2487
Comments (191)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
0
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 0 points ago +2 / -2

Agreed. But in order to convince others, I think taking an anti-murder stance is more compelling.

1
thewordwolf 1 point ago +2 / -1

Maybe.

Maybe not. I've seen nothing about this. I think the principle isn't one of semantics. The left are the ones to typically play games with words -

  • Pro-choice

  • Anti-abortion (vs. pro-life.)

It's about do we support abortion as a policy or not.

4
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 4 points ago +4 / -0

Thing is, they twist anti-abortion as being a bad thing, because they consider abortion it's own category.

I'm not looking to play word games like they do, but it's good to have a phrase which most accurately describes your aim. When talking to a pro-murder fanatic: We're against abortion because we're anti-murder, do you mean to tell me you're pro-murder?

3
thewordwolf 3 points ago +3 / -0

I understand your point.

We basically agree, and I get what you're arguing.

But lets just say you represent, oh...

  • Level one. Frame the debate

  • Level two. Instigate protectionary legislation

I'm more level two. Yes, I get you're not a fan of my level two. But, again, I am. We could get into legal theory and history, but let's just say that is my informed opinion.

We have laws against stealing. We have laws against different types of stealing - burglary, petty theft, robbery, etc. Laws against abortion are against "murder," but a specific type of murder.

1
TheMoreYouKnowOkay 1 point ago +1 / -0

I have no problem with your level two. In fact I have a whole set of ideas on how anti-murder should be applied in pregnancy cases that I'd like to see turned into laws. But I don't think we get there without going through level one.