Pro-Choice Caucus: It’s ‘Harmful’ to Call Abortion a ‘Choice’
They even want the Democrats to stop saying they want to reduce abortion and keep it “safe, legal, and rare.”
Thank you, Pro-Choice Caucus, for admitting what we already knew. You guys don’t want women to have a choice. It’s all about infanticide for you.
Pro-Infanticide Caucus. I mean, the caucus LITERALLY admitted its name is harmful.
Yes, the Pro-Choice Caucus sent House Democrats a list of words they should use in a bill to codify Roe v. Wade.
NEW: The Pro Choice Caucus has just sent out messaging materials to House Dems on Roe draft.
One of the recommendations: Don't use "choice." pic.twitter.com/nqVA8W1nWT
— Sarah Ferris (@sarahnferris) May 12, 2022
Holy. Moly. They even want the Democrats to stop saying they want to reduce abortion and keep it “safe, legal, and rare.”
Unwanted to unexpected? Those don’t mean the same thing. Plenty of women have unexpected pregnancies but want the baby. You have an abortion because the pregnancy is “unwanted” even if the pregnancy is planned or unplanned. But we know the left loves to change definitions, too.
You also cannot use “criminalizing healthcare” when it comes to abortion because abortion is not healthcare. Abortion ends the life of an unborn human being.
They’re going all in, aren’t they? I guess they shouldn’t bother hiding their true intentions since we already know they want the woman to have an abortion.
The reactions. This man has a great response:
I'm pretty sure it it's the killing babies part, not the word choice, that's giving the other side pause.
— Politics Sucks (@BatDaddyOfThree) May 12, 2022
He is correct.
Here are a few more.
Democrats pick words carefully to deceive people on their actual motives https://t.co/VLm42XfNzt
— Anastasia Tamar (@AnastasiaG57) May 13, 2022
This is so insane. It reminds me of when the left spent a bunch of time arguing about how “climate change” was better than “global warming” and a decade later all these studies came out that showed it didn’t make a difference at all. https://t.co/HkhwCScexB
— Ben Dreyfuss (@bendreyfuss) May 13, 2022
Harmful Helpful
Language LanguageChoice Infanticide https://t.co/rITmWVzEfU
— MDub, Pete's human (@emmdub559) May 13, 2022
THIS JUST IN: @ProChoiceCaucus has decided their name is harmful. 😂 https://t.co/hNgLJo75ly
— Mark (@zerofux_1776) May 12, 2022
The pro-abortion camp is in a catch 22. If they keep saying 'safe, legal and rare,' they imply abortion is bad, which bolsters the anti-abortion argument. If they drop it, they alienate those who feel uncomfortable with abortion. https://t.co/AXDGhANDgm
— Matt Clarke 4 EFTA 🇳🇴 🇮🇸 🇨🇭 🇱🇮🇬🇧 💰🦅🏁 (@sophianictract) May 13, 2022
The “pro-choice” Congressional caucus is now issuing guidance not to say “choice”
The pro-abort movement is unraveling, quickly & badly
Abortion has always been the violent, barbaric destruction of a human life
The more their ideology is exposed, the more they’ll try to hide https://t.co/XSVzZudzla
— Lila Rose (@LilaGraceRose) May 13, 2022
The #prochoice crowd is losing yuuuge so they are panicking and changing their faulty messaging.
Music to my ears!! https://t.co/W2SNgQrOjy
— Lib Laughs (@LibLaughs) May 13, 2022
I assume the Pro Choice Caucus will soon be renamed the Pro Decision Caucus?
If we're talking language changes, maybe just stop the euphemism game and name yourself the
Pro Abortion Caucus.
Or even more accurate would be the
Pro Dismembering and Poisoning Children Caucus. https://t.co/1iA3bMLfnG
— Noah Brandt (@NoahBrandt_) May 12, 2022
Sanitize the language and to sanitize the behavior. Unfortunately the child is still dead. https://t.co/gJwzTo1eD2
— Carol (@twas2) May 13, 2022
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It’s not infanticide because it’s not an infant. You have to produce the argument that says it is. It’s the other side that you have to convince, not your own.
