5 ms·

Is there a situation where the belief that abortion should be illegal does not oppose a woman's ability to choose abortion? Of course the central premise of opp

Is there a situation where the belief that abortion should be illegal does not oppose a woman's ability to choose abortion? Of course the central premise of opposition to abortion is not (usually) opposition to choice, but "anti-choice" isn't technically an invalid characterization.

qu4z-2 14y ago
I think the point is that I'm pro-life, I'm just "proer"-choice. Obviously situations where the mother's life is in danger are kind of a gray area, but I think you could comfortably be "proer"-life and oppose the choice in non-life-threatening situations. Not that I agree, but that opinion wouldn't be "anti-choice".
- alxp 14y ago
  That makes you solidly pro choice.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    It's the same sort of weasel words that Creationists use to confuse Christians who can accept science but now think it runs counter to the idea of "God's Creation".
  - qu4z-2 14y ago
    My point is that I'm also pro-life. And most of the pro-life positions people take are also pro-choice, just to a lesser extent than they are pro-life. Choosing what you perceive to be the lesser of two evils doesn't make you pro-evil; choosing what you perceive to be the greater of two goods doesn't make you anti-{life,choice}. EDIT: To further clarify, I'm not at all confused as to what camp I'm in. By standard definitions, I'm definitely pro-choice. The point I'm making is that the standard definitions are not hugely useful.
ctdonath 14y ago
The central premise of opposition to abortion is whether the baby gets a choice. It's not "anti-choice", it's insisting that everyone involved have a fair say in the matter.
- superuser2 14y ago
  That's clever, but I'm guessing (maybe wrongly) that you'd wan't that baby raised in a belief system that says it will go to hell if it commits suicide. There's still no choice of whether or not to live. That's probably a good thing, but it's still technically opposed to choice.
  - ctdonath 14y ago
    Of course there's a choice then. Strongly influenced perhaps, but even the most devout believer can choose to sin or not. If he's dead by another's choice, he doesn't have any choice.
- makomk 14y ago
  Not really because it's fairly obvious that the baby has no ability to say anything. In fact, most abortion opponents are also "parental rights" supporters, which means they're actively opposed to kids having any kind of fair say in anything even when they are old enough to do so: http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2011/10/20/religious-right-conservatives-mixed-messaging-on-parental-rights/ http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2011/10/20/religious-r...
  - finnw 14y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
petercooper 14y ago
To your first question, that sounds like a tricky one logically. In my simultaneous pro-life and pro-choice belief, I don't believe abortion should be illegal. However, it shouldn't be trivial and easy to do and should require medical oversight and counselling (non-extensive, non-judgmental, and non-coercive). That is to say, any woman should have the right but it must be a considered, reasonable choice (a bit like required for gender reassignment, euthanasia, or any number of significant medical decisions).

qu4z-2 14y ago

I think the point is that I'm pro-life, I'm just "proer"-choice. Obviously situations where the mother's life is in danger are kind of a gray area, but I think you could comfortably be "proer"-life and oppose the choice in non-life-threatening situations. Not that I agree, but that opinion wouldn't be "anti-choice".

alxp 14y ago
That makes you solidly pro choice.
- illuminate 14y ago
  It's the same sort of weasel words that Creationists use to confuse Christians who can accept science but now think it runs counter to the idea of "God's Creation".
- qu4z-2 14y ago
  My point is that I'm also pro-life. And most of the pro-life positions people take are also pro-choice, just to a lesser extent than they are pro-life. Choosing what you perceive to be the lesser of two evils doesn't make you pro-evil; choosing what you perceive to be the greater of two goods doesn't make you anti-{life,choice}. EDIT: To further clarify, I'm not at all confused as to what camp I'm in. By standard definitions, I'm definitely pro-choice. The point I'm making is that the standard definitions are not hugely useful.

ctdonath 14y ago

The central premise of opposition to abortion is whether the baby gets a choice. It's not "anti-choice", it's insisting that everyone involved have a fair say in the matter.

superuser2 14y ago
That's clever, but I'm guessing (maybe wrongly) that you'd wan't that baby raised in a belief system that says it will go to hell if it commits suicide. There's still no choice of whether or not to live. That's probably a good thing, but it's still technically opposed to choice.
- ctdonath 14y ago
  Of course there's a choice then. Strongly influenced perhaps, but even the most devout believer can choose to sin or not. If he's dead by another's choice, he doesn't have any choice.
makomk 14y ago
Not really because it's fairly obvious that the baby has no ability to say anything. In fact, most abortion opponents are also "parental rights" supporters, which means they're actively opposed to kids having any kind of fair say in anything even when they are old enough to do so: http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2011/10/20/religious-right-conservatives-mixed-messaging-on-parental-rights/ http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2011/10/20/religious-r...
- finnw 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

petercooper 14y ago

To your first question, that sounds like a tricky one logically. In my simultaneous pro-life and pro-choice belief, I don't believe abortion should be illegal. However, it shouldn't be trivial and easy to do and should require medical oversight and counselling (non-extensive, non-judgmental, and non-coercive). That is to say, any woman should have the right but it must be a considered, reasonable choice (a bit like required for gender reassignment, euthanasia, or any number of significant medical decisions).