What Does It Mean To Say "No One Is Pro Abortion" ?

Thinking, thinking, thinking... Here is what I am thinking - I think you purposefuy confusing terms "pro-abortion" and "pro-right to have an abortion". I am against abortion, I think it should be trully a last resort measure, that is applied after a careful consideration, and in rare circumstances. Now being a man - all of this is easy for me to say. Being a married man, with children, and I can tell you with full responsibility - while I do not support abortions, I fully and wholeheartedly support people's right (and to be more precise women's rights) to have an abortion, legally and affordable. For any reason whatsoever, including but not limited to - rapes, incest, inability to carry or give birth, monetary considerations, and, alas, whims. Because there is no telling what is the reason - how do you tell a whim from a monetary consideration?

What I find incredible amusing is that the very people who are against abortions are also against contraceptives, which one would think will help prevent those abortion thingies.

Meh, this has been argued to death. If someone wants to call me "pro-abortion", I really don't care. I consider myself pro-CHOICE; what others think about me is irrelevant. *Shrug*

Do you have you personal expriience with a situation that involves abortion? I mean have you been close enough to be there "before" and "after"? Or is this a rather academic excersize in semantics?

Do you have you personal expriience with a situation that involves abortion? I mean have you been close enough to be there "before" and "after"? Or is this a rather academic excersize in semantics?

You're giving this idiotic seed far too much credit by calling it an exercise in semantics.

You're giving this idiotic seed far too much credit by calling it an exercise in semantics.

Thank you Ian. I have read sams post on other subjects and found them to be reasonable and articulated, not necessarily agreeable, so with your permission I'd like a chance to see where this leads. I have read your #4 and respect your opinion, but in the mean time - I prefer to have my own. Alternatively there is a thread going on by Coral Atlas on the same topic, it is that particular thread where I would feel very comfortable using same epithets you chose to describe this one. I guess all things are relative.

What I am saying is that people, women, pretend to make a "choice" so it appears they may have chosen otherwise. Someone who would argue that it could be acceptable to have an abortion on a whim is never going to make a "choice", are they?

WTF?????

That has to be the most disingenious load I've EVER read on Newsvine.

That's like EXACTLY like saying "because you think you should be able to eat chocolate ice cream whenever you can get it, if you are offered a choice of chocolate ice cream, apple pie, and a t-bone steak you will OBVIOUSLY ONLY choose the chocolate ice cream because you have said you really like to have it whenever you can", without BOTHERING to ask, if maybe they ALSO like steaks and apple pie.

Sammy, you are IMPUNING on this woman that her AUTOMATIC choice will be ABORTION, in ALL situations at ALL times. So I guess, given YOUR method of setting UP this discussion, I can ASSUME that YOU support FORCING ALL females, regardless of age, health, circumstances, method of conception and so on, to carry ALL pregnancies to term.

Am I close or am I in fact assuming way way too much about your position, as you have done here?

What I think I CAN safely assume is that your "question" is nothing more than a rhetorical trap along the lines of the classic question, "So, when did you stop beating your wife?", and about as valuble in discussing this subject.

Thank you Ian. I have read sams post on other subjects and found them to be reasonable and articulated, not necessarily agreeable, so with your permission I'd like a chance to see where this leads.

You don't need my permission to wallow in Sam's disingenuous rhetoric. The presentation of his question nullifies debate by it's wording.

What I think I CAN safely assume is that your "question" is nothing more than a rhetorical trap along the lines of the classic question, "So, when did you stop beating your wife?", and about as valuble in discussing this subject.

And that sums it up exactly. I'm not sure if Sam even realized he set up the logical fallacy of the Loaded Question but he did.

You don't need my permission to wallow in Sam's disingenuous rhetoric. The presentation of his question nullifies debate by it's wording.

And it is the wording I am questioning. Sometimes people make provocative statements on purpose, so I am trying to see if this is one of those times, or he really believes it.

There are women who say , to themselves, or others, "if I get pregnant I will never have the baby", and then they don't. Is it honest to call such a person pro choice?

WTF? Of course it is. They are CHOOSING to not have children. It doesn't matter when in their lives they came to the determination that they didn't want children. And this also doesn't mean that when they become pregnant they may change their minds and CHOOSE to have children. You're making all kinds of false assumptions.

And again, my reponse is "when did you stop beating your wife and kicking your dog?"

A loaded question is a loaded question, no matter how much lipstick and eye liner you put on it.

You are NOT interested in answers, except maybe as ammunition perhaps - your question proves that. You're just engaging in a sort of super trolling.