As for its being a choice, look at how it’s dramatized. For instance, Spiral 5:1-2. The woman boards the train from Paris to Holland where the time limit is higher, then gets off the train just before it leaves. Two choices dramatized!
Oh, right. Because we all know what a clump of cells becomes. A kitten. A rock. Something not human. It’s not even human to begin with, therefore, vacuum and destroy.
FYI: Infant en ventre sa mere or in ventre matris has been a legal and non-legal, descriptive concept for centuries. The very first definition of “infant” in the OED is “A child during the earliest period of life (or still unborn).”
Again, this goes back to what I just said: what is developing in the womb? A baby? An inhuman other?
Sorry, the side that has to prove that an infant is not an infant, a baby is not a baby, is your side, which bastardizes the language to suit twisted beliefs.
In-fans, without speech.
The clump of cells is human (i.e. not wolf) but not a human. You can say it’s a human in embryo, that works.
Human but not human.
Ladies and gentlemen I give you Exhibit A of modern American education.
Human but not a human. Your fingernails are human but not a human.
We were all there. We all went through that stage of development. We should have a little compassion for others who are trying to get a chance to be born the same as we did.
It’s the same old story. When people reach the top they forget where they came from.
They’re not others for the same reason that they’re not babies. It’s the same position repeated with different words.
rhhardin – fingernails are not unique to humans. They are unique to primates.
I don’t know why you people are so cowardly that you just can’t say that you don’t value life, period. You simply don’t. I’d actually have more respect for that kind of honesty than to see you bend over backwards to pretend a human being isn’t a human being, potentially or otherwise, until they’re able to breathe on their own.
A caterpillar is not a butterfly.
It may become one, but I’m going to feed it to the local hedgehogs before it eats my lettuces no matter how pretty it might otherwise become.
“It’s not infanticide because it’s not an infant. You have to produce the argument that says it is.”
No, we don’t. These perverts have demanded that we change the language we use, to suit them, as a means of inhibiting a robust and worthwhile discussion. It’s a common, thoroughly dishonest maneuver by the Left, to divert first to an unproductive discussion about how we have to change the words we use to accommodate them, before we talk.
We don’t have to do that. We can do like DJT: we can talk right past those perverts to the people.
As for the notion that “infanticide” does not apply, that’s simply wrong. The entire point of an abortion is to get rid of a baby.
It’s not a baby. Ordinary language runs a lot of life pretty deeply. You’ve got one cell and a sperm just fertilized it. Is it a baby for you then, or when it implants. It’s a baby in embryo, you could say.
Would you recognize a baby if you saw it in a petri dish? Supposing other cells were in other petri dishes, so it’s a test.
Ordinary language has a point. You wouldn’t have to claim that you could recognize a baby in embryo to claim something is a baby in embryo. But you do have to be able to recognize a baby to use the word.
Ordinary language controls thinking and conceptualization. Dogma does not.
It is a baby, regardless of how stupid communists try to redefine it.
Do you claim to be able to recognize a baby?
Since it won’t allow me to reply to your post. Yes, I can recognize what a baby is, idiot. What kind of stupid question is that. Should I be asking you what a woman is?
It’s not a clump of cells at birth now is it. I have personally given birth, and I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that it is recognizable as a human baby. Please explain why you think it’s ok to stick spoons in the heads of newborns at the moment of birth.
Also, language is a tool that is used to convey information, it does not control ones ability to think. Amazes me how callused and violent Progressive lefties like you are
I wouldn’t recognize a quantum computer if I saw one. That doesn’t make it not one.
At 8 weeks I could feel the changes my son was making to my body as he grew. I got tired because of the energy that he borrowed from me. My tastes in food adjusted to things ‘he’ liked. He had particular tastes in the music I listened to. I’ve talked to other mothers about the strange sensation of being yourself, yet also being very aware of another self, a unique being occupying space within you. He was always a baby, even before birth.
