Why do 90% of black people vote for Democrats?

[dannubis]

See, I don't get this. I agree that being in favor of the death penalty is not consistent with the label of "pro-life," but opposition to abortion and opposition to the death penalty are two different things. One involves an entirely innocent life form (if you don't want to call it a person), the other one a person who has committed murder (assuming the justice system is infallible, which is of course not the case, but we're talking broad principles here). I don't see those positions as necessarily inconsistent, even though I think the DP is wrong.

With that said, I once heard a standup comic remark that being against abortion but for capital punishment was neither pro-life nor pro-choice..."it's just pro-crastinating." Clever fellow.

Being pro-DP implies that one is OK with terminating a human life under certain circumstances.
Being pro-life (what a name) implies that one is not OK with terminating a human life whatever the circumstances.

That is a logical inconsistency every way you look at it.

[Elok]

Re me using 'anti-choice' its largely because I get really pissed off with the implication of 'pro-life' that people who support the right to abortion are anti-life. It's not like theres anyone out there who just loves the act of abortion, some of us just think the rational option is to leave that choice to the individual, not try and lay down a blanket ban which has been shown repeatedly not to work anyway.

And the label "pro-choice" implies to the same extent that we're opposed to women's rights. Both the pro-labels are reasonable and fair IMO: I weigh the life of the child/fetus more heavily, you weigh the woman's general right to self-determination more heavily. They describe our respective positions. "Anti-choice" makes it sound like I'm specifically opposed to women deciding for themselves. I'm not; if there were a way for women to stop being pregnant that did not involve killing the child, I would be all for it. However, that is physically impossible, at least at this point in time--and even in the future, as ways to push back fetal viability become more and more advanced, who is going to pay to keep the child of a penniless sixteen-year-old alive? It can't be done. Really, unless your opponents call themselves "non-dip****s," deliberately and obviously insulting you by implication, I think you ought to accept the label they choose for themselves. There's enough rancor around the debate already.

[Elok]

Danny, the bit you quoted in that post specifically says I see the contradiction with the term "pro-life." I just don't see the contradiction between the two actual positions.

EDIT: This is without the high-minded "culture of life" talk, of course. That is rather hypocritical.

[kentonio]

And the label "pro-choice" implies to the same extent that we're opposed to women's rights.

Sorry in advance because I don't like offending people I think are decent folks, but I believe that if you want to ban abortion then you are opposed to womens rights. I don't see how else you could wish to remove their rights over their own bodies. If you tell a woman she must carry to term, then you are forcing control over her body for nine months.

Both the pro-labels are reasonable and fair IMO: I weigh the life of the child/fetus more heavily, you weigh the woman's general right to self-determination more heavily. They describe our respective positions. "Anti-choice" makes it sound like I'm specifically opposed to women deciding for themselves. I'm not; if there were a way for women to stop being pregnant that did not involve killing the child, I would be all for it. However, that is physically impossible, at least at this point in time--and even in the future, as ways to push back fetal viability become more and more advanced, who is going to pay to keep the child of a penniless sixteen-year-old alive? It can't be done. Really, unless your opponents call themselves "non-dip****s," deliberately and obviously insulting you by implication, I think you ought to accept the label they choose for themselves. There's enough rancor around the debate already.

Probably true, but that rancor is primarily directed in one direction. I can't recall many pro-choice groups picketting baby wards screaming hate at the new mothers walking in.

Again sorry if the above comes across as insulting, I don't like colouring a debate like that, I just see this as a very pivotal fight between modern human rights and equality and the desire of a large group to control the morality and rights of a group that just spent most of the last century fighting to be free of male control. I think it becomes especially wrong when abortion has always happened outside the law in countries where it is banned anyway, at huge risk to the women who feel compelled to take that route.

