This is not about abortion. It's about words. Choice may or may not be real. So, we may or may not have to take responsibility for our actions. But if we take the credit we probably should take the blame. Life, IMHO is everywhere if it moves. And Everything moves. Can anyone explain this better or differently?
No one wants to say they are for abortion,not even people who have made millions in the industry or won 20 elections supporting them. An American who opposes choice sounds like a totalitarian and belongs in a different country. A person who is opposed to life is dangerous. People who love abortion want millions to die so other millions can live more comfortably. People who opposeabortion want millionstolive with the byproduct of almost everyone living more miserably. Almost without exception those who favor abortion also support unlimited access to birth control. It is hard to endorse those two categories without endorsing the fornication associated with pregnancy. Those who oppose fornication-generally calling it sin-tend to also oppose abortion-often calling it murder. Within that category are those who also oppose birth control. If you fornicate-or even consummate with your spouse too often-you should give birth to every child conceived or you will be sinning. We prefer you also to be committing a crime when you abort. We certainly don't want to finance your abortion through taxes,making us an accessory to murder. Those who favor abortion want it legal, want no one using the word sin in regard to this or almost anything else and most want the government to pay for it if necessary. The worst pro-abotionists want it mandatory for the categories of people they most dislike. These people have no guilt about their position and prefer to accuse the others of being the bad ones, replacing traditional sins with their own strange lists. Anti-abortionists feel guilty at all times, tormented inside and out every day.
I agree that it is about language. NO one is completely accurate when they say they are "pro-life". What they really mean is that they are pro-HUMAN life. Animals and vegetables are life and if we did not kill them we'd die. Why do pro-life folk leave off the human part? Maybe they'd have to define what exactly a human being is? They can't do it based on science, only on religion, and that lessens the strength of their argument.
Curiously a vegan once told me vegans are pro-human abortion because the fewer people there are the better it is for animals. That's one step from anti-human, but it is simply true that if half the people in the world died tomorrow the survivors would soon be much better off. That's true no matter which half. The oldest half might be best, since no country would have to pay social security. The youngest half would mean the remaining fertile women could make careers of reproducing while the elderly continue to die. The richest half would leave great jobs open and make real estate cheap. The poorest half would eliminate most entitlement programs. If whole countries were empty the map could be adjusted peacefully. If the dumbest half died things might be best. Losing the smartest half might be fun too. One from every household would still reduce poverty and hunger. The people who are truly pro-life are running organizations that treat the pregnant girls like rehab clients and orphans,keep them together and train the girls to be proper mothers. Ifound such an organization once but I forget the name.
There's a reason why pro-lifers call the pro-choicers anti-lifers, and the pro-choicers call the pro-lifers anti-choicers - the terms are dependent on perspective.
It is not true at all unless you think wealth is a zero-sum game. A single human would likely not survive for very long. In ages past when there were fewer people we had a very low standard of living as compared to today. Lots of resources but no infrastructure to exploit them. In this case more is better, unfortunately resources are not evenly distributed but even poorer countries are better off today than they were in the past.