It is infanticide because it is an infant. Tell me, what is that in there. Is that a puppy? Is it a basketball? Or is it a baby?
A fetus.
Which is an infant. A person in the earliest stage of their life.
An infant (from the Latin word infans, meaning ‘unable to speak’ or ‘speechless’) is a formal or specialised synonym for the common term baby, meaning the very young offspring of human beings. The term may also be used to refer to juveniles of other organisms. A newborn is, in colloquial use, an infant who is only hours, days, or up to one month old. In medical contexts, newborn or neonate (from Latin, neonatus, newborn) refers to an infant in the first 28 days after birth;[1] the term applies to premature, full term, and postmature infants.
Before birth, the term fetus is used. The term infant is typically applied to very young children under one year of age; however, definitions may vary and may include children up to two years of age. When a human child learns to walk, the term toddler may be used instead.
wiki
When a pregnant woman is attacked and both her and her unborn baby are killed, how many murders are charged to that attacker? In most States that would be TWO, because two people were killed. They are not charged with killing a woman her clump of cells because that would be retarded, it’s a baby.
It seems you people have exactly two positions when it comes to children.
First position, kill them all before they can get out of the womb.
Second position, if they get past the abortionist then groom them.
The urgent message is that the right is not against abortion. Some are, some aren’t. If you split the right, the right loses. Lesson for November.
No, that’s not the message. The message is that the Supreme Court is about to issue a decision on abortion. If you are concerned you need to get your red dress and join your leftist friends at Alito’s house.
All of your comments here attempting to change our minds will not affect the outcome.
No, the message is that we’re onto you murdering groomers.
See you in November.
. There are Conservatives who are not totally against abortion in all circumstances. Some believe exceptions should be made for rape or incest. Some believe exceptions should be made in cases where carrying the pregnancy to term would cause real severe physical harm to the mother. Some believe exceptions should be made in cases of severe fetal anomaly.
What they do agree on is that Roe and associated rulings were a disaster. That abortion legislation is a matter for the states not SCOTUS.
They agree that abortion in the later stages of fetal development is really little different (if at all) from infanticide. The arguments for abortion can very easily be used to argue for not only infanticide but for children up to the age to 3.
They also don’t try to deny that abortion kills a preborn human child. Whether that preborn child should share the same status of personhood as a born child can be debated.
They know that there is something very demonic about the harpies and their acolytes demanding unrestricted access to abortion for the full term of pregnancy. So we know this is much more than a political battle. It is a war fought on many fronts.
Nobody gives a crap how Hollywood dramatizes things.
I was bit by a poison spider in 2004, and the only superpower I gained was the power to enjoy eating shellfish.
Pro-abortion is undeniable, but pro-infanticide can be argued based on laws California is trying to push, or Northam’s arguments to legalise it.
“It’s not infanticide because it’s not an infant. You have to produce the argument that says it is.”
Jesuitical.
Let’s just call it homicide, as you cannot possible argue it is not human.
“It’s harmful to call abortion a choice”
What you call it doesn’t change what it is. But it is harmful–it kills the baby. We should show a little mercy because we were all there at one time.
Four choices: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion, and self-defense through reconciliation. The wicked solution is neither a good nor exclusive choice. It is a rite exercise for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes.
That said, the Pro-Choice “ethical” religion denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to negotiable commodities.
The Left always plays word games, and whenever we go along with their language we cede ground to them.
Stop adhering to their terminology.
The same with quibbling over what word we should use to call it. If we believe that life is sacred, calling it by a different name does not change what it is.
One cannot defend a morally apprehensible position so bandying language won’t help. Neither will appealing to a tribal instinct of us versus them with regards to men. Both are strawman arguments used to avoid debate on the central moral issue.
