If "pro-choicers" are really so "pro-choice" then why are they against the choice to be pro-life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lethe said:
Theyre not against people being pro-life in opinion/morality, theyre against people trying to change the law to be strictly pro-life (i.e. disabling the choice.) There isn’t anyone around who LIKES abortions, least not anyone I know. They’d have to be pretty sick. But if the law was strictly pro-life, there would be no choice whether to have abortions, so obviously pro-choicers argue against that.
Click to expand...
Why is liking abortion wrong?
 
distracted said:
and my argument is: Since when does a civilized society give people the choice to murder someone? especailly a totally innocent human being… who i might add did NOT ask to be where he is… His mother put him there, w/ the father’s assistance… Why should he have to die becasue they were irresponsible? but then personal responsibility has never been a big slogan in the US … or elsewhere, apparnetly…
Click to expand...
Which is a reasonable argument against the pro-choice position, given certain assumptions. It has little to do with the topic at hand however, which I believe is what Lethe was commenting on, namely: painting the pro-choice position as pro-abortion, which it is not, though it is constantly treated as such.

I would love it if somebody could back up a statement that being pro-choice is the same as being pro-abortion, and then, since nobody answered me earlier, tell me which flavor ice cream I support if I were to say:

“You can have chocolate ice cream or you can have vanilla ice cream.”
 
logic_oriented said:
Which is a reasonable argument against the pro-choice position, given certain assumptions. It has little to do with the topic at hand however, which I believe is what Lethe was commenting on, namely: painting the pro-choice position as pro-abortion, which it is not, though it is constantly treated as such.

I would love it if somebody could back up a statement that being pro-choice is the same as being pro-abortion, and then, since nobody answered me earlier, tell me which flavor ice cream I support if I were to say:

“You can have chocolate ice cream or you can have vanilla ice cream.”
Click to expand...
Pro choice is pro abortion. Such a person is in favor of legalized killing innocent persons. Not unlike being “pro choice” on rape, genocide, slavery, and the rest.

And ice cream flavors have nothing to do with murder.
 
Newbie2 said:
I’m curious, what do you think about the woman who is otherwise perfectly healthy, is married, has plenty of money, space, time, emotional reserve, etc. and has an “oops” pregnancy. Maybe she wanted to wait a year to have a baby for whatever reason, and let’s assume it’s a trivial reason…I don’t know, make up something silly like it’s 2010 and she wanted to have a baby in an odd-numbered year because everyone else in the family was born in an odd year and she’s superstitious.

OK to abort then?
Click to expand...
What of the woman who decides to have a baby for “trivial” reasons? Should she be prevented?

And who gets to define “trivial”?
 
distracted said:
there doesn’t seem to be much anyone can do but at least feminists who have influence in the world could speak out about it… if they have i have NOT heard…
Click to expand...
You answered your own question 🙂 There is no doubt in my mind that if there was something that could be done, it would be 🙂
 
logic_oriented said:
Which is a reasonable argument against the pro-choice position, given certain assumptions. It has little to do with the topic at hand however, which I believe is what Lethe was commenting on, namely: painting the pro-choice position as pro-abortion, which it is not, though it is constantly treated as such.

I would love it if somebody could back up a statement that being pro-choice is the same as being pro-abortion, and then, since nobody answered me earlier, tell me which flavor ice cream I support if I were to say:

“You can have chocolate ice cream or you can have vanilla ice cream.”
Click to expand...
Pro-lifers are doing a disservice when they refer to people who are pro-choice as being pro-abortion. While this language may make them feel righteous and morally superior to those on the other side of the debate, it immediately disengages the other side from even having the slightest interest in discussing the issue.
 
Christopher68 said:
Pro-lifers are doing a disservice when they refer to people who are pro-choice as being pro-abortion. While this language may make them feel righteous and morally superior to those on the other side of the debate, it immediately disengages the other side from even having the slightest interest in discussing the issue.
Click to expand...
Actually, pro life folks do a disservice by not correcting the abortion propaganda. To claim pro abort supporters stomp off like immature teenagers because they do not like to hear what their argument really supports only shows some do not think they can defend what should not be defended.
 
fix said:
Actually, pro life folks do a disservice by not correcting the abortion propaganda. To claim pro abort supporters stomp off like immature teenagers because they do not like to hear what their argument really supports only shows some do not think they can defend what should not be defended.
Click to expand...
If it makes you feel better to think that way, that is certainly your perogative. However, those on the other side of the debate are likely as adamant in their beliefs as you are in yours. If you’re trying to convert someone to your way of thinking, immediately putting them on the defensive is likely going to yield you very limited success. Just as if someone asked you: “Why are you a woman hating bigot?” or “Are you a Nazi? Why do you want the government to control my body?” I suspect neither of these questions accurately reflects your beliefs, and would likely give you the impression that the questioner was not someone you could have a legitimate conversation with. It is shortsighted to think this approach will work.
 
You’re missing the point by claiming intellectual victory on some supposition that pro-choice activists cannot defend their position.
Is your aim winning the argument, or is it persuading people?
 
Doc_Keele said:
You’re missing the point by claiming intellectual victory on some supposition that pro-choice activists cannot defend their position.
Is your aim winning the argument, or is it persuading people?
Click to expand...
That’s exactly my point. No one is going to win any converts by insulting the other side.
 
Christopher68 said:
If it makes you feel better to think that way, that is certainly your perogative. However, those on the other side of the debate are likely as adamant in their beliefs as you are in yours. If you’re trying to convert someone to your way of thinking, immediately putting them on the defensive is likely going to yield you very limited success. Just as if someone asked you: “Why are you a woman hating bigot?” or “Are you a Nazi? Why do you want the government to control my body?” I suspect neither of these questions accurately reflects your beliefs, and would likely give you the impression that the questioner was not someone you could have a legitimate conversation with. It is shortsighted to think this approach will work.
Click to expand...
I have been accused of those things many times. My reaction is point out the error in such reasoning. Also, they really are not equivalent situations. Being offended is a choice.
 
Doc_Keele said:
You’re missing the point by claiming intellectual victory on some supposition that pro-choice activists cannot defend their position.
Is your aim winning the argument, or is it persuading people?
Click to expand...
I am not missing the point. I am saying that the standard propaganda from the pro abort side is to claim it is “uncivil” to call pro choice what it authentically is. It is not about scoring points. It is about conforming our words to reality, rather than continually giving in to the notion unborn children do not matter.
 
It is about conforming our words to reality
Click to expand...
which the pro-choice lobby would dogmatically assert that they are doing and you are not
rather than continually giving in to the notion unborn children do not matter
Click to expand...
which is a straw man argument
 
fix said:
Saying killing innocents is simply a *choice *is engineering the language to cloud what is really happening.
Click to expand...
The charge of using language selectively can be levelled at either side.
The pro-choice brigade do not say that unborn children do not matter, not that I’ve heard. Therefore you’ve put forward a straw man argument.
 
Doc_Keele said:
The charge of using language selectively can be levelled at either side.
The pro-choice brigade do not say that unborn children do not matter, not that I’ve heard. Therefore you’ve put forward a straw man argument.
Click to expand...
It is not a strawman. It is the heart of the matter.

Words may not be said stating the unborn doesn’t matter, however, actions speak louder than words. Killing the innocent child in the womb screams to it; “you don’t matter”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top