How to re-educate so that people will understand about abortion?

[Drawmack]

Thankfully, those of us who have had miscarriages, live under no illusion, as some seem to offer, that we have been made to sin when we miscarried our babies. We realize that God is the author of life and that He is the only one who may call that life back to HIM at any time, He is the resurrection and the LIFE, afterall.

(I’m sure you meant to say live birth instead of life birth (I bolded and underlined it above), but nice slip there.)

I’m sorry for your loss. I will pray for you and your baby.

I was using this to point out the ridiculousness of the statement that live birth is the opposite of abortion. That is a fallacious statement and I’m sure you would agree with that since you’re clearly stating that you did not have an abortion or a live birth.

Also, really a grammar attack, that’s just silly. Especially when you used nested parenthesis in the attack and proper grammar would dictate the use of square brackets on the inner set.

 

[Drawmack]

You don’t.
But that doesn’t mean we should allow the other side to engage in unfair tactics.

You are 100% correct, we should insist that they refer to us as pro-life! Which is what I have been doing in this thread. I have been calling both sides on the use of improper terminology.

 

[fix]

I am pro-life because I respect life. I cannot respect life and disrespect the person sitting across the table from me.

There is no disrespect in speaking what is true.

That would make me a hypocrite. In any fair debate neither side completely controls the language, to attempt to do this is to attempt to engage in an unfair debate. Why do you need an unfair debate if you’re right?

There is nothing unfair in not accepting propaganda.

 

[Drawmack]

And this example shines forth of attempting to manipulate the argument through vocabulary.

The object of the argument has never been about choice, the object is about abortion.
Yet many would have us turn a blind eye to that in favor of using the word ‘choice’

So again we are left with the question…
Choose what?

Of course, in the quote above the question is almost answered, but it begs more questions. The answer is to choose to terminate her pregnancy.

So why not state abortion? Why go through all of the extra words?
Why does it appear that abortion is being avoided.

This is something else we need to educate everyone on.
Do not accept the premise. Words mean things, and one side cannot be allowed to soften the language that describes it.
The brutality of abortion is also apparent in the words that describe it.
Altering the vocabulary to soften this brutality should not be allowed.

As I said earlier if the argument is about abortion than the sides are pro-abortion and anti-abortion. If you’re going to insist on relying on the fact that the argument is about abortion than that is the only word you can use in labeling the sides. And, you are anti-abortion not pro-life.

 

[Drawmack]

There is no disrespect in speaking what is true.

Okay, so as long as what I am saying is true it is impossible to say it in a disrespectful manner right?

There is nothing unfair in not accepting propaganda.

It’s not propaganda. It’s looking at the same issue from a different angle.

 

[fix]

Really, I thought the opposite of abortion was not abortion. According to what you’ve just stated everything that isn’t life birth is abortion. I feel so horrible for all those women God has made sin by giving them miscarriages and still births.

The opposite of abortion is not terminating the pregnancy artificially, this does not always result in life birth.

I hate to be pedantic but we are talking about direct abortion here, not spontaneous abortion or indirect abortion. I would say the opposite of direct abortion is birth. Other things can also be opposite.

None of that means indirect abortion or spontaneous abortion are morally evil.

 

[fix]

Okay, so as long as what I am saying is true it is impossible to say it in a disrespectful manner right?

Objectively, there is nothing disrespectful in what I have said. If you insist on taking offense that is on your part.

It’s not propaganda. It’s looking at the same issue from a different angle.

Not all perceptions are correct.

 

[fix]

As I said earlier if the argument is about abortion than the sides are pro-abortion and anti-abortion. If you’re going to insist on relying on the fact that the argument is about abortion than that is the only word you can use in labeling the sides. And, you are anti-abortion not pro-life.

What is wrong with being anti abortion? That is factually true. We are also anti rape, anti pedophilia, anti genocide, and much more.

 

[Des]

Pro-Choice has taken that name because they advocate for the woman having a choice to terminate her pregnancy.

Then say pro abortion since that’s what you’re doing. Why cover it by giving half a phrase there? Or why not say, ‘pro choice to abort’ instead of ‘pro choice’ which can pretty much be taken to mean I’m for the choice to drink Pepsi or Coke as well.

