It would also seem fitting if another Pope Urban II arose and called a crusade to defend our innocent brethren in the womb. If the Church can call Christians to arms to drive out the Islamic hordes who were murdering innocent Catholics, why shouldn’t it call to arms a defense against the wholesale slaughter of innocent children? If anything, this would be a more justifiable war…not that the Vatican believes there is such a thing.
Whatever the case, the praticality of such action would be very difficult to guage. I’d like to hope that the fact that the pro-life side doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success would be the only disqualifying factor…
Steve Skojec, writing in the comments at Amy Welborn’s blog.
I don’t think Mr. Skojec’s pro-violence position is the norm among pro-lifers (the fellow who responded to Mr. Skojec, arguing that pro-lifers should not resort to violence, is much more mainstream). But we should remember that there are folks like Mr. Skojec out there..
Of course, you provide no evidence that such people exist, nor do you provide any evidence that they’re particularly common or representative. In all liklihood you just made it up out of whole cloth, or read it on a pro-life website.
However, even if someone would recommend an aboriton in circumstance “A,” that same someone might recommend against an abortion in circumstance “B.” (For instance, if circumstance “B” was someone who wanted a child, but was considering aborting their present pregnancy because the fetus was female and they’d prefer a son). To logically show that a conselor is genuinely “pro-abortion,” you’d have to show that they recommend abortion in virtually all circumstances.
* * *
For the record, if you look through my posts you’ll find that I use the word “abortion” hundreds (maybe thousands) of times when discussing abortion. I don’t think I’m shy of using the term. Nor would I object in the slightest if you chose to call my position “pro-legal-abortion,” even though that term retains the use of the word “abortion.”
The problem with “pro-abortion” is that it is inaccurate when describing the very large class of “pro-choice” people who think that there is something morally wrong or at least questionable about abortion, but who nonethless do not favor using government coercion to force childbirth on unwiling pregnant women. It also fails to accurate describe those who beleive that abortion is a necessary evil for when preferred methods of preventing unwanted pregnancy fail.
Such people are “pro-choice” – and also “pro-legal-abortion” – but not “pro-abortion.” It’s perfectly reasonable of pro-choicers to object to a term that excludes a large portion of pro-choicers.
If you were genuinely interested in accuracy, Joe, you’d use the terms “pro-legal-abortion” and “anti-legal-abortion.” Those terms are dry and extremely accurate. Or perhaps the terms “pro-government-enforced-childbirth-on-unwilling-pregnant-women” and “anti-government-enforced-childbirth-on-unwilling-pregnant-women,” which are not so dry but are perhaps excessively accurate.
* * *
May I add that this discussion of if the term “pro-abortion” is appropriate is one of the most tedious things I’ve ever read on my blog? With respect, Joe, if you don’t have anything new to say about “pro-abortion” versus “pro-choice,” I’d prefer that you pursue other subjects, as an alternative to boring me to death.
Thanks for your interest. I’m planning to answer this in a separate post – look for it sometime this week.
Joe M. says:
“Well, some people do think that abortion is a great thing…Why be ashamed of being “pro-property” unless you really think that property is somehow wrong?”
What a naked attempt to frame the issue. We use the term pro-choice because our goal is to ensure that women have a right to bodily self control and free will parenthood, not to increase the number of abortions. With this in mind it is entirely appropriate by every standard to describe the debate as pro-choice vs. anti-choice. In my case I would love it if there were some other way than abortion, not because there’s anything wrong with it but because I don’t want to have to fight you.
You’re confusing giving realistic advice that no one has to take with being pro-abortion. Though you’re the one who accuses us of glossing over, keep in mind we’re talking about dirt poor single women who won’t be able to adequately take care of their other three children when they have another unwanted mouth to feed. We’re talking about psychologically damaged women from shattered homes who will be destroyed by the strain of unwanted motherhood. We’re talking about women who will be rejected by their families. We’re talking about women who will lose the ability to advance themselves. We’re talking about rape victims, incest victims, mothers of nine who are forced to have sex without contraception by husbands who threaten to beat them. We’re talking women whose husbands have left them halfway through the pregnancy with no resources. We’re talking about victims of AIDS.
What are we supposed to say to them Joe? Should we hide the fact that abortion can be the best option? Would you expect doctors to do so in any other medical situation?
Amp — sorry if you find the discussion tedious. I wouldn’t have written anything about it, except that SOMEBODY ELSE said that “pro-abortion” is the equivalent of “fetus hugger.” Naturally, I responded.
