling yourself as pro life when you are not pro life at all, but anti abortion.

This gets me to thinking, I wonder how many people are actually "Pro life" instead of Anti-abortion?

Hi Spectrum: There are 3 or 4 different arguments in your statements I would delineate from each other:
A. if you can be pro-life in the abortion debate, and yet support military, death penalty, etc. in other cases (I believe you can, just like different denominations of any belief, even atheism has different types!)
B. if you are against abortion itself and this is why you support some laws and oppose others
C. you are against pro-choice legislation and against pro-choice activists and their agenda
D. if you are against abortion or pro-life personally, but pro-choice in terms of legislative powers of government to make policies for all people

A. first I believe people can be pro-life in some areas and not others. it's not that they are not pro-life but there are varying degrees or applications of it. Yes, I'd rather people be consistent. The way I would be consistent in all areas is to support the CHOICE of something LEGALLY (by constitutional equal protection of all beliefs without abridging or imposing a religious bias by govt - unless ALL PEOPLE consent to a religious law such as against murder which is one example of where people agree and don't argue about laws)
So you can support the choice of war and military and guns, but be against war and killing and only support these for defense to prevent war and killing; you can support the choice of the death penalty constitutionally but be against the application of it; you can support the choice of abortion constitutionally but be against the actual need to ever use it etc.
B or C. by pro-life this can mean you are against abortion (anti-abortion) or against the pro-choice legislation and politics and people (anti-choice). I even met one pro-life activist who was not so much into preventing abortion, but wanted to make a statement about the life of the child and to oppose the idea of women having the right to terminate that; he even admitted that if working together would prevent abortions and save lives, that is not his point, his point was to oppose the idea of putting women before the children, of not recognizing the life of the child equally.
D. I believe most people are actually this level. Nobody wants abortion, but people do want the choice to make decisions based on our beliefs and don't want government or other lobbyists passing laws that carry a bias we don't agree with. Most people are so afraid that the other side will pass their laws, they push for theirs instead. If no laws were made about abortion, one way or another, that carry any bias at all, either prochoice or prolife since this involves religious beliefs, there would have to be CONSENSUS on any law for it to pass. Just like how we all agree that murder is wrong, and we agree on that; that is still a religious law about life and death, which is a spiritual matter, but we happen to agree. So the same type of agreement would have to be formed first, before laws can be passed by consent of the people, and NOT imposing a religious bias one way or another either prochoice or prolife biases, or that is NOT protecting all beliefs equally under law.

I believe Guiliani stated this well, when he said he is personally prolife but constitutionally he has to equally include the beliefs of people who believe otherwise. And Hutchison also stated support for pro-choice in terms of not letting government interfere with personal decisions, which is a Republican conservative value that many people can relate to.

The problem is that people don't apply "pro-choice"/free exercise of religion CONSISTENTLY. We can be for the choice of abortion, and trust it will not be abused; but against the choice of guns, without trust, and try to ban that! We can be for the choice of prostitution to be legalized, but against the choice of drugs. We can be for the choice of the death penalty, but against the choice of suicide or euthanasia. I've seen all varieties of what people believe in the choice of for themselves, but against for other people, and it is NOT consistent and I agree that is the problem.

The solution to all this would be to require a consensus on any laws that touch on religious matters, from gay marriage to abortion/death penalty, even immigration laws invoke differences in how people treat foreign neighbors, and if people born in the US who break laws should be equally illegal if you are going to say foreigners who break laws are illegal. (This would probably mean laws can be passed locally, where the demographics are the same, but would vary from district to district where the politics are different; or that legislation that is agreed upon would be very limited, and most of the work to prevent abuses would be left to the private sector to set up programs and resources, instead of passing a prohibitive law preventing that choice at all.)

As long as we keep making laws that favor one side or another in a religious issue, then that technically violates constitutional rights to equal protection of interests without discrimination or religious bias by government. That is the real issue, and all these other labels and examples are the resulting consequence and expression of unresolved conflicts.

 

[Sky Dancer]

No woman seeking an abortion does so unthinkingly. Few, if any, women use abortion as birth control, although the religious right would have us believe otherwise. And women seeking abortions do not need moralistic lectures about the horrors they are about to commit. To require them to have an ultrasound prior to an abortion is the most invasive type of moralistic lecture imaginable. Some state laws would even require poor women to pay for them, which would put the cost of abortion beyond their meager reach.

 

[Sky Dancer]

You must remember and be accurate. You are for one choice and one choice only the choice to take a human life. That is pro-abortion whether you admit it or not and regardless of your reasoning. It is still a favorable position regarding abortion.

Immie

Bull. I am completely against abortion. I am NOT in favor of re-criminalizing it.

You're misrepresenting my position. That's what fanatics do.

Oh? And you are not mis-representing our position?

BS.

Immie

How am I misrepresenting YOUR position? You are in favor of re-criminalizing abortion. Are you not?

You are telling me that I support abortion and I do not.

