CHAT: Pro-life or Anti-Choice?
HJ Hornbeck
"I suppose I should defend my use of "anti-choice." The label "pro-life" implies that camp is more protective of life than the other side, but is that the case? I, too, think life is worthy of protection. Most of the pro-choice people I know would agree; it's why we agree with doctors who refuse to abort without medical necessity past the 22-ish week mark, because the faetus *may* have gained consciousness and thus is a life worth protecting. We're not sure about that, but we'd rather be safe than sorry.
Both sides respect life, and I'd argue we protect it with equal passion. Where we differ is in where life starts. However, that doesn't make for a snappy sales pitch, and so one side has declared themselves "pro-life" when they really don't deserve the label.
Studies have shown that making abortion illegal does not reduce the number of abortions, it merely pushes them underground, resulting in many physically and emotionally scarred women. The pro-choice side accepts this reality, and would rather compromise and offer up the choice of a safe, legal medical procedure instead. "Pro-lifers" ignore this reality, and restrict women's choices both legally and socially; the latter by hammering in a message of guilt and shame. Since this is inherently negative, "anti-choice" seems much more accurate a label than "pro-life," at least to me."
As if to underscore the point, Ophelia Benson just posted this sad tale that shows one anecdote of how the anti-choicers really do try to remove choice, if not literally than by liberal application of shame and lies:
Instead, before I’d even known I was pregnant, a molecular flaw had determined that our son’s brain, spine and legs wouldn’t develop correctly. If he were to make it to term—something our doctor couldn’t guarantee—he’d need a lifetime of medical care. From the moment he was born, my doctor told us, our son would suffer greatly. [...]
“I don’t want to have to do this at all,” I told her. “I’m doing this to prevent my baby’s suffering. I don’t want another sonogram when I’ve already had two today. I don’t want to hear a description of the life I’m about to end. Please,” I said, “I can’t take any more pain.” I confess that I don’t know why I said that. I knew it was fait accompli. The counselor could no more change the government requirement than I could. Yet here was a superfluous layer of torment piled upon an already horrific day, and I wanted this woman to know it. [...]“I’m so sorry that I have to do this,” the doctor told us, “but if I don’t, I can lose my license.” Before he could even start to describe our baby, I began to sob until I could barely breathe. Somewhere, a nurse cranked up the volume on a radio, allowing the inane pronouncements of a DJ to dull the doctor’s voice. Still, despite the noise, I heard him. His unwelcome words echoed off sterile walls while I, trapped on a bed, my feet in stirrups, twisted away from his voice.
“Here I see a well-developed diaphragm and here I see four healthy chambers of the heart…”
I closed my eyes and waited for it to end, as one waits for the car to stop rolling at the end of a terrible accident.
When the description was finally over, the doctor held up a script and said he was legally obliged to read me information provided by the state. It was about the health dangers of having an abortion, the risks of infection or hemorrhage, the potential for infertility and my increased chance of getting breast cancer.
Jorge Escobedo
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:33:45 -0700
From: hjhor...@shaw.ca
To: freethin...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [FUC] CHAT: Pro-life or Anti-Choice?
You've received this message because you are subscribed to the University of Calgary Freethinkers Club mailing list. Lucky you! Here's the rules:
- To post an informal message on a new topic to this group, please send an email to freethin...@googlegroups.com with "CHAT" somewhere in the subject line; that little addition helps others deal with the HUGE volume of traffic!
- To reply to an existing message... reply to it. Yes, it's that simple!
- To post an announcement to this group instead, fire off a message to freethin...@googlegroups.com . Keep it brief and informative.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
freethinkers-c...@googlegroups.com
- For more options, like getting posts in a lump-sum digest, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/freethinkers-club?hl=en
Jace Eagle Bear
http://vimeo.com/34761825
http://WWW.BACKTOLIFEMOVEMENT.COM/
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 18:33:45 -0700
From: hjhor...@shaw.ca
To: freethin...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [FUC] CHAT: Pro-life or Anti-Choice?
Evan Loughlin
I'm glad you pointed this out. The "pro-choice" vs "pro-life" dichotomy really does paint a false picture of the "pro-choice" angle. But in fact the pro-life advocates rely entirely upon this misunderstanding. They like to make it seem as though their opposition is arguing against life itself.
Which is why, when asked for my position, I always sarcastically respond "anti-life". :-)
bpa...@ucalgary.ca
Yes, I like "pro-choice" vs "anti-choice" because it is a more neutral
comparison. "pro-life" seems to be begging the fundamental question, and
I think either stance is actually viewed as pro-life by the people of that
stance.
I have also encountered the term "forced-birthers" referring to
anti-choice people...
-Brian.
> I'm glad you pointed this out. The "pro-choice" vs "pro-life" dichotomy
> really does paint a false picture of the "pro-choice" angle. But in fact
> the pro-life advocates rely entirely upon this misunderstanding. They
> like
> to make it seem as though their opposition is arguing against life
> itself.