Pro-life advocate fetal rights, so their name should be pro-fetus.

A fetus is a human life. Science proves this. Pro life is a very acceptable and explicit phrase dealing with our cause. We are for the preservation of an innocent life at all stages of it’s growth cycle.

 

[vz71]

Pro-life advocate fetal rights, so their name should be pro-fetus.

Not quite. Pro-Life advocates human life at all stages.
The more general term ‘pro-life’ is appropriate.

 

[Drawmack]

Objectively, there is nothing disrespectful in what I have said. If you insist on taking offense that is on your part.

You said, “There is no disrespect in speaking what is true.”

I said, “Okay, so as long as what I am saying is true it is impossible to say it in a disrespectful manner right?”

Then you changed the subject. So please answer my original question. Before moving onto the topic of objective disrespect. Once the initial query has been answered I will be more than happy to address the issue of objective disrespect.

Not all perceptions are correct.

I never said they were. However, a perception being incorrect does not make it propagandist either, it could just be misinformed.

 

[Drawmack]

What is wrong with being anti abortion? That is factually true. We are also anti rape, anti pedophilia, anti genocide, and much more.

I didn’t say there was anything wrong with it. I’m simply saying that if you’re going to crux your argument on the fact that the debate is about abortion then you have to refer to yourself as anti-abortion. If you’re going to call yourself pro-life then you must concede that the other side can also use a term that doesn’t include the word abortion.

 

[Drawmack]

Then say pro abortion since that’s what you’re doing. Why cover it by giving half a phrase there? Or why not say, ‘pro choice to abort’ instead of ‘pro choice’ which can pretty much be taken to mean I’m for the choice to drink Pepsi or Coke as well.

Everyone knows what the term pro-choice is short for. I have no problem with people saying pro-choice to abort, I haven’t claimed to have a problem with that.

A fetus is a human life. Science proves this. Pro life is a very acceptable and explicit phrase dealing with our cause. We are for the preservation of an innocent life at all stages of it’s growth cycle.

And pro-choice is a very acceptable term because they are for the woman’s right to choose abortion.

 

[Drawmack]

Not quite. Pro-Life advocates human life at all stages.
The more general term ‘pro-life’ is appropriate.

Okay, following that argument then if there is one single person who is pro-life and pro-death penalty the term pro-life is not correct. Do you have to be anti-death penalty to be a member of the pro-life movement?

 

[WillieWonka]

error

 

[WillieWonka]

Anyone that denies the humanity of the earliest stages of the human being needs the DNA evidence to prove them wrong.
This would include those in support of fetal stem cell research as well as those in support of abortion.
It is the worst kind of monster that recognizes the humanity therein and yet will still allow the decision to kill it.

Nobody denies DNA is in a fertilized egg.

Those who support fetal stem cell research all know the cells contain DNA. Many are biologists.

 

[WillieWonka]

You just defend the decision to kill human life.
Interesting that you want to make the distinction there.

I have not defended the decision to kill human life. Perhaps you can indicate what I wrote that causes you to make such claims?

 

[WillieWonka]

Did you even read my post? That was my point.

Glad we agree Mom was missing.

 

[fix]

You said, “There is no disrespect in speaking what is true.”

I said, “Okay, so as long as what I am saying is true it is impossible to say it in a disrespectful manner right?”

Then you changed the subject. So please answer my original question. Before moving onto the topic of objective disrespect. Once the initial query has been answered I will be more than happy to address the issue of objective disrespect.

I am not changing the subject. I am on subject. Using proper terms for support for killing innocent citizens is not disrespectful. If you claim it is please show me how.

I never said they were. However, a perception being incorrect does not make it propagandist either, it could just be misinformed.

Yes, it could be misinformed, but seeing as how there is a large political effort that supports pro abortion it is mostly a propaganda tool.

 

[WillieWonka]

If the only one here who is willing to stand up for their beliefs as pro-life is asking you to stop using the term anti-abortion (and BTW asking his compatriots to use better language too) do you think you could respect my wishes and refer to me a pro-life? After all, doesn’t good language underlie any rational debate or discussion?

No thanks. I’ll use the terms I choose to communicate what I choose. I recommend everyone communicate their own thoughts rather than another’s.