Pro-choice has always only meant "favoring the legalization of abortion" or even the longer "Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term." It is about giving a woman the right to choose whether to carry her pregnancy to term or not. Not about her choice in clothes or hair color, or in my dad's choice of vehicle or whatever.
Nobody here is hiding from anything that I know of. We have all made our stances fairly clear I believe. I call the opposing side whatever they prefer, pro-life or anti-abortion and it makes no difference to me because they both mean the same thing and all it does is give people a general idea of where they stand on the abortion debate. I don't see why you make such a fuss over calling someone pro-choice. You know what it means, it means keeping abortion legal. Same goes for choicers that make a fuss over calling lifers pro-life. All it describes are abortion stances and nothing more.
Pregnancy is a natural threat to females of any species, but lets stick to humans. If a woman is pregnant, to her it's a threat, it doesn't have to be physical, but emotionally and mentally, she believes it's a threat. Young girl pregnant doesn't want it to effect her future. Grown working woman doesn't want a child to distract her. Or other woman who just don't want pregnancy disrupting their life in someway and they don't want a child. You have to realize, a woman may not want a child, and also may not want to kill it, but seeing as pregnancy may dramatically effect their lives just to give the baby to someone else, that's a threat to her. Now maybe you're idea will be to make sure every woman who considers an abortion to go through some type of therapy so they don't think the child is a threat? Isn't that brainwashing? You'd be brainwashing people to think the way you want and not for themselves. And even at that, if a woman really believes this baby is a "threat" to her in some way, she force herself to have a miscarriage. Only way to stop that is to strap the woman down for 9 months. Yeah that's a humane way to solve the problem.
I have to disagree. I see people saying "I oppose abortion I am just for the woman's right to choose", well that is a BS statement. If you oppose abortion you oppose it being legal. You cannot oppose something, but favor someone's right to do it. That is illogical. To each his or her own, I just detest people who cannot just stand up and admit that they support abortion, and instead hide behind a BS statement like "I personally oppose abortion, but..." Well it is fraud, I guess that is why. I oppose "pro life" as a moniker as well.
I agree, I have seen a few of those people around. But most of the regulars here either oppose it or they don't. Agreed. I don't believe it is fraud. Pro-choice is short for, "Being in favor of keeping abortion legal and allowing women to CHOOSE whether they terminate their pregnancy or not." All it means is that the woman should have a choice in regards to her pregnancy and that's all it's ever meant. I don't see how that is fraud. I could say the same for the term pro-life, but I could really care less about the opposing side's choice of titles.
Sorry, but your poll, like so many is a bit foolish. There are far more than two choices involved with the abortion issue. I for one think abortion is horrid, the only thing I can think of that is more horrible, than abortion is ILLEGAL ABORTION. Until such time as no female ever seeks an abortion, then abortions MUST remain legal.
The pro life position can be summed up like this: Anti allowing women to make decisions regarding their own bodies Anti sex if if it not for the purpose of procreation Pro forcing women to endure unwanted pregnancies Pro forcing your opinion on women Pro controlling a woman's uterus I think I've summed it up.
Well, I am anti-abortion and pro legal abortion. Until such a time as no woman wishes to have an abortion, they MUST remain legal. I also support free abortions at any age without parental notification (since parents are often the cause of the woman seeking to have the abortion). I believe that all legitimate options should be presented to any woman seeking an abortion, and by legitimate I do NOT mean, religious ignorance, bigotry or any ignorant bias based in idiocy. So, don't get to upset at all us anti-abortionists, some of us still believe in LEGAL abortion, since the only option is ILLEGAL abortion.
All I think you have done is proven that you don't comprehend what you read here and that you have to demonize the opposition to feel better about your support of wanton homicide. I think I have summed it up well!
You fail to grasp the concept of freedom of choice. If one only believes in freedom of choice for things that one agrees with, then you really do not believe in freedom of choice at all. A woman may not agree with abortion for personal reasons but still respects the right of another women to make choices for herself. I may not like alcohol but I still respect the right of others to drink due to my belief in freedom of choice. This is why characterization of all folks who do not want abortion criminalized as pro-abort is incorrect. The term Pro-Life is also a bad choice of words. It is far too ambiguous. What kind of life ?
I don't like "pro life" any more than I like the ambiguous "pro choice" moniker. You are either pro abortion or anto abortion. Pro abortion is correct.
The empirical evidence shows that its a pro-choice environment that leads, over time, to reductions in abortion rates. Pro-choice is anti-abortion! Pro-life is then irrationality inspired by morality coercion
It is based on empirical evidence. I don't expect the morality coercers to appreciate the scientific process though
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphusabrate.html This appears to make your assertion laughable at best. A MAJOR spike in frequency ensued after legalization in 1973. Education by the pro life movement has lead to a steady reduction in more recent years. The rate prior to legalization was DRAMATICALLY lower!!!
Abuse of raw data? Golly, didn't see that coming. As you know and deliberately pretend otherwise, I refer directly to published cross-country empirical evidence capable of isolating pro-choice (and, as have been shown, anti-abortion) effects
So how do you reconcile the DRAMATIC increase in abortion rates since 1973 and your "theory" that a "pro choice" environment reduces the rate of abortions? I thought you liked science and factual data based analysis.
You need to understand the scientific process. One first makes sure one has definitions correct. Referring to legal abortions won't cut the mustard, given that ignores illegal abortions. One then has to utilise global data in order to ensure that one has sufficient structural breaks in the data to isolate abortion policy effects. Now you know all of this. You're peddling obvious clap-trap as you're not interested in the pro-choice and anti-abortion position. You're interested in morality coercion
Come on Timex, you can do better than that. Resorting to demonization when you cannot support your debate position? Shame on you. The graph tells all.
A low powered attempt to ignore the scientific process. Perhaps you didn't even look at the clap-trap you copy and paste? Perhaps you didn't notice the definition error? That of course won't excuse you deliberately ignoring the need for international comparison in order to isolate abortion policy effects. As someone who is anti-abortion, I find your attempts at coercing an irrational result rather disagreeable.
I see, so you cannot reconcile actual factual data with your opinion. Hmmm, well that makes your opinion something of a moot point then doesn't it. Irrational would be to accept your assertion that factual data must be tweaked and spun to be accurate. That is simply assinine.
