Submitted 3 weeks ago by FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca to showerthoughts@lemmy.world
Pro-choice is in the middle of the spectrum. The opposite of pro-life is the belief that people should be required to have abortions
That’s why I just call them anti-choice. Besides, they don’t care about anyone who is already alive so they can’t be pro-life
Pro birth. After that the kid can die for all they care.
They oppose abortion until it’s in a school shooting.
“Pro-life” is just a marketing term.
Strawman fallacy
Because “pro-life” is not describing their position. They are not even “pro-fetus-life”. They are not taking any action to avoid accidental miscarriage in women, no educative program in this sense or collective action like distributing prenatal vitamins.
No, the only way to describe their position is “anti-abortion”. They are not pro anything, they are anti.
abortion
Use pro-choice, not pro-abortion; and use anti-abortion, not pro-life. Anti-choice can be used when talking about opposition to all reproductive rights, including abortion, birth control, family planning etc.
– The Guardian style guide
Doesn’t matter because only religion is used in every argument for anti choice. The real issue is the inability for conservatives to separate bullshit religion from their policies.
They are pro forced birth under all circumstances.
Strawman fallacy.
Huh. You’re not wrong, it’s called anti-natalism, where making baby is unethical.
What’s their take on accidental creampies?
They might call you unethical, but i believe everyone will call that a weak-ass pullout game across the spectrum.
The opposite of pro-life would be anti-life. When people say they’re pro-life they’re really only anti-abortion. They don’t care if the human dies as long as the fetus isn’t aborted.
That’s why I put “pro-life” in quotes in the title
Strawman fallacy
Pro-Death
I’m just going to have the balls to say it: I’m anti-death. Boom, there it is. Flame away if you must, but I don’t like it when things die. I’m sorry if my old-fashioned views aren’t welcome here.
Have you played Elden Ring? You know why the Lands Between are all fucked up? Because they abolished death. Without death, we doom the world to hideous monsters and swamps of rot.
I’m pro-abortion with few limited exceptions.
If you’re under 30 in today’s society, statistically, you are not economically prepared to adequately provide for a child. Choosing to have a child before 30 is tantamount to neglect, both of that child and of any future children you may decide to have.
All children deserve to be planned and prepared for. Finding yourself unexpectedly pregnant, the only reasonable decision is abortion.
Anybody who claims to be pro fife I just refer to as pro forced birth. After birth they really don’t care what happens to the mother or the baby. If they did care then they’d be pushing for healthcare, food, housing, etc.
That’s why I’m pro-both
Pro both what? Forced birth and forced abortions?
It’s almost as if believing people should have the right to choose how to live their life isn’t actually extremist
It’s almost as if believing murder is wrong isn’t actually extremist
Why are you bringing up murder? It has nothing to do with abortions.
Neither pro-choice nor pro-life but a secret third thing (not forcing the hypothetical potential progeny to become sentient without its prior consent)
I cannot understand this kind of anti-natalist perspective. My life isn’t perfect, and I’ve definitely had my share of struggle and suffering, but I’m elated at the experience overall. There’s absolutely a lot of cruelty and ugliness in the world, but there’s also profound beauty. Not even physical beauty like landscapes and sunsets and stuff, but moving, personal beauty: selfless generosity and compassion, performing artists in flow state, unity and cooperation, real love.
There wasn’t a me to consent to sentience before I had the sentience to consent with, so by your ruling no one could ever be born. Now that I have sentience, I’m glad of it and give my enthusiastic retroactive consent.
Well yeah, sure you are happy to be alive. You have luxuries like a communication medium and some electronics that you use to your liking.
You are literate and an least not heavily disabled, or at least not disabled enough that discussion and socialization are locked away from you.
How many people are born that do not meet that minimum baseline, or are on a clock until they don’t?
I agree, bringing new people into sentience is not morally wrong at all, living is pretty cool.
I think people should prioritize adoption over birth. Supporting someone who was abandoned is way better than giving birth, and also avoids the physical and psychological pain/trauma of giving birth. That’s the one antinatalist point I agree with.
Isn’t that just abstinence teachings
Both are politically disingenuous names.
Pro life is a really funny name for “we want abortions illegal” when you also support the death penalty.
Pro choice is a funny name for “we want abortions to be legal” unless you’re trying to play middle lane politics.
They both seek to appeal to those beyond their cause through their name.
Have you ever seen the indy movie Citizen Ruth with Laura Dern? I actually knew the guy who played her meth-head boyfriend, and the fat-ass biker escort later on in the movie.
I feel like this is where the debate gets lost in the fog-
Access to abortion isn’t about killing babies. It isn’t about population control. It isn’t about avoiding a christian based moral accountability for having unprotected sex.
It’s about consent and an individuals ownership over their body.
