darth_ender

And out of the blue…

I favor universal health care. It’s really the conservative way. I could never, ever be a Democrat, but why does the Republican Party have to suck so much? The Grand Old Party should be taken off life support and replaced by a much more respectable and worthy conservative successor.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/

I’m all about the South Coast. I pretty much live on the coasts of the Dune Sea.

Ultimately, a therapist or psychiatrist might be the best option for you, MFM. Anxiety sounds right, but the anger can often be part of a mood disorder. I don’t want to be too specific, as there is still so much that is unknown about your symptoms, but perhaps there is help for you if you seek it.

moviefreakedmind said:

The same technicality can be applied to the terms pro-life and anti-life. It’s also true in a most literal sense that pro-choice people are against certain lives. If you’re in favor of a woman’s right to an abortion for reasons other than rape or medical conditions, then that is even more applicable. I don’t try to spell it out in a way that accuses pro-choice people of being anti human life because it’s incredibly cheap and unfair to do that. Pro-life and pro-choice are and have been the descriptors for a long time. Yes, neither are good when you want nuance, as one implies that the life of a fetus with minimal development is more important than the life of a pregnant woman who could potentially die from complications of giving birth, and pro-choice, without any explanation, implies that you’re in favor of a woman’s right to abort a healthy, viable baby as late as the third trimester. Most political labels are devoid of nuance, but they’re easy to say and slap on idiotic bumper stickers so people like them. Both also imply that their opponents have malintent (i.e. pro-death and anti-choice). My policy is, instead of assigning yourself a label, just explain what your position is.

For example, I’m in favor of a woman’s right to an abortion in the cases of rape, medical complications, and in general for the very early stages of development, but am otherwise opposed to it; I also think birth control and sex education should be much more emphasized and available to prevent abortion. Was that so hard? No. It’s way better than just saying, “I’m pro-life,” and hoping that everyone knows what I mean.

I think you raise a good point. I personally don’t mind the “pro-” labels. It’s the “anti-” labels that I think are unfair in the image they convey. But I see your point that even the “pro-” terms can imply the “anti-” meanings as well. Explanation is always a lot clearer. Thanks for the post.

Ryan McAvoy said:

darth_ender said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

darth_ender said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

yhwx said:

everybody likes choice

Not everybody. That’s the point isn’t it?

So if someone opposes abortion, that means they oppose choice?

Yes.

If you support taking abortion away, then you also support taking people’s choice to have said abortion away to. It can’t be any other way surely?

If you support taking the right to bear arms away, they you also support taking people’s choice to own said arms away. It can’t be any other way. And don’t call me Shirley.

(Assuming we are talking US politics here) That’s not a good analogy (but I think you are joking anyway) because the people you are talking about want “gun control”. Which is not the abolition of guns, it’s much stricter control of them. e.g.

Nobody is arguing for abortion without control but some want it stopped all together
v
Lots of people want guns without control, some want guns controlled more and nobody wants them banned all together.

So not a comparable issue.

Well, it wasn’t intended as a joke, but hey, it’s probably better than my intentional humor anyway 😃 There are those who favor the abolition of all guns in the hands of the public (and I believe–correct me if I’m wrong–that Warbler is part of this crowd), and there are those who want certain restrictions…much like the abortion issue! I don’t want the abolition of all abortions, just such heavy restrictions that it is only done when a necessity, not for less important reasons. There are those who are even stricter in their beliefs that I, and there are those who are still pro-life, but looser in their restrictions. I think it’s a fair analogy.

darth_ender said:

I am anti-certain-choices. So are you. It’s called civilization.

Of course but we are only talking about abortion. I’m “pro-choice” because I think women should be able to choose for themselves on this issue, within reasonable limits (I don’t have to agree with it). As you say you are “anti-certain-choices” and the “certain-choice” we are talking about is abortion. So you are “anti-choice” on the abortion issue, which is what I originally said.

My point being that, okay, yes, I am anti-choice, but I feel the term is really not a fair term. I am against certain choices because I believe they maximize human freedom. You are also opposed to certain choices for the same ends, though the choices you oppose may be different and the freedom you believe is achieved may be a different ideal than mine. My point was simply that all of us oppose certain choices, so I’m not a fan of the term. It paints the pro-life crowd as infringing on individual liberty. In reality, all of us infringe on individual liberty when we support any law.

