Call them anti-choice: anti-abortion != pro-life
I was making a belated follow-up to escapade52'scomment to vvalkyri, and I decided it should be a new entry.
... refer to "pro-life" people as "anti-choice".
The thing is, many of the people who call themselves "pro-life" generally tend to support social policies that are not helpful to the living. To deal in stereotypes, these are the people who don't want the schools teaching children the processes of human reproduction and the likely consequences of their actions. Is such ignorance good for the lives of these children? These are the people who want to dismantle myriad social-support services. Is this good for anyone's life? And don't forget the bombings of clinics and assinations of doctors -- killing for the "greater good".
Denying abortion forces women to bear unwanted children. There is an active adoption market (and I find that notion offensive) for some of these children. The less desirable children end up on the margins of society. Was insisting on their birth a benefit to them? Or to their parents?
And I've got a real problem with the Popes proscribing birth control, with so many children in this world being born into lives of poverty and starvation. The world has changed. Just as many Kosher rules are outdated in a world with refrigeration and better sanitation/hygiene, viewing every sperm as sacred and essential is not helpful in societies where the population outstrips the available resources for food and shelter. We have little hope of stopping people from having sex, but we don't have to insist that they have children (and spread STDs) as a result.
How about pro-life omnivores? Life is life, right? And to digress -- if you don't think it's OK to kill animals for food, why is OK to kill plants for food? Wouldn't eating seeds and fruits be just like abortion?
By and large, I don't find that people who are anti-abortion (in the sense of "don't let anybody do it", as opposed to those who would never have an abortion themselves but who are not trying to impose their choice on others) are actually pro-life -- not in their treatment of the living. "Anti-choice" does emphasize that these people want to impose their world order on others. They seem to forget that this country was founded by people who didn't want others' world order imposed on them.
... refer to "pro-life" people as "anti-choice".
The thing is, many of the people who call themselves "pro-life" generally tend to support social policies that are not helpful to the living. To deal in stereotypes, these are the people who don't want the schools teaching children the processes of human reproduction and the likely consequences of their actions. Is such ignorance good for the lives of these children? These are the people who want to dismantle myriad social-support services. Is this good for anyone's life? And don't forget the bombings of clinics and assinations of doctors -- killing for the "greater good".
Denying abortion forces women to bear unwanted children. There is an active adoption market (and I find that notion offensive) for some of these children. The less desirable children end up on the margins of society. Was insisting on their birth a benefit to them? Or to their parents?
And I've got a real problem with the Popes proscribing birth control, with so many children in this world being born into lives of poverty and starvation. The world has changed. Just as many Kosher rules are outdated in a world with refrigeration and better sanitation/hygiene, viewing every sperm as sacred and essential is not helpful in societies where the population outstrips the available resources for food and shelter. We have little hope of stopping people from having sex, but we don't have to insist that they have children (and spread STDs) as a result.
How about pro-life omnivores? Life is life, right? And to digress -- if you don't think it's OK to kill animals for food, why is OK to kill plants for food? Wouldn't eating seeds and fruits be just like abortion?
By and large, I don't find that people who are anti-abortion (in the sense of "don't let anybody do it", as opposed to those who would never have an abortion themselves but who are not trying to impose their choice on others) are actually pro-life -- not in their treatment of the living. "Anti-choice" does emphasize that these people want to impose their world order on others. They seem to forget that this country was founded by people who didn't want others' world order imposed on them.