Anti abortion should = pro birth control. One GOPer gets it.

[Rhea]

Here's a quick one-question test to discern whether a person is actually "pro-life" and wants to reduce abortions or whether they are actually "anti-choice" and want to control sex. (If anyone wants to post this question in debates elesewhere, I would love to hear the answers.)

~are you for or against state-funded, easy to acquire long term birth control?~

That's it. If you are FOR this proposition, you can reduce abortions by 88% in 12 weeks. It's so simple.

Unless - your position is actually that controlling the sex lives of women is the main goal. In which case, you are against this and also against abortions.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/02/04/3618986/republican-iud-program-colorado/

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This makes one minor error. The idea that the objection to abortion has anything to do with the fetus. In general, the Pro-Life movement wants to eliminate birth control.

 

[Shadowy Man]

This makes one minor error. The idea that the objection to abortion has anything to do with the fetus. In general, the Pro-Life movement wants to eliminate birth control.

I don't think the question makes the error. It exposes exactly what you are saying.

 

[Bronzeage]

This makes one minor error. The idea that the objection to abortion has anything to do with the fetus. In general, the Pro-Life movement wants to eliminate birth control.

In one sense, yes. What the Pro-life movement wants to do is eliminate recreational sex. They see pregnancy as a punishment for sex and anything which reduces punishment, encourages the sin, thus they oppose birth control and disease prevention.

Proclaiming the "Sacredness of Life" makes their message palatable for the public. If they carried signs of teens in the back seats of cars and chanted, "Stop fucking now," it would be difficult to get much public support.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You are all speaking of the "Pro Life Movement" as if it is one united entity. It isn't. There are plenty of people who oppose abortion because they actually do care about the unborn, and don't care at all about your sex life. The OP points to one. Trying to lump all Pro Life together is just an attempt to dismiss some very valid concerns.

 

[Bronzeage]

You are all speaking of the "Pro Life Movement" as if it is one united entity. It isn't. There are plenty of people who oppose abortion because they actually do care about the unborn, and don't care at all about your sex life. The OP points to one. Trying to lump all Pro Life together is just an attempt to dismiss some very valid concerns.

Which is not too different from calling Pro-choice people "baby killers."

None the less, a large segment of the Pro-Life movement shows little concern with ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy, other than abstinence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are all speaking of the "Pro Life Movement" as if it is one united entity. It isn't. There are plenty of people who oppose abortion because they actually do care about the unborn, and don't care at all about your sex life. The OP points to one. Trying to lump all Pro Life together is just an attempt to dismiss some very valid concerns.

Very valid concerns? Like building codes, hospital admission policies, zoning?

Most in the Pro-Life movement believe the kid is on their own once they are born.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Which is not too different from calling Pro-choice people "baby killers."

Exactly. Both sides straw man the other. Nobody calls themself Pro-Death or Anti-Choice, but that is how each side views the other.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Which is not too different from calling Pro-choice people "baby killers."

Exactly. Both sides straw man the other. Nobody calls themself Pro-Death or Anti-Choice, but that is how each side views the other.

Moore and Coulter.

Pro-choice doesn't have a hidden agenda, unlike major factions in the Pro-"Life" movement.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

That depends on your point of view. I know and understand yours, but I don't think you know and understand those who may speak against you.

It comes down to how you view the unborn. Is it just a parasite mass of cells that we can remove like a cyst until it is born? Is it a human being, a person, our equal, from the moment of conception? Is it something in between, and at what point does it become somebody that we should care about and extend rights to?

You see it as a matter of choice. They see it as a matter of life. Saying choice trumps life is very cold.

You can say that they all want to control women's bodies, etc. They can equally say that you want to excuse murder. Both are said to avoid acknowledging that the other has valid concerns.

ery valid concerns? Like building codes, hospital admission policies, zoning?

Valid concerns like the life of a fellow human being. They see the unborn as equals, as people. Killing that is homocide. Killing that without a valid excuse is murder. You can at that point say that they are parasitic, and you should have no obligation to endanger your body or spend your life resources on them against your wishes, but then the same can be said regarding child support and caring for children once born. We have child neglect laws.

Most in the Pro-Life movement believe the kid is on their own once they are born.

Do you really think that most Pro-Life people are cool with abandoning toddlers to starve and rot? They may not call for the same social welfare programs that you and I support, but your rhetoric goes way to far with such straw man statements.

Pro-choice doesn't have a hidden agenda, unlike major factions in the Pro-"Life" movement.

Pro-choice wants it to be the killers choice to kill the unborn, and often you even hear that "It is only this woman's business" or "Only women should be listened to on the Abortion issue". That is fine if you view the unborn as something other than one of us, but do you realize how that sounds to people who view the unborn as human beings and people worth caring about? It is like saying "Only pedophiles should be listened to on the Kiddie Porn issue".

