General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat is pro choice.
It is being in favor of every woman making their own personal choice as to whether to have an abortion or not.
Which also includes not supporting legislation that infringes on that choice, either way.
I think after reading this board many do not get the concept. This is a PSA.
Coventina
(27,172 posts)the other half does.
On edit: spelling
Brainstormy
(2,381 posts)boston bean
(36,223 posts)emulatorloo
(44,182 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I've noticed.
Moostache
(9,897 posts)"pro-life" on the other hand is immeasurable bullshit...for life...until birth, then fuck nutrition, education, head start programs, and anything that would make 'life' an enjoyable journey for the child forced into existence in a situation the crusaders know NOTHING about...
I have a very simple litmus test for how serious I take ANYONE who tells me they are "pro-life":
1) Did you get that from your preacher? (If 'yes', then go to number 2; if 'no' then go to number 3)
2) So, how many adoptions are you currently sponsoring?
3) So, how many adopted children DO you currently have?
That exposes their bullshit quite easily...women are not brood mares for the state or anyone else, and no one outside of the woman and her CHOSEN confidants (husband, boyfriend, partner, parents, friends or anyone else)...if and only if a woman CHOOSES to bring the decision making process to others for advice should it be proffered...otherwise, your opinion is just the same as everyone else's and just as irrelevant.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)My response was as follows:
if enough Democrats are elected who do not agree that women have the right to make their own health choices, those choices and that right will disappear.
On edit: recommended.
DURHAM D
(32,611 posts)What is next?
George II
(67,782 posts)A Democratic candidate can have the personal choice of not supporting abortion, but he/she should also not support legislation legislation that infringes on that choice.
As been noted several times here in the last day or two, at least once by me:
Joe Biden is against abortion but would not support legislation that would take away the personal choice of any individual to do so.
Tim Kaine is against abortion but would not support legislation that would take away the personal choice of any individual to do so.
Personally, I do not believe in abortion, but I would not stand in the way of any woman if she chose to have an abortion.
leftstreet
(36,112 posts)Why do they feel compelled to preface the claim to want people to have legal rights, by making sure we know how they 'personally' feel?
No one gives a shit
I can't imagine a politician STUPID enough to say, "Well I personally am opposed to (gay marriage, voting rights for blacks,) but I believe people should have the right..."
George II
(67,782 posts)Q: You have changed your position on abortion. When you came to the Senate, you believed that Roe v. Wade was not correctly decided and that you also believed the right of abortion was not secured by the Constitution. Why did you change your mind?
A: Well, I was 29 years old when I came to the US Senate, and I have learned a lot. Look, Im a practicing Catholic, and it is the biggest dilemma for me in terms of comporting my religious and cultural views with my political responsibility.
dembotoz
(16,832 posts)Yes Uncle Joe is a great man blah blah blah blah
But I don't really give a fuck what he thinks on this.
It's not his body
George II
(67,782 posts)dembotoz
(16,832 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)There is a disagreement about late-term abortions, and the type of abortion right before delivery when the baby is severely ...whatever.
But for regular abortions (first trimester, decision made not under duress, whatever, I would agree.
I think pro choice is in the Dem Party Platform.
Lucky Luciano
(11,258 posts)...lots of shit for such uncivilized views.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)abortion pro or con.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)It's not reasonable to claim ownership of vague and flexible language without allowing for variety in the understanding and interpretation that others may have. It just doesn't work that way. "Prochoice" may have a specific political meaning for me, but I can't tell anyone else what their personal distinctions are. Those kinds of intellectual domination efforts are reserved for authoritarians.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)And my god if there were no common understanding we wouldn't be able to discern a truth or fact.
Believe me some people are really stupid. Or they are intentionally misleading. Take your pick.
Of course we can base a a point in a well known fact.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)The meaning you impose on the letters maybe be something you understand as universal. But that doesn't make it so.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)It is what it is.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)But alternate meanings exist, nonetheless.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)and bends to the will of the speaker. If you don't believe this to be true, you might check out a thesaurus someday.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Halt (physically) moving forward, be quiet, do not continue to eat, put an end to thoughts, put an end to existence, or are you referring to the thing on the floor that prevents a door from closing?
I know there are people who don't want to believe that another person could have a single thought that does not match their own, but it's true. Denying it only makes a person come across as intolerant of anything other than themselves and their own thoughts.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)That if you say "pro choice" to me, that means "for the ability to decide?" Are you denying that to me it might mean, say, "peanut butter?"
Who knew there were so many restrictions on language!
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Language, within the confines of obvious context however, is not flexible... nor does it care if you believe it to be true or not.
One may inaccurately and subjectively both infer and misinterpret to better validate a bias, but the bias of interpretation is not necessary for meaning which is collectively obvious.
('The Language Instinct' by Steven Pinker)
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)There are a range of restrictions and procedures that leave the door open for people to be define where the lines are between prochoice and not prochoice. This is why legislation lays out definitions of wordes as they will be used in that particular document.
Vinca
(50,303 posts)People must be allowed to make their own decision without government meddling.
spanone
(135,873 posts)SamKnause
(13,110 posts)I am so glad I am past my child bearing years.
We should not have to re-fight the battles we have already won.
Fuck Theocracy !!!!!!!!!