The traditional copy-editing fix would be to change "opposes abortion" to "opposes legalized abortion."
But beware: The governor-elect of Virginia made opposition to abortion part of his campaign platform, but he also said that he does not want to "criminalize" women and their doctors. So he opposes abortion only in the we-all-oppose-abortion sense -- fine for his stump speech, but highly misleading to cite without elaboration in a news article. (Also, if it's notable that Candidate A "opposes abortion," does that imply that the opposing candidate favors abortion?)
11 comments:
Woah! I hope you don't change "opposes abortion" to "opposes legalized abortion" because that would of course imply that the politician approves of illegal abortion.
Well, you may have a bit of a point, but that would apply more to something like "opposes legal abortions."
Why would it? I think it applies equally to both. You could correct it to "opposes legalizing abortions" and that would, I think, convey what you intended.
Despite what Rush Limbaugh alleges about people who oppose banning abortion, nobody is pro-abortion in the sense of rooting for the wholesale destruction of fetuses. Given a choice between an abortion occurring and an abortion not occurring, without any other extenuating circumstances, most all people would choose to have the abortion not occur.
Of course, there are always extenuating circumstances, and that's why the issue is so contentious.
If you think I'm using "nobody" in a way that conflicts with my past forays into literalism, fine. Sue me.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
What does this say about abortion?
Just my thought of the day...
God Bless~
I'd love to see you try to get away with calling the "pro-life" side "anti-choice." Though I agree that "pro-life" seems pretty inaccurate to a mother whose own life might be in danger.
I think any politician who "opposes legalized abortion" supports illegal abortions as much as a politican who opposed the legal sale of alcohol supported speakeasies. The implication might be unfair, but the reality they helped create would be undeniable.
My point, of course, is that "opposes abortion" is essentially meaningless. The other stuff is tangential.
You know, I would like to think that no one likes to kill a fetus. That it only happens in rare occasions and that those who get them are in medical need.
But the general opinion in the pro-choice group is that first, a fetus isn't a life, its the equivalent of a tumor. Second, ultimately an abortion should be so standard and accepted that even people who aren’t inconvenienced by a pregnancy can consider aborting for any frivolous reason. (might want to take a cruise to the Bahamas with the husband in 3 months, don’t want to be too fat for my swimsuit).
I'm not kidding about this. Pro-choice wants to feel completely devoid of remorse and responsibility. Their goal isn’t to make us think it is their own business. They want everyone to think it's an acceptable practice so they can feel good about it and not have anyone tell them they are wrong.
Yes, yes, melynch. We hear you. This isn't the forum for this debate. Bill was making a grammatical point. Take a deep breath, and pontificate about those pro-choicers elsewhere.
Ana, I'm not sure how what you're saying about Kaine is different from what I'm saying about Kaine. For him to talk about "opposing" abortion is meaningless unless he's advocating laws against the practice.
The following is from a Roanoke Times editorial quoted on Kaine's campaign Web site:
"Democrat Tim Kaine is a Catholic who says he personally opposes abortion. But he pledged to veto any laws that would criminalize abortion for patients or physicians. Kilgore, who opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother's life, said he would oppose criminal penalties against women who have the procedure, but he was mum on physicians who perform it."
Bill, it's so good to read your blog. It's been a while since I have.
My problem with "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is that they both mean different things to different people. Some pro-lifers are just anti-abortion, and others have a wider support for all human life. Thus a larger pro-life agenda is anti-war, anti-euthanasia, and in favor of medical care. It also supports the right to a fully human life; a fully human life includes the benefits of culture for all (education, etc.). This is the definition of pro-life that the Catholic theologians at my FIC university used, and similar to the Jesuit version.
The pro-abortion problem has been covered in your post. But this is why I say pro-choice and anti-choice; I refuse to let either side's label be co-opted by propagandists. Whether it already has or not is still, I think, up for grabs.
Post a Comment