They will accuse you of wanting to excuse murder because it should be the "woman's choice" to murder. They can then point to cases where otherwise pro-choice people will support double homocide charges for killing pregnant women. They can say "Suddenly the unborn IS one of us in that case to a lot of pro-choicers. They know abortion is murder. They want to excuse murder". They can play the same rhetorical games you do.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That depends on your point of view. I know and understand yours, but I don't think you know and understand those who may speak against you.

It comes down to how you view the unborn. Is it just a parasite mass of cells that we can remove like a cyst until it is born? Is it a human being, a person, our equal, from the moment of conception? Is it something in between, and at what point does it become somebody that we should care about and extend rights to?

You see it as a matter of choice.

I'm glad you agree.

Pro-choice wants it to be the killers choice to kill the unborn, and often you even hear that "It is only this woman's business" or "Only women should be listened to on the Abortion issue".

Killer?

That is fine if you view the unborn as something other than one of us, but do you realize how that sounds to people who view the unborn as human beings and people worth caring about? It is like saying "Only pedophiles should be listened to on the Kiddie Porn issue".

No... it isn't like that at all.

 

[bilby]

Well, just in case anybody was under the impression that it might be possible to discuss the subject of reducing the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted conceptions, thereby avoiding the endless acrimony of the 'is abortion murder' debate; I can now announce that, no, even with an OP that very explicitly seeks to do this, it cannot be achieved.

Cheap, readily available contraception would massively reduce the number of abortions, while simultaneously maintaining a woman's right to choose whether or not to become a mother.

But we can't talk about that, because it denies us our basic human right to go for each others throats, and accuse each other of murder and/or tyranny.

Now back to your scheduled debate - Enslaving Women or Mass Murder; which is morally righteous??

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, just in case anybody was under the impression that it might be possible to discuss the subject of reducing the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted conceptions, thereby avoiding the endless acrimony of the 'is abortion murder' debate; I can now announce that, no, even with an OP that very explicitly seeks to do this, it cannot be achieved.

The problem is that the problem isn't abortions... its the sex. If all the Pro-"Life" movement wanted was to eliminate abortions, proper birth control would be extremely effective in getting closer to that goal. So, one needs to ponder, if it were that simple to reduce the number of abortions, why isn't that the tact by the Pro-"Life" movement?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are all speaking of the "Pro Life Movement" as if it is one united entity. It isn't. There are plenty of people who oppose abortion because they actually do care about the unborn, and don't care at all about your sex life. The OP points to one. Trying to lump all Pro Life together is just an attempt to dismiss some very valid concerns.

I've been in online discussions for 30 years--and I haven't even found a handful of true pro-lifers.

Many purport to be truly pro-life but when you dig deep enough you find the punishment motive.

One simple test to start with: What is their position on abortion in case of rape? A true pro-lifer will not accept abortion in this case.

 

[ronburgundy]

That depends on your point of view. I know and understand yours, but I don't think you know and understand those who may speak against you.

It comes down to how you view the unborn. Is it just a parasite mass of cells that we can remove like a cyst until it is born? Is it a human being, a person, our equal, from the moment of conception? Is it something in between, and at what point does it become somebody that we should care about and extend rights to?

You see it as a matter of choice. They see it as a matter of life. Saying choice trumps life is very cold.

You can say that they all want to control women's bodies, etc. They can equally say that you want to excuse murder. Both are said to avoid acknowledging that the other has valid concerns.

Valid concerns like the life of a fellow human being. They see the unborn as equals, as people. Killing that is homocide.


There are valid concerns, but very few pro-life activists are motivated by such concerns. The whole point of the OP is that any of them that were honestly motivated by such concerns would support making contraception as available as possible and support making education about the use of contraception as widespread as possible. Anyone opposed to such things proves they care about the killing of such "humans" less than they care about controlling and repressing other people's sexuality and reproduction choices. In addition, any honest concern for those humans would manifest as equal concern for their welfare after they are born.

Most in the Pro-Life movement believe the kid is on their own once they are born.

Do you really think that most Pro-Life people are cool with abandoning toddlers to starve and rot?

Economic conservative pro-lifers? Yes. There many millions of kids starving and rotting in the US right now. There is nothing preventing non-gov forms of charity, and yet millions of kids still starve, proving that such charity is woefully insufficient. It is an undeniable fact that the number of them starving is reduced by the welfare and food-stamp and free-lunch programs that a large % of anti-abortionists oppose. These facts are so obvious and certain that it is not psychologically plausible than any non-mentally-challenged adult are unaware of them. Thus, any arguments about them can only be dishonest efforts to cover up the fact that their concern about such kids starving and other health suffering is so low that they will oppose efforts to reduce it if those efforts are in any way at odds with their general anti-government, "don't help the lazy" worldview.
Not to mention, a large % of conservative pro-lifers are also racists for whom non-white kids are not "one of us" but rather a lower class of organism whose life has less value. Since government help goes disproportionately to non-white kids, that is another reason to oppose them. These people's racism is more important to them than helping kids.

