Pro-choice or pro-abortion?

[Goobieman]

This was inspired by a conversation with Jallman, where he quickly devolved once his religion was put into question and he ran out of stock answers:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/18185-miracle-baby-homecoming-delayed-4.html#post494841
Starting at post #15

Anyway -

Pro-choice people, to at least a significant degree, argue that abortions should be legal and with only the most minimal restrictions, if any at all, just as pro gun people argue that that guns should be legal and with only the most minimal restrictions, if any at all.

Doesn't that really mean that pro-choice people are actually pro-abortion?

Further, those pro-gun people that DO hold that 'guns should be legal and with only the most minimal restrictions, if any at all' are usually called 'gun nuts' -- and so is it unreasonable to say that pro-abortion people that hold that position are 'abortion nuts'?

 

[jallman]

This answer is inspired by an attempt by a monkey to start a poo slinging contest. The basic tenet of pro-choice philosophy is that a woman has the right to CHOOSE what happens to her body. Pro-abortion would support only one option, that being an abortion. Pro-Choice supports any number of options including abortion, adoption, surrogate motherhood, being a mother, etc. Any assertion otherwise is nothing more than thuggish misrepresentation of facts and vilification by pro-lifers who can't support their own positions otherwise. In fact, misrepresentation of pro-choice ethics is almost always the first play in a scripted attack on the person rather than the position.

Monkey tactics deserve no better than monkey treatment.

 

[Goobieman]

As anyone that pays attention knows, I am pro-gun, and if you want to call me a gun nut, I dont care.

But, I dont see how the pro-choice argument, as supplied, can be taken as anything but pro-abortion -- arguing that guns should be legal and with only the most minimal restrictions, if any at restrictions all, isnt an argument that any given perosn should/should not have a gun, just as arguing that abortions should be legal and with only the most minimal restrictions, if any restrictions at all, isnt an argument that any given person should/should not have an abortion.

 

[jallman]

As anyone that pays attention knows, I am pro-gun, and if you want to call me a gun nut, I dont care.

But, I dont see how the pro-choice argument, as supplied, can be taken as anything but pro-abortion -- arguing that guns should be legal and with only the most minimal restrictions, if any at restrictions all, isnt an argument that any given perosn should/should not have a gun, just as arguing that abortions should be legal and with only the most minimal restrictions, if any restrictions at all, isnt an argument that any given person should/should not have an abortion.

But most pro-choicers don't believe in "minimal if any restrictions" just like most pro-lifers don't believe in total abortion bans. The only reason abortions become a centerpiece in the pro-choice defense is because it is the only choice pro-lifers are trying to take away.

The problem is that trying to label pro-choicers as pro-abortionists is the first step in a progression to calling pro-choicers "baby-killers". It is a progression to vilifying the opponent rather than argue the position.

In effect, it is like the progression from a monkey $hiting in its hand before slinging it.

 

[americanwoman]

I am pro-choice, and I disagree with the pro-abortion lable, because...

I am for woman's choice what to do with their bodies but not for abortions in general. I think Jallman put it best.

 

[Goobieman]

I am pro-choice, and I disagree with the pro-abortion lable, because...
I am for woman's choice what to do with their bodies but not for abortions in general. I think Jallman put it best.

Ok, but...
Applied to guns, your position would be called 'pro gun'.
How does your position not make you 'pro abortion', understanding that supporting the non-infringement of the right does not equate to advocating that the right be exercised?

 

[americanwoman]

Ok, but...
Applied to guns, your position would be called 'pro gun'.
How does your position not make you 'pro abortion', understanding that supporting the non-infringement of the right does not equate to advocating that the right be exercised?

not really. I am a gun owner but I don't really consider myself "pro-gun".

The difference is they don't force their opinion on me and try to take away my right to own a gun as a person. Every female should have the right with their own body and not have someone force their opinion to take away that right. I am not for abortions but I am for woman choosing to do what they want. Besides I know lots of people, including my mother, who would wish I would get rid of my gun but since it's my choice to have it they leave things be.