TV’s Frink said:

I sort of missed my window (a lack of a womb with a view, if you will), so I’ll just say I appreciate _ender’s more reasoned responses this time around.

As you pointed out, I’m usually pretty level-headed. I just keep peeking in this thread and often get annoyed at the stereotypes of conservatives, and when it came to a topic I feel so passionately about, particularly considering how little sleep I’ve had the past few days, I was not in the mood to put up with it anymore.

I admit I generalize a lot on abortion but I have also seen the views I’m describing many, many times.

Of course. But you know, black people do in fact commit more crime than white people. Nevertheless, generalization easily leads to false conclusions. Statistically, a man who is racist against African-Americans could be right when believing that they might be more likely to steal the radio out of his car. But the reality is that the higher percentage does not represent an inherent trait, nor does it represent a majority of African-Americans. A generalization could easily lead to dangerously bigoted and false presumptions. But the intelligent mind (and I’m not suggesting you don’t have one) discerns what is portrayed compared to what is reality. If all I cared about was the news, I’d think nearly all Muslims wanted to behead me and my family. Thankfully, I know that the most vocal factions usually don’t represent the whole group.

There’s another angle no one has talked about, which is the woman’s right/choice to have an abortion for any reason at the very early stages of the pregnancy, as it is her body. A lot of men (and some women) don’t agree with that, and we also get into more well-trodden ground of the rights of the woman vs. the rights of the fetus, so it’s probably not worth bothering with (again) here.

I agree, I think we covered it. I appreciate your thoughts, though.

darthrush said:

Darth Ender, I wanted to say that I also share your frustration with the state of this thread and am beyond thrilled to see another moderate conservative speak his mind. It’s very refreshing to have you here and I am right with you on the position of abortion.

Even though we’ve come to part on certain topics, I’m glad you and I share a similar moral view 😃

That is a lot of standing. Most people have bad posture. Why do you think it’s in your head?

Warbler said:

chyron8472 said:

What I want to know is–and I’m asking the conservatives and/or Republicans here–why in God’s name conservatives voted for Donald Trump. Not necessarily against Hillary, as she has more than enough obvious reasons to be thoroughly disliked–but in the primaries.

I know people liked him as a protest candidate against the status quo, but voting for a protest candidate is one thing; voting for Donald Trump is something completely different. So many people knew for the longest time that he cares little for anybody but himself, he’s short tempered, uneducated, listens to conspiracy theorists, and is generally out of touch with the common man.

This is a legitimate question, not a rant nor a flamebait.

It boggles my mind why anyone voted for Trump in the General or Primary elections.

DITTO!!!

Possessed said:

Not that anybody asked or cares what I think about it, considering I hardly ever post in this thread, but I am pro life with the two very important, and very much real, exceptions of cases of rape and cases of medical complications or health problems that could very likely cause harm to the mother or the fetus if carried to term. And I will even admit that I’m much more adamant about the second one than I used to be since reading a story of a certain member of this forum.

And I’m not conservative or republican, or democrat, I’m just me because it seems silly to pick a party before knowing the issues. But I don’t care much about politics in general anyway.

CatBus said:

So after digesting darth_ender’s post for a bit, I’ve come to the conclusion that pro-choice is a bad label, for a different reason. While darth_ender’s position really amounts to wanting to prevent the abortion from happening (although the logic also appears to apply equally to abortions and some forms of birth control like the so-called morning-after pill), my position (and I can really only speak for myself here) is twofold: that abortion is a catch-all safety net for the woman if everything else fails, but that the ultimate goal is to prevent the woman from having to make the choice whether or not to have an abortion at all. i.e. prevent unwanted pregnancies, improve access to healthcare, promote fetal health, provide financial support, etc.

Fair enough, but I do want to be clear, I favor the morning-after pill, as it prevents conception instead killing a fertilized ovum.