There are a small less activist minority of anti-abortionists whose position is rooted in an honest concern for human life an the view that fetuses are fully human. But these people support birth control availability and education, and support any efforts, gov or not, to feed starving kids. IOW, they oppose the standard conservative and Republican position on these programs.

In contrast, pro-choicers are in fact primarily motivated by a desire to protect a woman's choice over their reproduction and body and health issues more generally. They are not in any way pro-abortion as evidenced by their support for contraception programs to reduce abortions. There are many other political issues related to policies that impact life and suffering against the will of those persons (or at least without their consent). These include death penalty, war, healthcare, welfare programs, environmental pollutants and toxins, etc.. On every one of those issues, most conservative pro-lifers take the position that increases or refuses to help reduce loss of life and suffering, while more pro-choicers take the position that seeks to reduce loss of life and suffering. These anti-abortionists are willing than pro-choicers to take life in every situation other than abortion. They support gov spending used to kill (death penalty and war) and oppose gov spending used to prevent death and suffering. Most pro-choicers find abortion rather unpleasant and only support it because it is unlike all other issues related to death and killing in that the being being killed is inside the body of another being whose autonomy and self-determination are vital to what gives human life much of its value in the first place.

The one way in which many pro-choicers are dishonest is in pretending that killing the fetus has absolutely zero ethical considerations and acting and arguing as though it is an inanimate non-life with no ethical value. It absurd that the fetus goes from that state to being a full human with immense ethical value based solely on the millisecond between being on one side or the other of the birth canal. This doens't undermine the fact that their position is sincerely rooted in choice and they do care for life in general more than most anti-abortionists do. They deny any ethical considerations for abortion partly as a political strategy to not give anti-abortionists any leverage, and partly as a psychological defense to avoid any negative feeling or guilt about abortions. This stems from wrong-headed notions that feeling bad or even guilty after an action means you did the wrong thing and should not have done it. That's bullshit. Sometimes their are unpleasant things about all the options.

 

[dismal]

This makes one minor error. The idea that the objection to abortion has anything to do with the fetus. In general, the Pro-Life movement wants to eliminate birth control.

Isn't it mainly Catholics who get worked up about birth control?

I thought protestants could wear whatever they want on their John Thomas. Not just condoms but sheaths that are designed not only to protect but also to enhance the stimulation of sexual congress.

Source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBjsFAyiwA

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

One simple test to start with: What is their position on abortion in case of rape? A true pro-lifer will not accept abortion in this case.

That is an excellent point. It really does say something. It also says something when Pro-Choice people want double homocide charges for pregnant women.

 

[ronburgundy]

One simple test to start with: What is their position on abortion in case of rape? A true pro-lifer will not accept abortion in this case.

That is an excellent point. It really does say something.

It says that such extreme anti-abortionists have little regard for women and their suffering including a definite increase in suicides if raped women were prohibited abortions. It does not indicate they care about protecting human life. Their stance on death penalty, war, welfare, lunch programs, and contraception availability and education is what says something about their concern for human life, and it says that it is extremely low among most anti-abortionists.

It also says something when Pro-Choice people want double homocide charges for pregnant women.

True. That does say they are hypocrites who use dishonest rhetoric to achieve whatever political outcome they want. However, I'm pretty sure that few pro-choicers support that position.

 

[RavenSky]

It also says something when Pro-Choice people want double homocide charges for pregnant women.

True. That does say they are hypocrites who use dishonest rhetoric to achieve whatever political outcome they want. However, I'm pretty sure that few pro-choicers support that position.

I don't think I have ever heard of a "pro-choice" person also advocating for murder charges with regard to an unborn fetus. Perhaps Jolly Penguin would like to provide some examples.

 

[Rhea]

That depends on your point of view. I know and understand yours, but I don't think you know and understand those who may speak against you.

.

Jolly, I think you have missed the whole entire point of the OP.

That is, anyone who is actually "Pro-Life," that is, wants to reduce abortions, MUST BE in favor of reducing abortions, even if it means creating a system whereby increases in non-procreative recreational sex are a side effect.

If they are willing to continue having abortions for even one more day because of a refusal to employ free and available long term birth control, then they are not actually pro-life-for-fetus because they have decided (decided!!) to create a situation where more abortions happen.


IF they are truly "Pro-Life" then they will reduce abortions cheerfully and immediately by a method that would be 100% voluntary and enjoys enormously wide support among those most likely to get abortions.

Typically, however, they say that "enabling consequence free sex" is too high a price for reducing abortions, and they tolerate thousands of additional abortions on that anti-sex altar.

That's why it is one simple question. It forces them to answer which has a higher priority to them; stopping abortions or stopping sex. This GOPer is one of the very first I have heard actually say that stopping abortions is a higher priority than controlling sex. I applaud him for it. And I challenge any "Pro-Life" person to take the same litmus test.