 

[Navy Pride]

Saying one is pro choice is nothing but a nice way of saying one is pro abortion........

 

[jallman]

Saying one is pro choice is nothing but a nice way of saying one is pro abortion........

Then saying one is pro-life is a nice way of saying one is anti-freedom.

 

[mikhail]

Surely someone who is pro-abortion literally taken is someone who wants the human race to die out in the next 100 years.

My feeling is that a ban on abortion would result in more people in poverty resulting in higher crime rates more under educated people resulting in more inpoverished children.

 

[aquapub]

Pro-choice people, to at least a significant degree, argue that abortions should be legal and with only the most minimal restrictions, if any at all, just as pro gun people argue that that guns should be legal and with only the most minimal restrictions, if any at all.

Doesn't that really mean that pro-choice people are actually pro-abortion?

90% of what liberals do is aimed at silencing the debate. The other 10% is devoted to making sure it can never take place on honest or accurate terms.

When liberals protect NAMBLA's rape and escape manual for example, they know they can't sell their argument by plainly defending the aiding of child molesters with instructions on evading the police, so they call it "free speech."

If you are pro-drug legalization, nobody calls that "pro-the choice to do drugs." The only reason you would have to do this is to divert attention away from the fact that your actions enable drug use.

Liberal actions made (and continue to make) abortions possible. They are therefore, pro-abortion.

Liberal positions, when discussed honestly, turn the stomach. They know this, and that's why they distort what they stand for.

 

[Navy Pride]

Then saying one is pro-life is a nice way of saying one is anti-freedom.

That would be true if a innocent, defenseless baby in the womb were not involved.........People that have unprotected sex make a decision and it involves more then their selfish selves...........No abortion should ever be allowed for convenience or birth control.........There are to many ways to prevent pregnancy my friend.........

 

[jallman]

That would be true if a innocent, defenseless baby in the womb were not involved.........People that have unprotected sex make a decision and it involves more then their selfish selves...........No abortion should ever be allowed for convenience or birth control.........There are to many ways to prevent pregnancy my friend.........

I understand that...however, equating a zygote to a baby is a bit dishonest at best. An acorn is not a tree no matter how you spin it. Further, consent to sex is not necessarily consent to pregnancy. I do not believe abortion should be a convenient means of birth control and I emphatically assert that abortions should be limited to 18 weeks or prior. I also am a firm believer in parental notification but not necessarily required parental consent to abortion. Finally, I believe that abortions should be limited to three in a life-time.

However, I also believe that many abortions wouldn't be needed if we educated our youth about proper reproductive health in the first place.

 

[Navy Pride]

I understand that...however, equating a zygote to a baby is a bit dishonest at best. An acorn is not a tree no matter how you spin it. Further, consent to sex is not necessarily consent to pregnancy. I do not believe abortion should be a convenient means of birth control and I emphatically assert that abortions should be limited to 18 weeks or prior. I also am a firm believer in parental notification but not necessarily required parental consent to abortion. Finally, I believe that abortions should be limited to three in a life-time.

However, I also believe that many abortions wouldn't be needed if we educated our youth about proper reproductive health in the first place.

I wish it was just the youth we had to educate but sadly that is not the case.....

Like I said in another thread.........I believe life begins at conception.....If I am wrong no harm no foul, its just a lump of cells that are being destroyed.....If your wrong and the people that believe as you do are wrong then its legal murder in the womb........

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Saying one is pro choice is nothing but a nice way of saying one is pro abortion........

Blatantly dishonest rhetoric. I am opposed to abortion, but opposed to making them illegal more-so. My view on abortion is the same as my view on crack.