So reaching the “choice” at the end of that string of policies (or lack thereof) really in most cases marks some sort of societal failure. If the goal is to prevent the situation from ever reaching the “choice” phase, it’s hardly a pro-choice position. It’s really just the position that you prefer the legal safety net to the illegal safety net, not that you want anyone to actually get there.

It does mark some common ground, though. Although I see the choice as the final safety net in case society fails, darth_ender sees the choice itself as a failure (but is it less of a failure if it’s done illegally?). But aside from that (and I realize, it’s a big “that”), the pre-choice stuff – preventing unwanted pregnancies, improving access to healthcare, promoting fetal health, providing support for families – seems like plenty of common ground for policy ideas. And assuming these common ground policies continue to reduce the number of abortions overall as they have already done, that would be considered forward movement by both sides. Of course, there may be some friction on specifics (sex ed, access to contraception, etc), but the issue still seems way more navigable on that end.

I think you make a fantastic point, and that is the reality of most people’s overall opposition to abortion as often as possible. I truly appreciate your clarification here, as I think you truly are finding the very similar aims between two seemingly polar opposites. In my mind, the Right would do well to abandon those efforts to control the morality of premarital sex and pregnancy prevention in favor of the greater goal of preventing abortion–those things that you say like sex education, contraception, prenatal care, and social programs to support postnatal health and development, particularly among the disadvantaged. This would make carrying a child to term an easier option for many women. Meanwhile, the Left would do well to impose greater restrictions on abortion, which to me would only permit them in the cases of incest, rape, health of the mother, or poor prognosis of the child. It may be that we will never meet the compromise I desire, but perhaps we can come closer if both sides come to a common understanding of motives as you and I have.

Thank you for your post. You are an extremely thoughtful individual and I enjoy your perspective and respect towards my point of view.

Oh, I obviously am displeased by abortion in any manner, legal or illegal, safe or unsafe. I think one final piece to help end abortion would be a shift in society where, whether or not people oppose premarital sex and pregnancy, greater support is given instead of social ostracism to those pregnant women.

moviefreakedmind said:

darth_ender said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Since when are children capable of making all these crazy lifelong decisions? I mean, a couple years ago it was common knowledge that 100% of kids have no idea what they’re talking about 99% of the time.

Times change, my friend.

I know. I’m just reminding everyone that kids can’t be trusted to make any decisions beyond, “which G-rated Pixar movie should I watch?” Even then you can’t trust them because they might pick Cars 2, so why are parents suddenly the most evil people since Hitler for not taking their supposedly transgender 7 year-olds to a doctor to treat their gender dysphoria? How about teaching your children that if you have the parts of a boy or a girl, then that’s what you technically are, but you can still dress, do, play, and act however you want, and once you’re 18 or a legally emancipated adult, you can pursue whatever gender therapy you want; what’s so bad about that?

I thought you were jokingly referring to my comments on implied consent and taking away the choices of fetuses, in which case I was making a return joke.

Possessed said:

Yeah I miss getting extremely irritated every time I come onto the forum.

In all actuality, there was a great deal of irritation associated with those days. But I honestly did have fun trying to point out the weird behaviors. I liked the threads I created.

Nah. Just a reference to his old signature…something about killing terrorists and punching hippies.

Well, I’m going to do it wrong, but I don’t want to kick anyone while they’re down. I will just make a subtle reference when I say I miss being part of the Frink bandwagon. It’s like there’s no one here to persecute anymore.

Punching hippies last I checked.

CatBus said:

…and this is why you need to be more active here, darth_ender. Not because you’ll find a lot of agreement, and not because you’ll find a satisfyingly wide range of opinions, because who am I kidding?

But because without a vocal conservative on board (and I’m intentionally excluding our libertarians because they agree with liberals half the time anyway), there’s no balance. Not the Fox News “Fair and Balanced” where bullshit is provided to balance out facts (Fo, we hardly knew ye), but real balance, where fundamental differences in values make for a consistent, logical, and fundamentally different view of the exact same facts we all share.