Of course it's a provocative statement, but I am doing nothing but asking the question - what does "pro choice" mean in light of statements that indicate a predetermination?

Can't fix stupid. Certainly there are women who use abortions in place of condoms. There are women who don't know what hot coffee is. There are men who can't tell "fair and balanced", and there is ACLU who is upset that la public library is refusing to provide porn to the adults. Can't define your policies by the idiots, even though it appears that we frequently do (bicycle helmet laws). I mean from what I understand abortion is a painful and unpleasant procedure, and if there are those who a determine to repeatedly inflict it upon themselves - just as long as it is not my money paying for it.

Generally speaking I think a better question would the question of funding, rather than that of permission. I think that the majority of the country is in agreement on "pro-choice", however I can see how public funding for it maybe an issue, even for me.

@sambonner

Being pro-something does not imply a choice but a lifestyle. It's something that you stick with as a way of life. So no, I don't think any woman could be pro-abortion since that would imply that they would just get preggers, abort, get preggers again and abort again just for sport.

Being pro-choice does not mean you HAVE to agree with abortion. I know I don't. I know my wife doesn't either. It simply means that you agree with the idea that the fetus is in the woman's body and as such it is her choice as to what to do about it whether to give birth or abort.

And I can tell you this... Making a choice carries consequences. I would have never stood in my wife's way as to her choice to carry our baby, it's her body, BUT had she aborted, we probably wouldn't be together.

Now let's examine the other side. The so called pro-life people. Remember what I said about how it is a lifestyle? Well, pro-lifers tend to be men, pro-lifers tend to be Fundamentalist Christians and they tend to come from the Right.

So let's put that in context. These are people who support the death penalty and yet are pro-life. These are people who go as far as saying that the death penalty should extend to gays and yet they are pro-life. Do you see the contradictions here?

These peeps are not pro-life. What they are if you were to name them anything is pro-birth. All they want is to satisfy their dogma with the baby being born and then they turn around and don't give a flying fig about what happens to the baby.

Do you honestly think that those guys protesting outside an abortion clinic who let's say manage to change the mind of a woman who was gonna get an abortion keep track of her after she goes home? Do you think they're gonna help her make enough money to raise the baby? Or help get her car fixed? Or anything like that?

No. In fact, when it comes right down to it, the fetus/baby is the least part of it. What the so called campaign is about is to abolish women's rights.

In South Dakota I think, they were even trying to pass a bill where a hospital would not even have to ask a mother-to-be to make a choice between her and her baby. If the baby's life in danger, the bill would allow them to let the mother die automatically just so the baby is born.

I hope this gives you some things to think about.

This type of person is pro abortion when they are pregnant. If they don't get pregnant, they are not pro abortion.

I see you are fixated on that and won't accept input. Typical zealot.

In South Dakota I think, they were even trying to pass a bill where a hospital would not even have to ask a mother-to-be to make a choice between her and her baby. If the baby's life in danger, the bill would allow them to let the mother die automatically just so the baby is born.

Is it a Catholic hospital? They seem to have a track record of doing that......clear back to 1954, when the doctors at the Catholic hospital my mother was at, told my father that was their plan should anything horrible happen during the delivery.......My father told them, that they were to SAVE my MOTHER FIRST and then the baby, because what was he going to do with a newborn and no mother to take care of her......

And then there was the story about the Catholic hospital in Arizona, that thought the fetus was more valuable than the mother, even though she had 4 children at home, and fired the nun who was the hospital administrator because she ALLOWED the doctors to perform a MEDICALLY NECESSARY ABORTION to save the mother's life....

There are women who say , to themselves, or others, "if I get pregnant I will never have the baby", and then they don't.

And then there are pro-choice women, like me, who always said "If I get pregnant unintentionally, I will have an abortion." But when I did get pregnant unintentionally, I chose to have my son instead. Having that choice made me better understand what pro-choice actually means.

Being pro-choice is isn't about advocating for making any particular choice regarding pregnancy, it's simply about the right to make that choice. That's all.

There are women who say , to themselves, or others, "if I get pregnant I will never have the baby", and then they don't. Is it honest to call such a person pro choice?

Of course it is pro-choice. I have already made the choice to never have children. I use birth control and so far I have never been pregnant. If I accidentally become pregnant, I will have an immediate abortion. I am pro-choice. I CHOOSE to not be pregnant. And I support other women's right to make that choice for themselves.

Your premise in this article is terribly flawed and based on semantics. Are you THAT desperate to believe you are "in the right"??? It doesn't matter WHAT you call it...YOU will never have the right to determine whether I carry a pregnancy or not. It will NEVER be any of your business no matter WHAT terms you use.