What 'Pro-Life' Means
This is from Sarah Blustain’s article on McCain’s strong anti-abortion stance:
McCain may or may not truly understand the broader definition of “pro-life,” which these days also includes opposition to traditional and emergency contraception, family-planning, euthanasia, and related federal funding both here and abroad. (Playing the bumbling fool and satisfying no one is certainly an easier escape than trying to satisfy all.)
Does it? If it does, I’m guessing that most people who identify as “pro-life” aren’t “pro-life.” Now, if I were not “pro-life,” I can see why I’d want to narrow the definition of “pro-life” as much as possible — except I don’t see what you’re gaining if you decide, somewhat arbitrarily, that many millions of people who adamantly oppose legal abortion, or, say, legal abortion after the first trimester, are not actually “pro-life.” They won’t become “pro-choice” allies. Rather, they’ll be floating around totally confused as to why they are no longer considered “pro-life.”
A lot of the positions Sarah Blustain finds objectionable strike me as reasonable on grounds of subsidiarity, but of course I’m far more sympathetic to those who want to sharply reduce the number of abortions, so that’s hardly surprising.
Who exactly are you referring to when you say you side with those who want to sharply reduce the number of abortions? I’m assuming “sharply” is the key word here and you mean the anti-abortion people. Because it appears as those who want to simply reduce abortion are the pro-abortion people who have long been clamoring for ways to reduce unwanted pregnancy through education, morning-after pills, and access to contraception. While the anti-abortion people seem content with no attempt at reducing abortions beyond an outright ban on them. Their obsession with sex greatly reduces the effectiveness of any argument they have.
— KJ · Aug 12, 04:09 PM · #
I side with people who want to reduce pregnancy through pregnancy, morning-after pills, and access to contraception and people who want to democratic legislatures to pursue a wider range of abortion regulations. My basic view is that abortions after the first trimester should be severely curtailed, based on my (woefully limited) understanding of embryology. And I really do think abortions are tragic
But I have a hard time with the issue because I know a lot of thoughtful people on both sides, and I’m tugged in a lot of different directions. I find the argument from women’s freedom more compelling than most people who find abortion as abhorrent as I do. I’m afraid this isn’t an area where I’m terribly consistent or confident in my views.
— Reihan · Aug 12, 06:09 PM · #
As someone who converted from pro-life to absolutely pro-choice when I went to college, I could support the curtailing of abortions past 3 months as well so long as first trimester abortions are easily and freely available and taught as an option in high school. But this does not jibe with your willingness to let democratic legislatures take away abortion rights via a million ludicrous policies. There is a middle ground here that could virtually eliminate 2nd trimester abortions but it means making 1st trimester abortions absolutely guaranteed and educating our children that it is a good, safe option if they so choose. But I don’t see such a compromise ever taking place because of the aforementioned obsession with young girls having sex.
— KJ · Aug 12, 07:24 PM · #
Reihan,
I think you’re absolutely right about reducing the number of abortions, but I think you’re wrong to label people who call themselves pro-life as NOT really “pro-life” (in quotes).
The Right-To-Life does huge work in bringing not just anti-abortion policies to the fore, but ALSO making sure that adoption and crisis pregnancy centers are established just about everywhere.
Talk to NRLC, or go on their website for just one second, and you’d see that, sir.
KJ,
There is no natural “right” to an abortion. There is, as there always has been, an unconstitutional judicial power-play known as Roe V. Wade (which Roe herself wanted, and wants, thrown out, and has for years).
A “middle ground” here that could virtually eliminate 2nd trimester abortions by making 1st trimester abortions “absolutely guaranteed?”
Let’s try that fallacy with slavery:
We have a middle ground here that could virtually eliminate slavery in the latter 30 years of a person’s life, but to do so we’ll have to make sure that slavery is “absolutely guaranteed” in the first 30 years.
Does that make any sense to you?
I think you need to return to the common-sense position you had before college, respectfully.
— AM · Aug 18, 02:10 PM · #
there is so a natural right to an abortion!
the autonomy of a womans body.
an undifferentiated cell clump is simply not a homosapiens sapiens.
any restriction on abortion is purely and profoundly anti-libertarian.
— matoko_chan · Aug 19, 01:13 PM · #