Thanks for the time and effort you spent spelling it out. And no I don’t agree with you, but that’s okay. I’d still be happy to invite you over for beer soda water sometime 😉

Do you think it’ll work, guys? Do you think I suckered him in? Boy I sure hope so! (maniacal liberal laugh)

Thanks for the kind words, sir. And I’d love to come over to your place some time and, er, whispers maybe I’ll have one of those Dr. Pepper things…

moviefreakedmind said:

Since when are children capable of making all these crazy lifelong decisions? I mean, a couple years ago it was common knowledge that 100% of kids have no idea what they’re talking about 99% of the time.

Times change, my friend.

Ryan McAvoy said:

darth_ender said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

yhwx said:

everybody likes choice

Not everybody. That’s the point isn’t it?

So if someone opposes abortion, that means they oppose choice?

Yes.

If you support taking abortion away, then you also support taking people’s choice to have said abortion away to. It can’t be any other way surely?

If you support taking the right to bear arms away, they you also support taking people’s choice to own said arms away. It can’t be any other way. And don’t call me Shirley.

Please note that all laws limit our freedom to choose certain things. The reasons for these laws is because, hopefully, they maximize the freedom of choice for the most people.

Take, for example, murder (just take the example, don’t take it out of context, as I am not equating). If I were to complain, “Hey, this ain’t no free country! I’m not allowed to kill my neighbor who let his dog poop on my flowers!” You might respond, “Hey, if you kill your neighbor, you are limiting his freedom. The purpose of the law is to grant the most people the most possible freedom, and therefore it requires limitations on certain activities.”

Yes, I am anti-certain-choices. So are you. It’s called civilization.

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

Pro-life is a distortion? Are you telling me that those who choose the label ‘pro-life’ are not accurately in favor of life? And let me ask here, how many of the pro-choice crowd have said at least once in a recent discussion about abortion that those who oppose it are somehow opposed to women (i.e. War on Women, want to keep women in the kitchen, etc.)? Is that not a distortion?

If you say you are pro-life, and you care about more than ridding the world of abortions, I believe you. But I never hear about solutions from the vocal side of the pro-life argument. All I hear is “ban all abortions” and I hear nothing about what comes next. Those are the people who are distorting the term “pro-life” when it really just means “anti-abortion.”

Perhaps this is because you only witness pro-life crowds on the news shouting their opposition to abortion. Have you considered the charitable work that numerous conservatives do? Perhaps it’s not in government social programs, but in local charities, churches, and other contributions. Have you considered the private organizations that contribute to the health and well-being of Americans of all demographics? Small government does not necessarily mean opposition to kindness. In fact, numerous studies show that religious people tend to be most generous.

https://www.americamagazine.org/content/unconventional-wisdom/blue-states-get-dinged-almanac-american-philanthropy

And yes, I’ve seen articles that disagree, particularly those that throw out every penny that is donated to religious organizations because, oh, that’s just piety, not real generosity. I’m also aware of those studies about children in day cares. But read the above article, which shows that generosity abounds among the religious and bear in mind that there are opposing studies.

Also, consider the motivation for conservative policies. Whether you agree or not, most Republicans believe that when the wealthy thrive, all Americans thrive; they believe that they are helping the poor when they help the rich. Considering that most of the poorer white socioeconomic class is conservative, you might want to give that more consideration. Furthermore, conservatives believe that the people should be more independent, not as an act of cruelty but as a means of fostering strength. Yes, they may be narrow-minded and not recognize that some people cannot help their condition, but most conservatives believe that anyone can make it in this country, and that some might have to work harder at it, but ultimately will be stronger for it.

It’s not a matter of caring little for the poor. It’s a matter of how they feel one should care for the poor.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

As for pro-life being a rightwing distortion, I don’t necessarily see how. It’s technically accurate.

The right does not support life as much as they are against abortion. Hence anti-abortion being more accurate.

Here’s another example - Republicans (in general) favor tax breaks that favor the rich while pulling government support from the poor. They care about making sure a fetus comes to term, but then don’t care at all what happens after it is born. That’s not pro-life either, that’s anti-abortion.

Is that not an oversimplification? Is there really this belief that Republicans are just out to punish the poor? Even if you oppose fiscal conservatism, it seems wrong to me to ascribe motives like not caring how the child fares after birth. I am more moderate than most conservatives and favor more social programs than your average Republican, but nevertheless, are you not generalizing that most who oppose abortion and favor individuals and families taking more personal responsibility for their economic well-being are really “not caring” about how the child does after birth?

