Human Rights

How “pro-choice” are Democrats, really?

ReasonTV released a video interviewing Democrats at the 2012 DNC about the Democratic Party’s “pro-choice” stance when it comes to abortion.

Reason TV talked with Democratic delegates and supporters at the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte and found that most were on board with the party’s strong pro-choice stance. But when pressed to talk about whether or not they were pro-choice in areas of human activity beyond abortion, delegates and supporters seemed less certain and, at times, outright hostile to the notion of increased choice.

To me, this once again highlights the desperate evasiveness of the term “pro-choice.” The language completely diverts away from the real issue: abortion. It demonstrates how really uncomfortable most people are with the idea of abortion. The language of “choice” is just a cover to get around talking directly about abortion. It is not some consistent, well-thought out philosophy – as we see here, the people interviewed have not applied the same thinking to other issues. A woman should have the “choice” for an abortion, but others can’t have a choice about their own health or weight?

These people are pro-choice as long as they approve of the choice. Hence, they can say they’re “pro-choice” and yet support mandates that severely restrict the religious liberty of Catholic institutions while demanding that our tax dollars should fund birth control and abortion.

The hypocrisy goes on…

Live Action on Facebook
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003935614539 Glen Gaboury

    Are these people brain dead? My goodness….so clueless….

    • Mitch Behna

      I’m pretty sure they are

  • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

    Outstanding video. In all the personal decisions the video touches on, the individual making the choice affects others far less (if at all) than the choice to abort affects a baby. All their rhetoric about rights, freedom, privacy, autonomy, personal decisions, etc….it’s pure bunk.

    • Richard

      “abortions affect babies” the same way “abstinence affects babies”. *Birth* affects babies, *effects* babies even. Zygotes =/= Babies. If you used the right language, I think you’d find it easier to accept the fact that the world’s supply of wombs isn’t your private incubator but belongs to individual women whom have rights over them.

      • Faithkuz

        The unborn baby is not part of the woman’s body part. The baby has rights and exists as a genetically distinct individual. The word baby was used for hundreds of years (and women still use it) to refer to the unborn baby. It was only in the 1970s (surprise surprise) that different terms began to be deployed. . The “right language” is that which was used for hundreds of years prior to a reproductive rights and sexual liberation agenda that (surprise, surprise) had a need to deny the baby’s humanity.

      • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

        “abortions affect babies” the same way “abstinence affects babies”.

        Really! That’s a neat trick, considering the child doesn’t exist yet at the abstinence stage. How does that work, exactly?

        “Zygotes =/= Babies.”

        http://liveaction.org/blog/planned-parenthood-vs-the-medical-authorities/

        “world’s supply of wombs isn’t your private incubator”

        So then you’re not such a stickler for accurate language after all. Thanks for clarifying.

        • Richard

          “neat trick, the child doesn’t exist yet at the abstinence stage” nor at the pregnancy stage evidently. I looked at the link you provided, I seem to recall that the device in labor and delivery rooms that measures the unborn baby’s heart rate is called a “fetal heart monitor”. (I’m even willing to call a fetus an unborn baby, just not a baby baby.)

          Assuming you really believe that abortion is murder, that you’re not motivated purely by the glee of slut-shaming or trying to make some crazy statement about the evils of sex for the sake of sex, your energies would be much better directed toward lessening the number of unwanted pregnancies that occur in the first place via the promulgation of birth control. Society truly does have an interest in protecting children but that interest doesn’t trump the rights of the woman to control her own body. And, given that women were only recently given rights to their bodies, prior to that having been viewed as the Property of Men, now is not the time to try to re-assert your property right to their wombs. Once the child is born, by all means swoop in and claim it in the name of a Greater Humanity via Child Protective Services, that is your obligation and right in protecting the child from harm.

          And if you truly believe that abortion is murder then: a) I acknowledge the validity of your viewpoint, b) I respectfully disagree, c) I will not be able to change your mind by playing semantic games.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            “nor at the pregnancy stage evidently.”

            Uh, what? I hesitate to ask how you came to that conclusion…..

            “I seem to recall that the device in labor and delivery rooms that
            measures the unborn baby’s heart rate is called a ‘fetal heart monitor’.”

            ……………………and?

            “I’m even willing to call a fetus an unborn baby, just not a baby baby.”

            Hey, speaking of “playing semantic games”……

            “that you’re not motivated purely by the glee of slut-shaming or trying to make some crazy statement about the evils of sex for the sake of sex”

            And junk like this, Rich, is why people here don’t take you seriously and call you a troll. To suggest this is what the pro-life movement is really about rather than saving lives it pure slander, and you know it. You typed it not because you sincerely believe that’s what we’re about, but because you need something immoral to accuse pro-lifers of in order to mitigate the immorality of your position.

            “your energies would be much better directed toward lessening the number of unwanted pregnancies that occur in the first place via the
            promulgation of birth control”

            I hate to break it to you, but lack of birth control “access” isn’t why unwanted pregnancies occur: http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/224398/the-arrogance-of-obamas-accommodation/1

            “the rights of the woman to control her own body And, given that women were only recently given rights to their bodies, prior to that having been viewed as the Property of Men, now is not the time to try to re-assert your property right to their wombs.”

            Your dishonesty in this statement is astounding. Pro-lifers aren’t asserting any property right over women, any more than it asserts a property right over someone’s neighborhood to say you can’t kill your neighbor. And abortion is NOT merely a woman’s control over her own body; it’s giving her power over SOMEONE ELSE’S BODY – by killing that someone else.

            “I respectfully disagree”

            When’s the respect part start?