My New Abortion Soundbite

I got to use my new soundbite (catchphrase?) on abortion not too long ago in a real conversation. It was really cool because I thought of it a while back, and I was just itching to be able to say it. Enough preamble, here it is: “I’m not pro-choice; I’m pro-abortion under extenuating circumstances.” Pretty crafty, eh? It’s not quite bumper sticker material, but it does the job. Lots of people will disagree with my statement, but it still puts me within the mainstream of America.

2 thoughts on “My New Abortion Soundbite

  1. David C.

    what ‘extenuating circumstances’? We all draw the line somewhere.

    What’s your rationale for your position?

    Just curious – I lean pro-choice. I won’t go into why in a comment though. Such things are reserved for e-mail..

  2. Agnoiologist

    Hehe… Did you ever consider that I may have left it purposely ambiguous so that I may equivocate as the political winds dictate?

    Of course, rape, incest, and the mother’s health should be included under these extenuating circumstances. As for the rest, that’s for the people and also states to decide — and sorry, I have to add this because it’s just too funny — not “activist judges.”

    My rationale for my position? I’ve included it there, haven’t I? To put myself in the mainstream.

    In all seriousness, I think you’ll find my position within my half-joking statements. I say I’m not pro-choice. Because abortion is wrong. But can I say it’s an outright evil that should never be used under any circumstance? No.

    To me, though, it feels wrong to be able to have an unfettered ability to “choose” what to do with unborn child’s life/potential for life. With this language, I undercut the euphemisms used by a certain position in this debate. I leave the possibility for restrictions on this ability to “choose,” yet also leaving open possibilities for less restrictions. Who decides when there are “extenuating circumstances”? When do they get to decide? Like I said, these distinctions are better left for people and states than the judiciary promoting over-arching rights that don’t exist through tenuous logic.

    Does my soundbite cover everything? No, of course not. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a soundbite. It’s just a basis. Likewise with the question of my beliefs in general. I have not yet completely formulated them, so I won’t say what I think because I don’t know yet. All I have is the basis.

    Have I stretched my soundbite a bit? Perhaps, but that’s the point. I shouldn’t 100% restrict myself to one sentence to define my entire position on a complicated matter. Yet, it is useful in conveying the gist of what I believe.

Comments are closed.