Originally posted at WordPress, and copy/pasting it here by request (divided into the first two posts on this topic). The bracketed text was originally footnotes, which displays great on paper, but not so well online.
Dilemmas are what define most people, and politically there is perhaps none greater than abortion. Whichever side of the divisive line you stand, you should be against Pro-Abortion politicians. Agree or disagree, please keep reading.
The sides to take are as follows:
- Pro-Life: This is really the anti-abortion group, they are not anti-choice, but bodily autonomy is a lower priority.
- Pro-Choice: This is not the pro-abortion group, they simply believe abortion is an option due to bodily autonomy taking a higher priority.
- Pro-Abortion: Whatever other ambitions lay at the heart of it, they intentionally cause more abortions and consider this if not good, than at least an acceptable price to pay for those other goals.
Confused yet? Context is coming…
Pro-Abortion in Action
In Colorado public funding for contraceptives saved the state a massive $5.85 per $1 spent, this equaled about $79 million saved in just two years (this figure is excluding decreased welfare spending). Further, this decreased teen abortions by 50%! This is a win/win scenario; for Pro-Life there are less abortions, for Pro-Choice women are in greater control of their bodies, and for people who don’t care either way there’s less government spending. However, Pro-Abortion politicians tried to stop this program. They pretended to be Pro-Lifers to get conservative support, and made a mockery of Pro-Life beliefs, top among their claims was that not getting pregnant is the same as an abortion (the only counter case I’ve heard, calls for every sperm to be sacred, and all men to be genocidal monsters for not freezing them for later use), and further that family values call for increasing the number of abortions so long as there’s technically a few extra babies born (other trades to gain these abortions include: an increased percentage of teenagers with STDs, increased poverty, less education, and these problems affect girls more than boys… Of course, an argument could be made for any one of these things being the true goal, and the rest merely being acceptable collateral damage along the way; for any real Pro-Lifer, acceptable collateral damage will never include anything at an abortion clinic).
Texas has a number of politicians who seek to get teenage girls pregnant (where I’m from, if someone plots to get underage girls pregnant, we call them a pedophile), who use such measures as abstinence only education, under the claim about family values, but it’s been shown time and again to cause more pregnancies and accompanying abortions. To give them the benefit of the doubt that it’s not motivated by dishonorable intentions towards those underage girls, the logical conclusion seems to be they’re the means to the end of upping the abortion rate.
Reasons for this oddity could be mused easily enough. I do not assume anything which requires wearing a tinfoil hat, rather I assume it boils down to the badge of victim-hood.