By the way, Roe may have made abortion safe and legal but it is definitely not rare. 65 million abortions since ’74 with 63 million being for birth control after the fact. The fact that over half are black and hispanic is also carefully avoided in an age of “wokeness” to avoid the inevitable allegations of a de facto eugenics program.
The leaked SCOTUS opinion shows the general public that the Roe president didn’t have a legal leg to stand on so it defaults back to the states where a moralistic debate will ensue. Pro-abortion advocates know that this has to be avoided at all costs so these word games get played.
Safe for whom? Abortion has a fatality rate above 50%.
“Safe for whom?”
Not for the baby
The mother and the baby go into the abortion clinic together, but only one comes out alive.
Being morally apprehensible is the whole point of moral arguments. You establish what position you’re taking responsibility for. A successful moral argument doesn’t often result in agreement, but rather in staked out positions, and that’s why moral arguments take the form that they do.
You may feel that your opponent is reprehensible but that’s your problem.
Except, of course, that slaughtering babies is not considered a moral position by practically any group.
“to avoid the inevitable allegations of a de facto eugenics program.”
Hey! There ain’t no alligators here!
Maybe we need to form a conservative false-flag group called “Margaret Sent Us.”
For once we agree, the in utero infant (once alive) does not have a choice or even a voice!
They haven’t said safe, legal, and rare in 25-30 years.
That was a Clintonism. It was a lie, I mean Clinton, because they don’t care if it is rare and for at least one party it is never safe and for the pregnant woman it is not actually safe. They mostly want it legal. If it is illegal it is harder to pressure a woman you only wanted sex from to have an abortion. Of course while you are pressuring and manipulating and guilt tripping the woman you are calling yourself an ally.
That’s in the same category as:
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
I. It’s not safe – it kills the baby
2. It’s not rare – that there have been more than 60,000,000 of them
3. Pretty soon it will not be legal – hence all the last minute protesting
Cancelling Roe doesn’t make abortions illegal.
It does in those states that never repealed the laws they used to have against it. And in those states that have enacted new laws in anticipation
1 and 3
If a pregnancy is only unexpected and not unwanted then you won’t feel the need to decide to choose to kill your baby.
2
If you reduce abortions you reduce funding for the Democrat party how will that help us maintain power.
4
How dare someone have morals and values that make it inconvienient for me to kill my baby.
5
I am sure that pregnancy is not considered ill health
so how is ending a pregnancy health care?
There are two lives in question upon conception. You can make the argument that the worth of the growing life starts at level “X”, and increases over time until it equals the level of the mother, with all kinds of reasonable curve shapes, milestones, and caveats.
But you simply can’t rationally draw that curve where “X=0” from conception to “I’m outside the birth canal”.
I’m “pro-choice-sometimes”. My “sometimes” might be more than others, and less than others. But “sometimes==always” is a road paved with good intentions.
That’s the other end of the curve that starts at a single fertilized cell (obviously not a baby to many), that ends with birth (obviously a baby to everybody; society takes an interest).
You can fuzz that end up as well, though, with the sociological observation that you learn to be a human. There’s a lot of pretending, and “say-foring” to learn the role of a human. Nevertheless birth is a good bright line and the law pretends along with it, with the full force of law. Peter Sanger is willing to argue the line, I think, and draws a lot of ire for it.
It’s simpler to argue having a soul, curiously. Even atheists use ordinary language, if you point out that the body separates us, and the soul relates us to others. As in, “He has no soul; he hardly seems human.”
The fetus isn’t doing any relating, but the parents might well. From the first indication they’re planning a nursery, buying little baseball mitts and balls, and so forth. They have a relation to the fetus, which to them is a baby. It has a soul.
To birth control failure parents, it’s not and it doesn’t. It’s just the single cell it appears to be. To see if a fetus has a soul, close inspection of the fetus is not the right place to go. Instead look at the parents.
It would be nice to get straight what’s really being argued about.
