During the action, the pro-abortion demonstrators held signs and chanted. When the crowd learned that the anti-choice activists would not be marching, they held an impromptu speak-out. A small group of right-wing extremists who were on the church steps went viral when they were recorded shouting sexist threats at the abortion supporters. One of these young men wore an “America First” cap, tying him to Nick Fuentes’ “Groyper” movement. His identity and that of others on the church steps have since been exposed by local antifascists.

  • @Godless_Nematode
    link
    42 years ago

    Calling someone or a group pro-abortion is giving in to anti-choice rhetoric. The group is pro-human rights/pro-choice.

  • @angarabebesi
    link
    -32 years ago

    Why is it called pro-choice when the baby doesn’t get a choice about the end of his/her existence?

      • @angarabebesi
        link
        12 years ago

        That is true. I can’t speak for everyone, but I prefer existence to non-existence.

      • @angarabebesi
        link
        -12 years ago

        What you choose to call it doesn’t change the fact that it will grow into a human being in a few months.

        • @CommunistWolf@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          42 years ago

          The distinction is very important in the context of your question, because it makes no sense to ask why an embryo doesn’t get a choice in being aborted - they can’t make choices. The “end of existence” of an embryo is also of far less consequence than the “end of existence” of a baby. Using “baby” instead of “embryo” attempts to obscure that, and to create doubt over a reasonably simple situation.

          As the embryo develops into a fetus, there are more opportunities for doubt, but the underlying question doesn’t change all that much: do potential people have rights (e.g. to exist) that supercede the rights of actually existing people (e.g. bodily autonomy)?

          There’s a huge body of work on this topic; to distil it right down, the more likely the person is to come into existence, the more reasonable it is to start ascribing them such rights. At the point where a pregnant woman decides on an abortion, that likelihood drops right down, so it becomes very difficult to justify prioritising the potential person over the actual person.

          The same question often comes up in other discussions - we might talk about preserving resources for future generations, for instance. It’s very likely that there will be a future generation, so it makes a lot more sense to subordinate people who exist now to those potential people in some ways; but not absolutely.

          • @angarabebesi
            link
            -12 years ago

            The “end of existence” of an embryo is also of far less consequence than the “end of existence” of a baby.

            Why? Why does a few months/weeks matter so much? Why are we so casual about ending something that will develop into a human being?

            • @CommunistWolf@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              32 years ago

              The answer to your question is right there in the question itself - you’re attempting to weigh a person that doesn’t exist against one that does exist. QED, if you ask me.

              A nitpick that may help you - you should say “may develop”, not “wil develop”. Odds are better than 50% that any given embryo will spontaneously abort. Typically experienced as a missed period, these episodes do not have the same emotional charge as the loss of a baby, and you should think about why that is.

              Many of these spontaneous abortions are preventable or avoidable, incidentally. It would necessitate some inconvenience to actually existing people to do so, and these potential people aren’t worth it, so we don’t. But we could. Can you put together an argument that we should?

              • @angarabebesi
                link
                -12 years ago

                I’m just disturbed how casual our society is when it comes to human life.

                For example, would you have preferred if your mother have aborted you when you were an embryo or fetus?

                • @CommunistWolf@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  32 years ago

                  Heh, you’re talking to someone with a lumpenproletariat background, so that angle isn’t going to go the way you expect. I won’t get into details, but I can say without hesitation that, yes, it would have been better all round if she had aborted all her children, including me, and I know beyond a doubt that she agrees with me on this. Hopefully you can take the sincerity with which I say this on trust - it’s not about winning an argument on the internet.

                  My previous post actually rested on how our society treats “human life”, and how we are more casual about it when it is undeveloped, and less casual about it when it is more-developed. I urge you to read it again and think carefully about the request I made of you. “Human life” is not undifferentiated. Not everything we can put under that banner is the same. Being casual about the ending of some of it doesn’t necessitate us being casual about the ending of all of it.