[Lorizael]

Sorry in advance because I don't like offending people I think are decent folks, but I believe that if you want to ban abortion then you are opposed to womens rights. I don't see how else you could wish to remove their rights over their own bodies. If you tell a woman she must carry to term, then you are forcing control over her body for nine months.

States remove rights from individuals all the time. It's what states do. For example, if you do have a child, the state compels you to raise and take care of that child, which limits your freedom of action considerably for ~18 years. 9 months is small potatoes.

[Jon Miller]

Probably true, but that rancor is primarily directed in one direction. I can't recall many pro-choice groups picketting baby wards screaming hate at the new mothers walking in.

People are generally a lot more upset at killers then people who do not kill. One is an action, the other is not.

Look at animal rights.

Pro-hunting groups do not show up everywhere hunting is not going on to protest. Pro-animal rights groups do show up where hunting is going on.

The only group who would reasonable show up and protest at baby words in the human extinction movement.

I assume that you are also against those who try to restrict people's right to have female circumcision?

JM
(Of course not, hypocrite.)

[kentonio]

States remove rights from individuals all the time. It's what states do. For example, if you do have a child, the state compels you to raise and take care of that child, which limits your freedom of action considerably for ~18 years. 9 months is small potatoes.

Not true, the state does not force you to physically spend x amount of hours a day doing x, y and z with that child. The only obligation is to ensure the child is raised safely.

People are generally a lot more upset at killers then people who do not kill. One is an action, the other is not.

Look at animal rights.

Pro-hunting groups do not show up everywhere hunting is not going on to protest. Pro-animal rights groups do show up where hunting is going on.

The only group who would reasonable show up and protest at baby words in the human extinction movement.

So only one side is carrying out a campaign of protest (and often a vitriolic one), thus my comment about the rancour primarily coming from one side.

I assume that you are also against those who try to restrict people's right to have female circumcision?

JM
(Of course not, hypocrite.)

Hypocrite? Isn't it generally considered polite to allow someone to answer before you start throwing insults?

Actually you're wrong, I have no objection to women having female circumcision. I find it repulsive, and would fight tooth and nail to prevent it being forced on women (or them being coerced into it), but if a woman came to the decision while of sound mind that she wanted it done, then that's her choice to make.

[Lorizael]

Not true, the state does not force you to physically spend x amount of hours a day doing x, y and z with that child. The only obligation is to ensure the child is raised safely.

The obligation to carry a fetus to term is no more specific.

[Jon Miller]

Hypocrite? Isn't it generally considered polite to allow someone to answer before you start throwing insults?

Actually you're wrong, I have no objection to women having female circumcision. I find it repulsive, and would fight tooth and nail to prevent it being forced on women (or them being coerced into it), but if a woman came to the decision while of sound mind that she wanted it done, then that's her choice to make.

I wasn't aware of huge protest groups of women in the countries where female circumcision takes place. In fact, isn't it generally done by women?

JM

[kentonio]

The obligation to carry a fetus to term is no more specific.

Of course it is, carrying a fetus to term requires the woman to undergo huge physical changes and strains which not only greatly restrict the womans ability to function in a normal fashion, but which can also be dangerous or even life threatening. If you're wealthy, you can pay a nanny to look after a child and hardly have it affect your life in the slightest.

I wasn't aware of huge protest groups of women in the countries where female circumcision takes place. In fact, isn't it generally done by women?

JM

I believe its true that the countries where it takes place are also without exception heavily patriarchal societies where religious control is dominant. That's why I said 'and would fight tooth and nail to prevent it being forced on women (or them being coerced into it)'.

[Jon Miller]

So you are just against female circumcision.

You have no proof that the girls don't want to be circumcised.

Just like we don't have proof that the fetus doesn't want to be killed.

You are purely mandating your beliefs on others.

No different than what you are accusing people in the heavily patriarchal societies.

JM

[kentonio]

So you are just against female circumcision.

You have no proof that the girls don't want to be circumcised.