>
> Which is why, when asked for my position, I always sarcastically respond
> "anti-life". :-)
> On Mar 16, 2012 1:04 AM, "Jace Eagle Bear" <jace...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Found this on facebook. I don't know what others think, but the project
>> website to me seems to give the impression that women are somehow forced
>> to
>> have abortions? And surprise, surprise; it is Christian-founded.
>>
>> http://vimeo.com/34761825
>>
>> http://WWW.BACKTOLIFEMOVEMENT.COM/
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> <http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/03/a-triumph-for-the-texas-taliban/>that
>> shows one anecdote of how the anti-choicers really do try to remove
>> choice,
>> if not literally than by liberal application of shame and lies:
>>
>> Instead, before I�d even known I was pregnant, a molecular flaw had
>> determined that our son�s brain, spine and legs wouldn�t develop
>> correctly.
>> If he were to make it to term�something our doctor couldn�t
>> guarantee�he�d
>> need a lifetime of medical care. From the moment he was born, my doctor
>> told us, our son would suffer greatly. [...]
>>
>> �I don�t *want* to have to do this at all,� I told her. �I�m doing this
>> to prevent my baby�s suffering. I don�t *want* another sonogram when
>> I�ve
>> already had two today. I don�t *want* to hear a description of the life
>> lie<http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage>
HJ Hornbeck
We don't abort stillborn calves or pigs, as painful as those experiences can be. So why should we let women abort?
Not thinking that was good enough reason, he went on to mention a customer to his store. That person pledged that if everyone "stopped killing babies," he would give up illegal cock fighting.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/12/442637/georgia-rep-compares-women-to-animals/
England's arguments are comically bad. And yet he's captured the pro-life stance quite well: they would deny women a medical procedure, even when medically necessary, because someone else considers that procedure against their moral code. Any arguments that their moral code is in error will fall on deaf ears, because they claim it cannot be questioned, even if they themselves apply it questionably.
HJ Hornbeck
Greg Axani
On a more serious note, it just amazes me that the narrator in this video thinks that "they" [the politicians for pro-chioce] don't represent her. First off, she is not the only person in the US and there are plenty of women that are represented by Rowe vs Wade. Secondly, I am sure that her opinion would change when her life is in jeopardy because something is wrong with the fetus and it needs to be aborted.
I am amazed at how these christians that like to think they help so many people. What they dont really realize that this stupid battle over abortions is HURTING more people than it helps. It digresses political conversation from important topics like climate change, getting out of Afghanistan and fixing the economy. Their battle is selfish!
- Greg Axani
gax...@gmail.com
Greg Axani
- Greg Axani
gax...@gmail.com
On 2012-03-16, at 6:56 AM, bpa...@ucalgary.ca wrote:
Graham Hill
- For more options, like getting posts in a lump-sum digest, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/freethinkers-club?hl=en
--
You've received this message because you are subscribed to the University of Calgary Freethinkers Club mailing list. Lucky you! Here's the rules:
- To post an informal message on a new topic to this group, please send an email to freethin...@googlegroups.com with "CHAT" somewhere in the subject line; that little addition helps others deal with the HUGE volume of traffic!
- To reply to an existing message... reply to it. Yes, it's that simple!
- To post an announcement to this group instead, fire off a message to freethin...@googlegroups.com . Keep it brief and informative.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
- For more options, like getting posts in a lump-sum digest, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/freethinkers-club?hl=en
Graham Hill
- For more options, like getting posts in a lump-sum digest, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/freethinkers-club?hl=en
--
You've received this message because you are subscribed to the University of Calgary Freethinkers Club mailing list. Lucky you! Here's the rules:
- To post an informal message on a new topic to this group, please send an email to freethin...@googlegroups.com with "CHAT" somewhere in the subject line; that little addition helps others deal with the HUGE volume of traffic!
- To reply to an existing message... reply to it. Yes, it's that simple!
- To post an announcement to this group instead, fire off a message to freethin...@googlegroups.com . Keep it brief and informative.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
- For more options, like getting posts in a lump-sum digest, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/freethinkers-club?hl=en
Tessa
Graham Hill <gthi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The thing is, there actually is a separate “anti-life” position. It’s called antinatalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism .
>
>This leads me to realize that there are probably several separate axes here:
>-birth-positive (new life has positive value) vs. birth-negative (new life has negative value)
>-abortion-negative (abortion is a bad thing which should be avoided) vs. abortion-indifferent (abortion is not a bad thing in and of itself)
>-pro-choice (the government should not interfere with reproductive rights) vs. anti-choice (the government should restrict reproductive actions)
>
>So:
>-the “pro-life” position is usually birth-positive, abortion-negative, anti-choice;
>-“pro-choice” can apply to any combination on the birth and abortion axes, since if you just want the government to stay out of people’s uteruses, it doesn’t matter so much where you stand on the other two dimensions;
>-antinatalism is birth-negative and abortion-indifferent, and may be anti-choice as well.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Graham
>
>From: Evan Loughlin
>Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:21 AM
>To: freethin...@googlegroups.com
>Subject: RE: [FUC] CHAT: Pro-life or Anti-Choice?