The opposite of a government controlling what a anyone can and cannot do with their body is letting the people have full control to what happens to their body.
In this case both the no abortions and forced abortions camps are on the same side. They are on control.
I look at the spectrum as like a horseshoe, the extreme ends are the two ends and pro-choice is the curved end. The curved end is pro-choice and the extremely ands are anti-choice. It’s uncommon, but there are people who believe abortion should be forced in some situations.
I feel you, the other end of the horseshoe is breeding licences or permits or some shit.
No it isn’t. I have not met a single pro life person who thinks this. It’s not your body. That is scientifically untrue. Stop spreading strawmen and lies for an excuse to murder innocent babies.
murder innocent babies
If you’re a Christian, boy howdy do I have some news for you about God.
I honestly cant tell if satire/sarcastic reply mocking the anti-abortionists, or genuine lunatic.
There are plenty more examples of this.
Say, the political spectrum. We take fulll equality as radical left and full inequality as radical right. But actually, right is about the few having all the economic means and power, so, the opposite is many holding these means and power, and those from few not having them. So, basically, society turning billionaires into slaves, not equals, or imprisoning/exiling/otherwise oppressing them.
This is what happens through many revolutions - world can be way more left than “radical left”. But ultimately, after everything is settled, this does not make too much political sense (and neither does the current right-leaning system), so people settle for equality for everyone. As a neutral point, not something radical.
The many having rights and the few being oppressed is how it is for gender. And the people who support that are still right wing. So it’s more like a sideways horseshoe where left is actually the middle, and the ends are both on the right
Who is the “few” in this context, if I may ask? Nonbinaries?
“Radical left” as you propose doesn’t exist. In a truly equal society, billionnaires don’t exist and instead those that would’ve been, would’ve worked the same jobs as anyone else.
It does not exist because it doesn’t make too much sense in the long run. Besides, people who want to dominate others would rather join right, as there are more slaves to work with.
Doesn’t mean it cannot exist, and it temporarily existed in many revolutionary societies as a result of radical offset.
I’m not saying that this “many dominating few” kind of thing should exist. Neither do I want for the few to dominate many.
I prefer neutrality, and that comes with equality. This is true center, and the only meaningful way to go.
Aww— leaky Nazi cunt has a cry cry
Kill yourself
It’s more like a separate consideration than a part of the same spectrum, because these are just priorities that happen to contradict each other. In theory you could be both pro-choice and pro-life and try to optimize for both, making some degree of legal allowances for people to choose abortions but propagandizing against actually doing so and doing things like promoting sex education, the use of birth control, and poverty reduction that would decrease the rate of abortions. Or have a Zardoz esque ideology and be against both.
Of course most of the time pro-life seems to just be a euphemism, since people who are against the right to an abortion tend to not otherwise be concerned with things that make people more likely to choose abortions. They mostly just don’t want women to have an out for what they see as the rightful consequences of having sex.
What about being pro-both instead?
You have just unlocked your “discovered a simplified issue in a culture war” badge🎖️
The amount of strawmen in this comment section is mental. That’s why I prefer the label “pro-both” as it’s harder to strawman. (Although you’d probably still make up some BS about population control, as if contraception doesn’t exist)
Not sure what this framing accomplishes.
Semantics really but we all know what they both truly mean
pro-life has been used by the religious right to suppress womens bodily autonomy, so basically they are ANTI-LIFE.
It is possible to genuinely believe that abortion is equivalent to murder. I don’t see how you jump from there to them being anti-life.
Because outlawing abortion can and will cause deaths. For example, if you have an ectopic pregnancy, that’s life threatening.
Or what if you don’t want to have the child of a rapist? It feels like you’re being invaded, and you don’t want a child growing up without love. And abortion clinics aren’t present because of stupid reactionaries, so trenchcoat it is.
Or what if you simply cannot afford to raise a child right now, and anticonception fails? Then abortion is necessary.
Anti-abortion is murder.
I was against abortion myself when I was younger. But even if you see it as murder, at some point you should realize the situation isn’t black and white and there are situations where abortion makes sense. A friend of my sister is having an abortion because the fetus has a rare condition where it’s intestines are growing on the outside and it won’t live long anyway if born. I would think most sensible people would at least be okay with abortion in situations like that. Why make a baby be born to suffer and die immediately?
Abortion is murder because fetuses are people, then fetuses are responsible for being up the snatches of people who don’t want them there
That’s not what it’s about. Stop using strawmen to justify murdering innocent babies.
Choice.
Now, STFU.
mxeff@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
Image One of the classics.
Carvex@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Their minds always have a strawman example of a “loose” woman whose primary birth control is abortion, something literally no woman wants to have done to herself.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Found their casual wear
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
The strawmen in this comment section is about forced birthing/controlling women