Difference between revisions of "Abortion prohibitionism"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Woozle moved page Pro-life to Abortion prohibitionism: trying to work out better terminology) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<hide> | <hide> | ||
[[page type::article]] | [[page type::article]] | ||
| − | [[thing type:: | + | [[thing type::pseudoposition]] |
| − | |||
</hide> | </hide> | ||
==About== | ==About== | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Abortion prohibitionism]] is a [[pseudoposition]] which is often part of a [[human life absolutism]] pseudoposition. |
| − | === | + | ===Related=== |
| − | [[ | + | Popular terminology for referring to abortion prohibitionism includes two misnomers, "{{l/alias|pro-life}}" and the "[[right to life]]". Despite the implicit claim of a stance based entirely on [[human life absolutism|unconditional support for human life]], the policies they actually advocate tend primarily to ''maximize reproduction'' – specifically births, live or otherwise – often at the expense of other lives, without regard to what happens to those lives, and assigning blame to others in cases where those lives must be ended by abortion. |
| − | + | In other words, it places ''quantity'' of life over ''quality'' of life, and fetal/infant lives over adult lives. (This attitude may be related to some innate difference in where individual humans fall on the {{l/wp|r/K selection theory}} continuum.) In a world that is already many times [[overpopulation|overpopulated]], this is a problematic goal. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ''See also: [[cwre:Misnomers/right to life]])'' | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | Referring to abortion prohibitionism as the "forced-birth movement" is more accurate but less well-known; it correctly suggests that abortion prohibitionists want to force all fetus-carriers to give birth, regardless of any social or medical circumstances which might recommend against that. | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==Links== | ==Links== | ||
| − | |||
{{links/smw}} | {{links/smw}} | ||
| − | + | ===to file=== | |
| − | === | + | * '''2007-10-20''' [[URL/to file::http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/10/20/9463/6330|Where Is The Catholic Right's Outrage Over the S-CHIP Veto?]] ([https://web.archive.org/web/20210211213331/http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/10/20/9463/6330 archive.org]) by Frank Cocozzelli: {{fmt/quote|...judging by their deafening silence over [[George W. Bush|President Bush]]'s veto of legislation that would extend [[State Children's Health Insurance Program]] (S-CHIP) coverage to lower-middle class children, their zeal to protect life apparently ends at birth.}} |
| − | * '''2007-10-20''' [[URL/to file::http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/10/20/9463/6330|Where Is The Catholic Right's Outrage Over the S-CHIP Veto?]] by Frank Cocozzelli: | ||
Revision as of 15:25, 27 January 2022
About
Abortion prohibitionism is a pseudoposition which is often part of a human life absolutism pseudoposition.
Related
Popular terminology for referring to abortion prohibitionism includes two misnomers, "pro-lifeA" and the "right to life". Despite the implicit claim of a stance based entirely on unconditional support for human life, the policies they actually advocate tend primarily to maximize reproduction – specifically births, live or otherwise – often at the expense of other lives, without regard to what happens to those lives, and assigning blame to others in cases where those lives must be ended by abortion.
In other words, it places quantity of life over quality of life, and fetal/infant lives over adult lives. (This attitude may be related to some innate difference in where individual humans fall on the r/K selection theory continuum.) In a world that is already many times overpopulated, this is a problematic goal.
See also: cwre:Misnomers/right to life)
Referring to abortion prohibitionism as the "forced-birth movement" is more accurate but less well-known; it correctly suggests that abortion prohibitionists want to force all fetus-carriers to give birth, regardless of any social or medical circumstances which might recommend against that.
Links
to file
- 2007-10-20 Where Is The Catholic Right's Outrage Over the S-CHIP Veto? (archive.org) by Frank Cocozzelli: «...judging by their deafening silence over President Bush's veto of legislation that would extend State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) coverage to lower-middle class children, their zeal to protect life apparently ends at birth.»