Re:L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitut...
by throwoutway on Saturday April 02, 2022 @05:29PM
(#30891845)
That’s pro-semantics. I’d rather not play word games. If you’re pro-choice you are pro-abortion
Re:L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitut...
by tzs on Saturday April 02, 2022 @05:47PM
(#30891965)
It's not word games. It is quite possible to believe that something is wrong and people should not do it while at the same time believing that whether or not people do that wrong thing should be their decision.
Re:L.A. judge rules LGBT corporate diversity law unconstitut...
by magicalist on Saturday April 02, 2022 @06:15PM
(#30892148)
On the other hand
- that is semantics (if you want the choice to exist, you're pro-abortion, existentially speaking)
- everyone knew what the poster meant
- this is the least interesting conversation derailment folks could choose. Maybe instead go to bat against the raging anti-trans statement included for some reason?
I've certainly met vastly more people who want to preserve Roe v. Wade because they want to preserve a woman's right to choose than people who want to preserve Roe v. Wade because they think that we need more abortions. I can't recall ever meeting someone who was actually pro-abortion.
Even those who think we should significantly lower the population almost always want to do that through better contraception, not through more abortions.