You are thinking in black and white, which is the position of a fanatic.

Are you even against abortion when it could save the life of the woman?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Here are these poor women, going to have a abortion, knowing damn well what they are doing and probably none too happy about it. They get out of the car and here are these people yelling at them, foaming at the mouth with rage, telling them they are murderers and they shall rot in a fiery hell. I doubt those people could ever understand how horrible they really are themselves.

I am against abortion, but I don't identify with this rabid, re-criminalisation movement.

Spreading fear by bombings, murder and assault is not 'pro-life'. Dr Tiller was murdered outside his church.

Here's the kind of guy who scares the crap out of me.

"Let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... If a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple.... Our goal is a Christian Nation... we have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want Pluralism. We want theocracy. Theocracy means God rules. I've got a hot flash. God rules."

[Randall Terry, Head of Operation Rescue, from The News Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Aug 15, 1993]

"When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we will execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed... If we're going to have true reformation in America, it is because men once again, if I may use a worn out expression, have righteous testoserone flowing through their veins. They are not afraid of contempt for their contemporaries. They are not even here to get along. They are here to take over... Somebody like Susan Smith should be dead. She should be dead now. Some people will go, "Well how do you know God doesn't have a wonderful plan for her life?" He does, it's listed in the Bible. His plan for her is that she should be dead."

[Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, at the Aug 8, 1995 U.S. Taxpayers Alliance Banquet in Washington DC, talking about doctors who perform abortions and volunteer escorts]

Randall Terry is a nutcase.

 

[xsited1]

...

It seems to me that if you are "Pro-Life" you are against war of any kind for any reason, against the death penalty in any form or for any reason, against leathal self defense, and a vegetarian.

...

That has got to be one of the funniest statements I have ever read.

Wars are unfortunately necessary. The death penalty rids the world of our most violent offenders. Defending yourself against violence is sometimes necessary. And, of course, pro-life refers to human beings.

If this was a troll post, you get high marks for it.

 

[spectrumc01]

I happen to be pro-choice sky (with reasonable restrictions). I just think the OP was being hypocritical. And yes - there are pro-abortion folks. They are just ashamed to admit it. Wonder why.

Asking people to call themselves by the correct name is hypocritical how?

So when black people refer to themselves as *black* is that the *correct* name in your book? Because after all, they aren't truly crayola black...

We use branding, catch phrases and standardized terms to identify concepts. Kentucky Fried Chicken is misleading as well...the chicken in Oregon is not fried in Kentucky. Likewise, according to every single source I've hit, Pro-Life is a very specific reference to a specific set of beliefs. We all know how the dead baby crowd like to dictate to others what meanings they may attribute to certain phrases and words (think *marriage*).

But this thread starts with a false premise, and your own ignorance of what the term Pro-Life means is not sufficient reason for the movement to rename itself.

I'll standby for more Sky weirdness. This is where she will wig out with some proposal to punish or silence those who don't agree with her. It's always something interesting...maybe she'll suggest interment camps this time.

Just what exactly is the "false premise"? No one asked the "movement" to rename itself anything.

"Pro-life is a very specific reference to a specific set of beliefs" which don't match anything in the dictionary. When I want an apple I ask for an apple not an orange.

All I wanted to know is how many people out there are actually "Pro-Life" by definition and how many are "anti-abortion" by definition. Not trying to debate the rightness or wrongness of abortion, just the labling.

 

[AllieBaba]

In the anti-abortion movement training manual I provided, those folks are NOT PRO-CONTRACEPTION. They are abstinence only folks.

Which are just more labels you throw around.

Immie

It's not a label, it's the truth. Check out this training manual. Not only are these folks against abortion, they are also against contraception.

They are abstinence only proponents.

Isn't abstinence contraception?

Why yes, yes it is.

Liar.

 

[Sky Dancer]

“If the anti-abortion movement took a tenth of the energy they put into noisy theatrics and devoted it to improving the lives of children who have been born into lives of poverty, violence, and neglect, they could make a world shine.”

Michael J. Tucker

 

[Immanuel]

No woman seeking an abortion does so unthinkingly. Few, if any, women use abortion as birth control, although the religious right would have us believe otherwise. And women seeking abortions do not need moralistic lectures about the horrors they are about to commit. To require them to have an ultrasound prior to an abortion is the most invasive type of moralistic lecture imaginable. Some state laws would even require poor women to pay for them, which would put the cost of abortion beyond their meager reach.

Bull crap... most abortion, the vast majority of abortions are done for birth control reasons. Check out what AGI (The Alan Guttmacher Institute) says about that fact. They are an arm of Planned Parenthood and their stats clearly show that abortions are most often performed for birth control reasons.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/011003/ov_ab.pdf

See page 10: 89% to 93% of abortions are for birth control reasons.

As you know, AGI is an arm of the abortion industry and is very much Pro-Abortion... not pro-choice but Pro-Abortion.

Immie