Sure, I’m generalizing, but you said it yourself - you favor more social programs than average Republicans. The Republican/Conservative motto, and correct me if I’m wrong, is as limited a government as possible. People who are truly pro-life should want to limit unwanted births as much as possible (including sex-ed and contraception, not just abstinence only) and should be as passionate (if not more so) about helping the needy as stopping abortion. Do they only want to stop the poor single raped mother from having an abortion, or do they also want to help her after she gives birth?

I agree, the view is narrow-minded once again. The fear is that allowing for such things gives the government too much say in how to raise a child or allows people to justify premarital sex. They are not opposing it so that they can force women to have babies. They are opposing it because they believe they are promoting a more moral nation.

That said, I see the reality of it as: a) people will have sex; b) the more resultant pregnancies will lead to more abortions, therefore; c) we should do what we can to limit unwanted pregnancies so we can avoid abortion. I wish everyone shared my morals, but since they don’t, I’d love to do anything I can to limit abortion.

I thought that if a group chooses to identify by a certain term, that is their right to choose. I am pro-life. Most conservatives, even the overzealous Evangelical brand, care a great deal about people from conception until death. I’ve seen stereotypes in this thread about how every conservative belief is motivated by sexism or racism or socioeconomic superiority. Most of them are good people who think they are doing what is best for the general populace. I get just as irritated at them when I hear stupid generalizations about liberals.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but all I hear overzealous Evangelical brand of conservatives doing is trying to end every single abortion regardless of impact or context, and putting way more emphasis on that then what to do with all the unwanted babies.

I attended a General Conference for my church in person at Salt Lake City more than a decade ago and was surprised to see that, amid those who were vocally opposed to my church’s doctrines were those protesting Mormon abortion policies! I could hardly believe it. It turns out, it was because of the exceptions we allow. Yes, there are those who are extreme. There are anti-abortion terrorists who will shoot up abortion clinics. Do they represent the whole? Hardly. Many pro-life advocates are reasonable people. How often have you watched an anti-abortion protest on the news where the protester said, “I want to donate to more charities so I can help raise those unwanted children”? Somehow, I doubt that’s the focus of those protesters or the news agencies that cover the protest. But if you bother to look elsewhere, you will find that there are crisis pregnancy centers devoted to helping women seek alternatives to abortions, enrolling them in social programs and connecting them with post-partum support.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/07/24/538556088/crisis-pregnancy-centers-help-pregnant-women-enroll-in-medicaid

Jeebus said:

darth_ender said:

chyron8472 said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

Do you include me in your list of “self-righteous jerks”? You did say “I can’t engage with any of you.”.

I’m tired and irritable and not in the mood to put up with how liberals describe my views on abortion. You’re not part of that crowd. This thread is just not fun anymore, and this is why hardly post in it anymore.

Oh, shut up. We weren’t describing your views on abortion. We were discussing what labels regarding stance on abortion may (or may not) be more (or less) accurate in general, and our individual opinions of why they might or might not be accurate.

Now, instead of using liberal as an epithet and putting everyone of apparently opposing view in a box while complaining about how they put you in a box, why don’t you be an adult and actually try having an intelligent rational conversation.

I’m very sorry that I offended you by stating that the Left is overgeneralizing. How dare I broach such a sensitive topic with such callousness. I feel awful that I hurt your feelings!

Ryan McAvoy said:

yhwx said:

everybody likes choice

Not everybody. That’s the point isn’t it?

Jeebus said:

What about pro and anti-choice?

So if someone opposes abortion, that means they oppose choice? It doesn’t mean they hold life sacred from conception? It doesn’t mean they value the future of the child?

They oppose someone having the choice to abort.

Pro-choice people take away the child’s choice.

In the medical field, if a patient requires emergency treatment or even surgery that would require consent, but is unable to give consent (i.e. the patient is unconscious), medical staff may provide treatment in what is termed “implied consent.” It is assumed that, without any contrary evidence, the person wants to live and the medical team will be obliged to provide all possible care to save that patient.

