As if we needed another example...

[madmoisellestar]

Obama: Healthcare reform should not provide money for abortions. Even though that's the law and this bill totally doesn't change that, let me now issue an executive order to clarify that this bill will in no way let public money fund abortions

Comments

[2sick2pray]

Yeah, you know I really used to try to defend the "pro-life" movement as much as I vehemently disagree with it just because it's one of those issues where I can see really good, intelligent people having that point of view for somewhat legitimate reasons. I mean, if you really outright believed it was necessarily murder to have an abortion I could see you seeing it as a moral imperative to not silently accept living in a society that condones "murder" as part of it's ethical and legal code. The flaws I see in that logic of course are that A.) Usually the only solid argument this side presents for life beginning at conception is founded in religion which doesn't have any place in public policy and B.) It is so lacking in compassion and respect towards the women who have to make this incredibly difficult choice and C.) It places the life of the unborn as a higher priority than the lives of women

[tompurdue]

I agree: I understand the core of the anti-abortion argument, but find that nearly all of the actual arguers do so in a vile, self-serving, and misogynist way. I don't think they understand the core of their own argument; they're really just anti-sex and grasp at any mechanism to make sex bad.

Since I do respect the argument, if not the arguers, I'm actually OK with no federal funding for abortions. I'd like to see a fund established so that pro-choice people could pay for those in need. I'd contribute.

[egosomnio]

...the lunatic fringe is so outspoken that it's easy to forget about people who are pretty reasonable most of the time...

That right there.

The extreme side tends to be the loudest, which has the effect of drowning out everyone who isn't shouting about how they're right and everyone else is wrong. In the process, it makes everyone else who shares at least some of their opinions look bad (human beings love to categorize pretty much everything).

I don't think lumping everyone on each side into groups called "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" helps the matter all that much, pithy though the terms may be - it lets anyone in either group too easily decide that whoever disagrees with them is against either life or choice, when it's about one specific part of the definition of life and one specific situation's choice, not all life or choice. Not that I've got any idea what else to call the two major opposing sides, that most people would bother with, of course.

[madmoisellestar]

I don't think lumping everyone on each side into groups called "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" helps the matter all that much, pithy though the terms may be - it lets anyone in either group too easily decide that whoever disagrees with them is against either life or choice, when it's about one specific part of the definition of life and one specific situation's choice, not all life or choice.I do try to say 'pro-choice on abortion' or refer to the issue as 'reproductive choice' since it also encompasses birth control (the NRLC pillories anti-abortion but pro-birth control republicans on a regular basis). Defining the scope of the term is important, but overall, I'm really very comfortable describing myself as pro-choice. Choice in just about every form is something I'm for. (I'm also Pro-Freedom, if anyone's asking

[findingjuliet]

The memo must've gone out yesterday afternoon. Every Republican who spoke about this used the term "pro-abortion"