Actually there are huge bodies of evidence to show that female circumcision is forced/coerced onto females in some male dominated religious societies as a means of controlling women and preventing their sexual freedom. I certainly am against it, but like I said before I wouldn't try and force a woman not to have it done if she so chose. It's her body, not mine.

Just like we don't have proof that the fetus doesn't want to be killed.

That doesn't make any sense.

You are purely mandating your beliefs on others.

No different than what you are accusing people in the heavily patriarchal societies.

JM

My position leaves the decision as to what happens to a womans body up to that woman. Yours involves forcing that woman to subject to your personal views on morality. I'm pretty sure I'm not the one 'purely mandating your beliefs on others'.

[Jon Miller]

I site an objective morality.

Murder (or killing humans for selfish purposes) is wrong.

JM

[kentonio]

I site an objective morality.

Murder (or killing humans for selfish purposes) is wrong.

JM

Me too, we just disagree about what constitutes a human.

[Elok]

Ignoring the argument with JM here...

Sorry in advance because I don't like offending people I think are decent folks, but I believe that if you want to ban abortion then you are opposed to womens rights. I don't see how else you could wish to remove their rights over their own bodies. If you tell a woman she must carry to term, then you are forcing control over her body for nine months.

A. What Lorizael said. Governments impose on people's right to self-determination all the time.
B. Likewise don't take offense, but doesn't the same apply in reverse? I don't believe in killing fetuses--which necessarily entails a restriction on women's freedoms. You don't believe in restricting women's freedoms--which necessarily entails a world wherein more abortions take place, because you can't tell me that illegality has no deterrent value whatever. Your position necessarily entails more abortions, mine necessarily entails less liberty, but I'm pro-life, you're pro-choice, because those are the things we place value on. It's really just civility.

Probably true, but that rancor is primarily directed in one direction. I can't recall many pro-choice groups picketting baby wards screaming hate at the new mothers walking in.

A more valid comparison would be to crisis pregnancy centers, which do receive a certain amount of hate from the left for "preying on vulnerable women" and ostensibly employing dishonest tactics. I don't want to get into comparisons of relative hatefulness, but let's just say there's plenty of anger to go around.

Again sorry if the above comes across as insulting, I don't like colouring a debate like that, I just see this as a very pivotal fight between modern human rights and equality and the desire of a large group to control the morality and rights of a group that just spent most of the last century fighting to be free of male control.

This is because you're reading a basically villainous thought pattern into the opposition. I, at least, don't give a damn about controlling the rights of women, certainly not for its own sake. You make it sound like I want to keep them down--I don't. I simply think abortion is unconscionable, and think their freedom needs to be limited to precisely that extent. I used to impute a similarly sinister worldview to the pro-choice, that they were waging a deliberate campaign to dehumanize the unborn so they could kill them with impunity. I gave up on it because not only is it generally not true, it's simply not helpful to demonize the opposition in that way. A certain amount of dehumanization does go on, as when people refer to the fetus as a "parasite" or "tumor" (FFS), but it's more the result of the two sides becoming increasingly ossified in extremism as the argument goes on.

I think it becomes especially wrong when abortion has always happened outside the law in countries where it is banned anyway, at huge risk to the women who feel compelled to take that route.

Here we get to one of the big problems: the pro-life movement, in America and AFAIK in most of the rest of the world, is hopelessly dysfunctional. Aside from their tendency to conflate opposition to abortion with Christianity--which is a serious fault all by itself--most of the people who oppose abortion also oppose access to birth control and responsible sex education. Which is like being against drunk driving but for 24-hour drive-through windows on bars and nightclubs. The latter position effectively cancels out the former; you're feeding the monster at the same time you're trying to kill it.

I also think this highlights a big social problem which abortion tends to obscure: that pregnancy is such a burden for women that a substantial number of them will do something obviously life-threatening rather than go through with it. That's a problem we are a couple of thousand years late in addressing seriously.