In the case of a fetus, I see the same as applicable. That fetus is a very young, immature human that will continue to grow and develop barring any interruption of the natural process of development. In my mind, that fetus has given implied consent to the mother and all others involved in her care to continue to allow that fetus to thrive.

Let’s even take it a step further. Let me give you a choice: if I had a time machine and I told you that your mother was not financially capable of raising a child when she was pregnant with you, and I told you that she seriously debated whether or not she should abort you, would you consent for me to go back in time and perform that abortion?

I know that a lot of this may seem silly or too hypothetical for you, so I will provide one last example: the fetus facing abortion will likely develop into a baby, who will develop into a child, who will develop into an adolescent, who will develop into an adult. All throughout the remainder of that fetus’s life, he/she will be faced with millions of choices. But because of the choice of one other person, that entire future of choices was taken from the fetus. All because someone felt that it was her right to disrupt the natural flow of human development, that fetus will never have the choice to do anything in life. I am pro-the-child’s-choices.

LuckyGungan2001 said:

I’ve been binge watching the Goosebumps show (brilliance), and I can name at least one thing bad about the nineties:

I can: boy bands!

chyron8472 said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Is a boy more into sports because he has a penis or because his Dad liked sports and the other boys liked sports and they all looked down on him until he liked sports?

I’m guessing it’s the latter.

What about transgendered people? When they are young, aren’t they given the clothes and the toys of the gender everyone things they are and they sometimes reject them and prefer the toys and cloths of the other gender?

Often, yes.

Not sure what your point is, unless you’re just agreeing with me.

My point is that maybe there is something about what gender your brain is that affects what you like that don’t like. You said that maybe the only reason a boy likes sports is because his Dad did and how other boys would look down on him for not liking sports. If what you said is true, then a person born with the mind of girl but the body of a boy would still end up liking sports and the same would true of toys and clothes, yet we know it doesn’t work like that.

Newsflash: Some girls like football and Star Wars, some boys like My Little Pony Friendship is Magic. A person with the mind of a girl but the body of a boy absolutely can end up liking sports and “boy” toys and clothes. You may think it doesn’t work like that but I guarantee you are wrong.

Newsflash: More boys than girls like football and Star Wars, more girls than boys like My Little Pony Friendship is Magic. A person with mind of girl but the body of a boy tends to reject the boy clothes and toys the person is given and instead favors the girl cloths and toys the same is also true of sports. You may think it doesn’t work like that but I guarantee you are wrong.

Newsflash: Parents want their kids to conform to their preconceived stereotypes. If their kid is a boy, they’re more likely to try to get them to act like a boy. Kids see stereotypes of gender in media. They carry these throughout their life. Kids can also be bullied if they don’t like the “right” thing. You may think it doesn’t work like that but I guarantee you are wrong.

Do any of you have kids?

I am a father to a 2.5 year old daughter, and her preferences, while influenced by me, are so very obviously to me not altogether of my or my wife’s making. She likes pink. She likes yellow. But that’s not because we actively encourage it by pushing it on her. As a parent, I am learning how much of who God made her to be, as well as trying to train her in the ways I think is best for her.

As a parent, I grow increasingly annoyed at accusations that parents brainwash or wrongfully indoctrinate their kids.

And see, why couldn’t we have started our conversation with a nice agreement like this? The notion that male and female brains are identical except for what society impresses upon them is nonsense.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

That said, if someone is qualified for a position, who cares about what genitals they have? I am a male and a nurse. Who cares?!

It’s the notion that we are identical that is stupid. Furthermore, there is this accusation that the fact that society enforces differences is evil. Guess what, your entire worldview is shaped by society. My wife and I decided that she should be a stay-at-home mom and take care of the kids. It wasn’t a macho “I’m the man and you’re going to stay home” decision. We decided together as equals. There are many days I wished she worked so I wouldn’t have such financial stress. But we feel she would do best at nurturing our young children, so she stays home. Society has left a number of prints upon us, and it is not a crime to conform with what comes most naturally, as long as all involved had a choice in the matter and all were treated with as much respect and dignity as possible.

chyron8472 said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

Do you include me in your list of “self-righteous jerks”? You did say “I can’t engage with any of you.”.