>
>I'm glad you pointed this out. The "pro-choice" vs "pro-life" dichotomy really does paint a false picture of the "pro-choice" angle. But in fact the pro-life advocates rely entirely upon this misunderstanding. They like to make it seem as though their opposition is arguing against life itself.
>
>Which is why, when asked for my position, I always sarcastically respond "anti-life". :-)
>
>On Mar 16, 2012 1:04 AM, "Jace Eagle Bear" <jace...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Found this on facebook. I don't know what others think, but the project website to me seems to give the impression that women are somehow forced to have abortions? And surprise, surprise; it is Christian-founded.
>
> http://vimeo.com/34761825
>
> http://WWW.BACKTOLIFEMOVEMENT.COM/
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HJ Hornbeck
fact it *is* part of a debate, between Stephen Woodworth, the MP who
started this mess in February, and Joyce Arthur, founder of the
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada.
Woodworth, part 1<http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/stephen-woodworth/pro-
response-1_b_1364941.html>:
"Almost 80% of Canadians think that our law already does provide
recognition of the rights of children during the third trimester of
their development before birth. They are unaware that it does not.
When informed of this, over 70% of Canadians tell us they believe our
law should provide such recognition during at least the third
trimester of the child's development.
Canadians know from their own experience that a child is a human being
before the moment of complete birth. In other words, they know that
subsection 223(1) is dishonest about children before birth.
Subsection 223(1) is, purely and simply, a law that says that some
human beings are not human. And in Canada in the 21st century, we
should never accept any law that says some human beings are not human.
That lesson was learned when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1859 that
blacks were not persons under U.S. law. Wouldn't you and I have
objected if we had been there?"
Arthur, part1<http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/joyce-arthur/abortion-
debate-1-motion-_b_1386459.html>:
"As a stalwart member of the anti-abortion movement, Woodworth is
already a true believer in the anti-choice presumption that fetuses
are "human beings" who deserve rights. Apparently unable to separate
his personal beliefs from the issue at hand, he falls into the logical
fallacy known as "begging the question." This occurs when the premise
of a position is used as proof for the position. The question he says
he wants answered is whether a fetus should be considered a human
being -- that is, a child. Yet his premise simply assumes it's a
"child" and "human being" from the outset, one whom the law unjustly
"deprives" of being recognized as such.
So what is the point of the motion if the answer is already a foregone
conclusion to Woodworth and his supporters? More ominously, what is
the point of convening a Parliamentary Committee stacked with a
majority of anti-choice Conservatives who will simply apply the same
foregone conclusion to the proceedings, regardless of any opposing
evidence or testimony?"
Woodworth, part 2<http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/stephen-woodworth/
woodworth-2_b_1397399.html>:
"Ms. Arthur suggests that using the word "child" is begging the
question since she assumes that a "child" is a "human being."
I recommend reading the statute mentioned in my Motion. It really does
say "a child becomes a human being when...". If I did not use the
language of the law I would be accused of misrepresenting it. However,
the statute is not "begging the question" in using that language, and
neither am I.
I conclude that science will show a child is a human being at some
point before the moment of complete birth. However, far from "begging
the question" on that, I propose to expose that proposition to the
evidence and principles which apply to it.
Ms. Arthur's commentary not only begs the question (by assuming that a
child is not a human being until complete birth) but is adamantly
opposed to exposing that belief to the cold light of scientific
evidence and sound principle."
Arthur, part 2<http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/joyce-arthur/joyce-
arthur-2_b_1397281.html>:
"Woodworth's debate contributions exemplify what is wrong with his
motion and why it will fail. Throughout, he uses the word "women" only
once, ironically to note that women were previously not considered
persons under Canadian law. My opening statement focused on the
potential harms his motion would pose to the lives, health, and
personhood of all pregnant women, but Woodworth could only offer a few
weak and random criticisms that ignore women and fail to address my
key points.
Woodworth accuses me of "conjuring up a host of concepts which are not
found in the question being debated." But the fact that women cannot
be found anywhere in his motion is precisely the problem -- the main
"logical fallacy," as it were. He can't just erase women from the
discussion as if they are mere containers for fetuses with no rights
of their own. After all, a fetus cannot exist or thrive without a
woman to sustain it."
The entire debate, along with voting, can be found here<http://
www.huffingtonpost.ca/stephen-woodworth/post_3178_b_1397417.html>.
HJ Hornbeck
Sam Khangyi
to-the-house-of-commons
He tables it today.
--
Cheers,
Sam