"Pro Choice" is stupid as hell, and Democrats suck at arguing.

A

andreweckels

Member
Just think about it: Pro Life vs Pro Choice, when framed this way the morally right stance is obvious. Being "Pro life" implies that you are anti death, the obvious moral high ground. By being the opposite of Pro life, being Pro choice implies being pro death, or at least for being able to choose death.

I don't know which expression came first, (I would guess Pro Life in response to Roe v Wade) but either way, Democrats did a terrible job at expressing their values.

I believe most Liberals support a woman's right to have an abortion because they believe that a woman cannot be free, unless she has complete control over her own body and the authority to decide when she becomes a mother. Therefore liberals would have been much wiser to frame their perspective on the issue as being "Pro Liberty". America was founded on the idea that liberty is essential to life. The concepts share a moral high ground, and the term more accurately reflects how people feel about the issue.

On a similar note Democrats should have never endorsed the term abortion. The term implies bailing from an intended course of action. Most woman choose to have abortions because they never intended to get pregnant in the first place, not because they changed their mind. Democrats would have been wise to refer to the procedure as "development prevention" as in preventing an embryo from developing into a fetus, or a fetus into a human.

I got these ideas about framing from George Lackoff, the author of The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic

http://www.amazon.com/dp/147670001X/ref=asc_df_147670001X2188342?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=asn&creative=395093&creativeASIN=147670001X&hvpos=1o1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=1505791782906384679&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=

He argues that Democrats frequently shoot themselves in the foot by adopting conservative framing of issues, or just repeating them, while arguing against them. That people make decisions based on their moral values, and that Progressive and Conservative moral values both exist, but Democrats are bad at appealing to progressive moral values, and instead cite facts.

If you are a Liberal/Progressive, this is a must read. If you are a conservative I think this would be a very interesting read. He makes some claims about Conservative values that I would be interested to hear if most conservatives agree with, and I think it gives a good insight at why Democrats take the stances on issues that they do.

Its just over 100 pages and only ten bucks.
 
Why on earth are people against abortion, fuck that shit. Same with gay marriage, it's their own decision and freedom/liberty.
 
well thats what you think of when life starts, from conception, or when their born. i mean its seems pretty obvious to me that it starts at conception, because cells are living things and they get bigger start forming a heart and stuff.
 
Yea I guess thats true. I guess to me it just makes sense that the life begins once the cells start forming.
 
i wish everyone would stop arguing about my vagina and womb and mind their own damn business. lets move on to a bigger picture.

 
you cant end someting that hasnt begun yet. when said fetus becomes a living being deserving of human rights is an argument in itself. is it when the baby is born and leaves the mother's body, or at the moment of conception?
 
Pro Choice kids at my school call "Pro Life" "Anti-Choice". Is that a little more what you're talking about?
 
alright, so when the unwanted baby is born, your gonna raise them? because usually, giving life a chance is sentencing the woman to a life of imprisonment while the other who says "your not giving this life a chance" has no responsibility to the baby what so ever and can easily just walk away. im sorry, but you cannot argue about a body, a motion in life that brings someone else in to this world, wretched or not, when you are NOT that body, nor ever will be.
 
apparently you dont understand the concept of giving birth and the physical and emotional consequences. adoption isnt a bad alternative, but the woman still has to carry the baby for 9 months, and then go through the long and vigorous process of adoption, nursing the baby, possibly growing attached while still acknowledging she has to give it up. why not the simple option to not regulate a womans body.

what if male masturbation was regulated, or the amount of women you could take home was some how counted and taxed? i know its far fetched, but its still controlling someones free will.
 
well again its a kid thats growing inside of you, and it has a life. and if you werent using birth control or something like that well.... sorry to hear that i guess.
 
At the point when the fetus would be aborted, it's nothing more than a sac of cells. Shut the fuck up with your bullshit.
 
exactly this, among many other reasons. skip to 1:30 for a humorous reason! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWmeB7mY_E0

but in reality, people have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies, tattoos, piercing, cutting themselves, bdsm, risking their own lives doing whatever the fuck they want. bringing another life into the world is no different, and honestly, that decision should not be made by anyone other than the individual who will be bringing it into the world.
 
2 things your not a woman and there for have no perspective on what it would be like. Also I don't exactly think abortion is the most moral thing but who the fuck am i to tell woman what they should be doing with there vagina its not the governments responsibility just like making weed illegal shouldn't be.
 
the option of abortion is the ultimate control of free will for an entity that doesn't have the ability to think or feel or speak? which only knows that the cells which it is comprised of has a set instruction to create a life form? the WOMAN is the one who can think, feel and speak and she will do just that and take control and do what is right for herself. abortion is just an option.

men cannot designate the outcome of a womans body nor what is inside her.
 
so killing cells that may or may not be considered human life based on a very open ended definition based on its interpretation is wrong, but killing of insects/animals/bacteria/any other form of life is okay?
 
kk guys put it this way, if you were conceived in an unplanned pregnancy would you want to be aborted? im pretty sure you would be plenty fucking grateful if your mom put you up for adoption for a family instead of just ripping you out of her body.
 
oh yeah, just throw that kid into an adoption home because as you know, 100% of those kids find loving families and always end up in good situations with plenty of opportunities for a good life filled with love and care....... yup. always. its science.
 
okay when i say adoption, there are programs that find you a family that will take your baby right away. yes those do exist.
 
I wouldn't know any better, because I'd be nothing more than a sac of cells. Dumbass. A fetus is not a human life.
 
i understand that for people who are irresponsible, abortion is a easy out and they may never learn, but they usually wouldnt be good parents either. there are situations in which its necessary to have an abortion, be it medical or whatever, but regulating abortion cannot be determined by the situation or regulated to begin with.

what i dont understand is how someones body can be up for discussion and have so much sway in politics.
 
well that like you know better, but i guess that would be too hard for you so i guess i can understand where your coming from...
 
How about we answer the real question: What right does someone have to determine another's personal health choice based on the beliefs of the person making the decision?
 
i dont think that there concerned with the girls body during the pregnancy but are more concerned with the baby being born healthily instead.
 
weird, because in some cultures, say indian (amongst various others), cattle are sacred, i am pretty sure its a rather big no-no to kill and/or eat them. firefighters and various others risk their lives every day for their pets/animals, that may or may not even belong to them.

the importance of life is completely relative. in my opinion, it is unfair to ask a life in progress to undergo the numerous strains, both emotionally and physically for something that is not yet anything more than some cells. especially at the discretion of someone else, who may or may not have vastly different values than their own
 
hahaha so you just proved my point that they dont give two shits about the actual human being, the woman, and just want the baby to provide self-satisfaction of getting what they want. we have enough people on this planet, why bring in more who will go into awful state homes or be adopted by pedophiles. what arent you getting here boy?
 
fine here ya go: you shouldnt have gotten pregnant in the first place and be careless, its your fault and you have to take responsibility for you actions.
 
What baby? An aborted fetus cannot be considered a "baby," as in the time frame where aborting a fetus is legal, it's...you guessed it! CEEELLLLLSSSSSSS!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top