I’m tired and irritable and not in the mood to put up with how liberals describe my views on abortion. You’re not part of that crowd. This thread is just not fun anymore, and this is why hardly post in it anymore.

Oh, shut up. We weren’t describing your views on abortion. We were discussing what labels regarding stance on abortion may (or may not) be more (or less) accurate in general, and our individual opinions of why they might or might not be accurate.

Now, instead of using liberal as an epithet and putting everyone of apparently opposing view in a box while complaining about how they put you in a box, why don’t you be an adult and actually try having an intelligent rational conversation.

I’m very sorry that I offended you by stating that the Left is overgeneralizing. How dare I broach such a sensitive topic with such callousness. I feel awful that I hurt your feelings!

Ryan McAvoy said:

yhwx said:

everybody likes choice

Not everybody. That’s the point isn’t it?

Jeebus said:

What about pro and anti-choice?

So if someone opposes abortion, that means they oppose choice? It doesn’t mean they hold life sacred from conception? It doesn’t mean they value the future of the child?

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I tend to say pro- and anti-abortion.

Pro-abortion is misleading and inflammatory. It goes again to the idea that the left wants lots and lots of abortions, which is flat out wrong.

Pro-life and pro-abortion are both right-wing distortions.

TV’s Frink said:

Anyone who is truly pro-life should also support all methods of reducing abortions, including sex-education and wide availability of contraception. Unfortunately, and especially when religion is involved, that’s very often not the case.

How is the term pro-choice limiting and divisive? It’s a legitimate description of the position, which is being in favor of the woman’s right to choose.

Anti-abortion is much more accurate than pro-life.

Pro-life is a distortion? Are you telling me that those who choose the label ‘pro-life’ are not accurately in favor of life? And let me ask here, how many of the pro-choice crowd have said at least once in a recent discussion about abortion that those who oppose it are somehow opposed to women (i.e. War on Women, want to keep women in the kitchen, etc.)? Is that not a distortion?

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

As for pro-life being a rightwing distortion, I don’t necessarily see how. It’s technically accurate.

The right does not support life as much as they are against abortion. Hence anti-abortion being more accurate.

Here’s another example - Republicans (in general) favor tax breaks that favor the rich while pulling government support from the poor. They care about making sure a fetus comes to term, but then don’t care at all what happens after it is born. That’s not pro-life either, that’s anti-abortion.

Is that not an oversimplification? Is there really this belief that Republicans are just out to punish the poor? Even if you oppose fiscal conservatism, it seems wrong to me to ascribe motives like not caring how the child fares after birth. I am more moderate than most conservatives and favor more social programs than your average Republican, but nevertheless, are you not generalizing that most who oppose abortion and favor individuals and families taking more personal responsibility for their economic well-being are really “not caring” about how the child does after birth?

I thought that if a group chooses to identify by a certain term, that is their right to choose. I am pro-life. Most conservatives, even the overzealous Evangelical brand, care a great deal about people from conception until death. I’ve seen stereotypes in this thread about how every conservative belief is motivated by sexism or racism or socioeconomic superiority. Most of them are good people who think they are doing what is best for the general populace. I get just as irritated at them when I hear stupid generalizations about liberals.

The old politics thread used to have much more diversity of opinion, and I loved it back then. Now it is populated mostly by liberals who reinforce each others’ points of view without much opposition. Well, I’m here to tell you that I am a pro-life, anti-Trump, moderate conservative who does not appreciate stupid stereotypes, whether from the angry Right or holier-than-thou Left. And so, dear chyron847, you can shut up.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

Oh, I love how the enlightened Left loves to tell those who are pro-life what their stance really is. I can’t tell you just how all these idiotic oversimplifications piss me off! I can’t engage with any of you. This thread used to be a place for intelligent debate. Now it’s just stereotyping ideologies by a number of self-righteous jerks.

My new non-existent user title: “Self-Righteous Jerk”

Yes, it’s definitely worth joking about.

I’ll be back when I can discuss this topic without feeling too irritable.