Play nice

[danaeris]

I hate hypocrites. But, if any of you pro-choice folk turn this into "all pro-lifers are hypocrites", I'll kick you, or something.

Having said that, read this. It's very interesting.
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml

Comments

[qedrakmar.livejournal.com]

All generalizations are hypocrytical...

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

If they are absolute generalizations, they certainly can be. What about, "I'm against abortion and will do everything in my power to see that a woman chooses to bring that baby into the world, but I accept that there needs to be medically safe, accessible options for those who disagree with me"? Still a generalization, but lacking the hypocrisy.

[qedrakmar.livejournal.com]

Ummm... that was sarcasm.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

I'm really, really sleepy today. I should refrain from commenting until I've had a day or two to recover from work stress. I'm not usually that obtuse. :)

[northbard.livejournal.com]

Yet again, my main concern is the choice of descriptions. Pro-life vs. Pro-Choice. How about pro-choice and anti-choice? By setting themselves up as pro-life, that automatically implies the opposing position is anti-life. This is an old argument, I grant, but an important one, IMO.

[northbard.livejournal.com]

and an interesting article indeed.

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

Pro-lifers view the phrase anti-choice as just as derogatory as anti-life is to us.

[northbard.livejournal.com]

so why do we default to the terms 'we' find offensive? :)

That is to say, if we all cannot agree on what to call ourselves, why do you follow their nomenclature, rather than the one you identify with?

[qedrakmar.livejournal.com]

Who would want to be labelled as being against something good? In any debate/war, both sides are the good guy, otherwise they wouldn't be arguing/fighting.

[northbard.livejournal.com]

I totally agree. I was wondering specifically at D's personal reason behind the selection. Curiousity. It seems like an interesting attempt to portray both in the light they wish to be viewed...

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

This is the sort of fight where it seems best to let each side define itself and *not* define the other side. I'm saying this as someone who has been on both sides of the fence, and thus feels sympathetic for the people who hold both points of view, if not necessarily for the views themselves. After all, the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are the most commonly used ones in my experience, both in cases where bias is viewed negatively and in cases where the bias is strong and a source of pride.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

I, personally, don't particularly find "pro-abortion", "pro-choice", "pro-life", "anti-life", "anti-abortion", or "anti-choice" offensive, but I do find them fairly inaccurate to describe most people. I would call myself "pro- legal abortion" or "anti-criminalization of abortion". No, they don't fit quite as nicely into a soundbite. Sometimes that's the price of accuracy.

[ubbaken.livejournal.com]

I think this is something very expected. Often you have people in a cusp doing things they are against, for whatever reason.

Would someone who is anti-life/pro-choice be accused of hypocrasy if they talked someone out of an abortion, for whatever reasons?

I think what that article really shows is that people are not putting proper thought into their sexual lives, rape aside.

Actually, I think this strengthens the open attitude towards sex, with a few of those stories being about teens from conservative households, who probably give the unflinching decree of abstinence as their sex ed.

Again, yet another possible generalization, but with better grounds and fact.

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

Would someone who is anti-life/pro-choice be accused of hypocrasy if they talked someone out of an abortion, for whatever reasons?

I don't think that's a parallel situation - since we're pro-CHOICE convincing someone that a certain choice is better for them in their situation is a part of that. I doubt that there are very many people who are pro-"choice made in a vaccum without any outside influence or advice". Barring someone physically from getting to clinic if you couldn't convince them would would be hypocritical since that would be denying them the choice you claimed to believe in.

[angel-thane.livejournal.com]

I don't think that's a parallel situation - since we're pro-CHOICE convincing someone that a certain choice is better for them in their situation is a part of that. I doubt that there are very many people who are pro-"choice made in a vaccum without any outside influence or advice".

Oh, I don't know about that. There are LOTS of pro-legal-abortion-on-demand people who will vociferously argue against the offer of counselling for those who are considering abortions. Mayhaps not the majority (but maybe, I'm not sure) but certainly more than a few.

[aberrantvirtue.livejournal.com]

And see, this is where I have to say both "yes there are" and "yes I'm one of them" when counseling actually equals "sales pitch". Having made the (extremely personal, and not up for discussion) choice to have an abortion, I was very lucky in that my insurance covered it, and the counseling I recieved was not biased in any way, but was rather geared towards exploring my feelings, and how to deal once the choice was made.

On the other hand I know people who've gone in for the counselling and been told both "You *must* get an abortion, it's the only choice for someone in your position," and (a different person, obviously) "You should bring the baby to term. If you don't want it you can give it up for adoption, but there's no real reason you should have an abortion." Neither of these is fair to the person who (ultimately) has to live with the choice.

So, given a choice between sales pitches and deciding in a vaccum, I'll take the vaccum.

Definitely an interesting article

[neeuqdrazil.livejournal.com]

But I think it's terribly sad, too, that so many of these women seem to either be carrying this double standard (that it's okay in their situation, but not in other women's), or be unable to stand up to their communities and say 'This is something that, (unfortunately?) is occasionally necessary.'

I'm pro-choice, but with the focus on choice. There are a lot of issues, particularly around race, class, gender, and disability, all tied into the abortion debate, that are often not acknowledged, by either side.

But what it comes down to, for me, is a woman's right to choose, and to choose freely. If she doesn't want to be a mother, there should be options available for her that don't involve her denying her sexuality.

(Sorry, former Women's Studies student on a rant, here...)