 

[jfuh]

This answer is inspired by an attempt by a monkey to start a poo slinging contest. The basic tenet of pro-choice philosophy is that a woman has the right to CHOOSE what happens to her body. Pro-abortion would support only one option, that being an abortion. Pro-Choice supports any number of options including abortion, adoption, surrogate motherhood, being a mother, etc. Any assertion otherwise is nothing more than thuggish misrepresentation of facts and vilification by pro-lifers who can't support their own positions otherwise. In fact, misrepresentation of pro-choice ethics is almost always the first play in a scripted attack on the person rather than the position.

Monkey tactics deserve no better than monkey treatment.

:shock: I really could not have said it any better myself.

 

[Navy Pride]

Blatantly dishonest rhetoric. I am opposed to abortion, but opposed to making them illegal more-so. My view on abortion is the same as my view on crack.

Legal crack and abortion, why am I not surprised?:roll:

 

[aps]

I am pro-choice, and I disagree with the pro-abortion lable, because...

while I support another woman's right to choose to abort a pregnancy, I could not do it with my own pregnancy, even though I was NOT happy when I found out I was pregnant. Morally, I couldn't go through with it for myself. However, if one of my friends wanted to undergo an abortion, I would support her, to include driving her to the appointment. That is what CHOICE is all about. What's right for one person isn't necessarily right for another person. The label of pro-abortion is a bunch of horse$hit.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Legal crack and abortion, why am I not surprised?:roll:

Because you shouldn't be (libertarian is a dead giveaway.) And you should learn the difference between legal and decriminalized.

But of course an authoritarian like you is in full support of this war on drugs.

That is what CHOICE is all about. What's right for one person isn't necessarily right for another person. The label of pro-abortion is a bunch of horse$hit.

Eww I agree with aps, quick someone say something about smoking.

 

[aps]

Eww I agree with aps, quick someone say something about smoking.

Smokers suck.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Smokers suck.

And you hate freedom.... ahhh there we are.

 

[Hatuey]

Personally I wouldn't force anybody to follow my beliefs when it comes to abortion. I believe trying to force others to live the way you do is 180 degrees away from Christianity which is what most people dont understand. Jesus Christ or God wouldn't force you to believe in them or follow their beliefs. You have to do that on your own. You live your life the way you feel you should and then receive whatever consequences come after. Wether they are good or bad I wouldn't know. I'm not here to make that judgement.

 

[DeeJayH]

Surely someone who is pro-abortion literally taken is someone who wants the human race to die out in the next 100 years.

My feeling is that a ban on abortion would result in more people in poverty resulting in higher crime rates more under educated people resulting in more inpoverished children.

being born does not cause those things
and all those things could be eliminated, if the will was there, thus eliminating that feeble excuse for abortions
its a tough life, suck it up (generally speaking)

 

[Kandahar]

I think there is a difference between just being pro-gun and being a "gun nut." While I'm a moderate on the issue, I consider myself closer to the pro-gun end of the spectrum than the pro-gun control end.

You can be pro-gun if you think that the federal government shouldn't make sweeping restrictions on gun rights, but don't object to lesser governments setting their own standards. What works in rural West Virginia doesn't necessarily work in inner-city Detroit, and vice versa.

On the other hand, the people who want to allow concealed-carry weapons in every high school in America certainly qualify as "gun nuts" in my book. People who think that they have a god-given right to own a grenade launcher and bring it to church as a deterrent to muggers are certainly "gun nuts" in my book.

 

[Navy Pride]

I think there is a difference between just being pro-gun and being a "gun nut." While I'm a moderate on the issue, I consider myself closer to the pro-gun end of the spectrum than the pro-gun control end.

You can be pro-gun if you think that the federal government shouldn't make sweeping restrictions on gun rights, but don't object to lesser governments setting their own standards. What works in rural West Virginia doesn't necessarily work in inner-city Detroit, and vice versa.

On the other hand, the people who want to allow concealed-carry weapons in every high school in America certainly qualify as "gun nuts" in my book. People who think that they have a god-given right to own a grenade launcher and bring it to church as a deterrent to muggers are certainly "gun nuts" in my book.[/QUOTE]


What people are they?