Of course, you provide no evidence that such people exist, nor do you provide any evidence that they’re particularly common or representative. In all liklihood you just made it up out of whole cloth, or read it on a pro-life website.
This is so staggering that you must have simply misunderstood what I said. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding you, because you seem to be saying that it is only a myth that anyone has ever told another person to get an abortion.
Let me try again. Example 1: A father finds out that his college-age daughter is pregnant. He orders her to get an abortion. He is not content that his daughter has a choice; he wants that choice to be exercised in favor of abortion. Given his actions, he is pro-abortion, not just pro-choice.
Example 2: A boyfriend finds out that he has gotten his girlfriend pregnant. He doesn’t want to run any risk of paying child support. So he tells her that if she doesn’t get an abortion, he will dump her. Given his actions, he is pro-abortion, not just pro-choice.
Example 3: A woman finds out that her best friend is pregnant. She feels strongly that her friend should not interrupt her career at present, and tells her friend in no uncertain terms that abortion is the best thing for her. She is not content that her friend has a choice; she feels that this choice should be abortion.
Need I go on? Point is, lots of people out there are NOT just promoting legality, but abortion itself (in particular situations).
You referred to ampersand as “pro-abortion” without any suggestion that she had been ordering friends or family members to choose abortion over other options. So please drop the insistence that it’s just that some people are pro-abortion; you used the term as a blanket reference, and throwing up qualifiers now just looks weaselly.
Given his actions, he is pro-abortion, not just pro-choice.
Even if Dad has always claimed to be anti-abortion and claims to be so in all cases other than Daughter’s? (Look at Dan Quayle, who shouted his life-begins-at-birth position right up until he was asked what he’d do if HIS daughter turned up pregnant.) There are plenty of people who are happy to rationalize abortion when it’s convenient for them–my daughter isn’t going to ruin her college career, no way am I going to have a baby nine months after the last one, the test was positive for Down’s and I can’t handle a retarded child–and still consider themselves to be pro-life because, you know, theirs was the exception.
Joe M. says:
“…except that SOMEBODY ELSE said that “pro-abortion” is the equivalent of “fetus hugger.” Naturally, I responded.”
And once again Joe fails basic reading comprehension.
Here’s what Mythago actually said, in RESPONSE to Joe:
“Tsk. I don’t think you want to talk about “pro-abortion” unless you’re happy being called “fetus-hugger.””
Translated: Don’t call US pro-abortion unless YOU want to be called a fetus-hugger Joe.
Mythago says:
“There are plenty of people who are happy to rationalize abortion when it’s convenient for them–my daughter isn’t going to ruin her college career, no way am I going to have a baby nine months after the last one, the test was positive for Down’s and I can’t handle a retarded child–and still consider themselves to be pro-life because, you know, theirs was the exception.”
Good point. Let’s all go back in time and remember when Amp posted this link:
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/anti-tales.html
OK, I guess Mythago is right: I used the term “pro-abortion” as shorthand for anyone who is “pro-allowing-people-to-get-abortion,” even though it is absolutely true that some people literally push abortion on other people. I guess it isn’t accurate for everyone. I’ll try not to use it except when people deserve that label.
Anyway, all of you — every single one — is just proving my point. What I said was that the very term “pro-abortion” is heavily disliked because people know that something is amiss about abortion. Everyone actually agreed with this, although they seemed to think they were arguing with me. But they weren’t arguing so much as demonstrating that I was right.
No one is “in favor of the procedure,” as DRA said; abortion is not a “desirable thing” and no one who has had an abortion would think so, as Kasasagi said; abortion is not a “fantastic thing,” as Mythago said; large numbers of people think abortion is a “necessary evil,” as Ampersand said.
Well, guess what: That’s what I said too. People don’t like the term “pro-abortion” because they know that abortion is not a good thing. It’s what I said; and it’s what everyone else said. It must be right.
Hehe. Cute, but not any better than the first try.
I’m not in favor of root canals, either. They’re painful, icky and expensive, and it would be swell if we had treatments that eliminated the need for anyone to ever have a root canal. I would guess that just about everyone agrees with me. Does that mean there is something inherently wrong with root canals? That they are immoral, and everyone knows this deep down? That if I tell a friend “You need to get a root canal before that tooth rots out of your head,” I am really “pro-root-canal” and think it’s a great thing?
No, Joe, and I’m sure you know this, people object to “pro-abortion” because–as you finally admit–it’s used to paint anyone who doesn’t want to ban abortion as PREFERRING abortion and having zero qualms about it.
read doug deepe or e mail me at dougdeepe@dougdeepe .com