I’d say, offhand, it’s about preserving something that’s cute. Whatever stage you can make a fetus look cute at, with sonograms or whatever, that’s where you’ll get majority support for an abortion cutoff, and that’s the political end of the issue.
Did you just try to argue that society doesn’t take an interest until birth?
That’s an easy fallacy to disprove….Criminal code allows and often does charge for murder of the unborn when a pregnant woman is physically or psychologically assaulted to induce a miscarriage.
Murder is the wrong charge but nothing’s surprising about that these days. Unsanctioned destruction of a fetus would be the charge, if they wanted to make the right law for it.
Obviously society can take an interest. They all do at birth, though; before that you get busybodies, and then the question of cuteness that I think drives it all.
A similar case, Wm. Buckley argued, when the issue came up before the Supreme Court, that you can’t rape your wife. Rape is a crime against feminine modesty, and in marriage that’s not in play. There he was doing ordinary language. The correct charge, he said, is not rape but assault and battery. The court went the other way and today nobody knows what a rape is. Ordinary language thrown out.
We’ll send you in to tell the surviving victims that the criminal who caused the death of their unborn child is going to get charged with “unsanctioned destruction of a fetus” instead of murder because the latter charge would just be too problematic for abortion activists.
If the left wants to lose this battle, they just need more like you. Your messaging is perfect!
rhhardin,
The last sentence is the most sensible thing you have argued; the stage that a fetus looks ‘cute’ on a sonogram. That’s a very fair point. In fact besides being ‘cute’; the physical appearance is recognizably human at the stage of 15 weeks or so and is where a baby can live after being delivered, with a little help which our technology and medical progress now permits.
This is the line that most of us feel comfortable in drawing; this is a person that can survive with a bit of temporary help. We do the same for trauma patients and those who have a heart attack; provide a little temporary help to preserve life.
Mixing in quality of life distinctions or abstract concepts as to what is ‘human’ obfuscate the point IMO. Add those and now we are discussing euthanasia in all its forms voluntary, mandatory and every step in between.
It’s all sensible, but it’s nice to find agreement where I said there’d be agreement. Better to argue for agreement than choice and rights. Instinct kicks in where it should.
This week, at a networking event, I was able to talk one on one with a black Illinois state representative. It was a very good conversation, although we did not agree with many issues.
I pointed out the following:
Illinois allows abortion until immediately before birth.
A born alive baby feels paid.
Immediately before birth, the baby feels pain.
Illinois allows babies, before birth, to be killed without any pain medication.
Federal law requires steers to be stunned before being slaughtered.
The state rep seemed to agree with me that to kill a baby without pain medication is brutal.
However, he told me the prochoice people would never accept requiring pain medication for a fetus.
It is a very sad fact that a steer in the USA has more rights than a baby in their own mom’s womb.
Mistakes with things that follow from them are tricky things, as Vicki Hearne said about Kant on animals. The mistake here is arguing about the wrong thing, one hard line vs another, neither sensible.
Instead of a “Choice” or “Decision”, how about just calling it “Murder”?
That would be much too honest.
Well, of course, if you’re taking about a murderer on death row, they should be allowed to live.
Next thing you know, the pro abort side will have to define ‘what is a woman’?
Some of them may well. I’m happy to state that anybody having an abortion is a woman.
But what’s sad is that multiple comments here seem to think that all pro-choice, pro-abortion and whatever the hell the new terminology is (‘pro-decision’?) people share all other views. They do not. There are people across a range of political, social and religious views that support the right for women to have abortions.
The thing they all have in common? Support for the right for women to have abortions. Everything else they have in common? Nothing.
“Unwanted” pregnancy -> Unexpected pregnancy
I was furious at my credit card company this week, when I found an unexpected charge on my bill for a 4K TV I had taken home two weeks ago.
I was minding my bidness, turning out my ho’s, when I got busted by an unexpected undercover cop.
I wasn’t expecting the cable company to bother me just for running my own wiring to their box.
None of this was my fault, honest. How was I to know??