Supposedly, the use of "pro-life" is getting ever more unpopular, given that Republicans are actively using that pretense to push ever more extreme and authoritarian policies that screw over the American people more and more. It's apparently to the point where they're apparently considering trying to rebrand "pro-life" to "pro-baby." Yeah, not change policy to follow what the majority desires or to work to actually benefit the US, just change labels. Still... "pro-baby?" Seriously? After more than 90% of their representatives literally voted to starve American babies, before getting to everything else?

Appealing to emotions; standard practice. How on earth could anyone be anti-BABY? They're just so innocent and cute!

It's like using the word "patriot" in the name of something. Patriot=Good American. You can bet on whatever it is being right-wing and rarely lose.

I expect this to be as successful as New Coke.

I would expect it to backfire: "life" is a general thing, it's a philosophical position to be generally amiable to "life". But specifying "baby" reminds the listener what they're actually talking about, what is expected when expecting, and what will be showing up to change their lives for the next eighteen years minimum. "Baby" isn't a general, vague, philosophical thing; "baby" is a heavy responsibility. Babies are very specific to the people who end up with them, there are in fact few things in existence that make more of a solid, definite impact on our lives than babies.

I think the number of people who have a vague amiability about "life" might change their minds and book an abortion if it's specifically "baby" and specifically theirs.

I think they should go with “pro-birth”. That fits with the attitude that once someone is pregnant a birth must occur. After that the mother and child are no longer of any interest to them.

That would be honest, and it might even be appropriate for those who seek to give birth and would like that choice to be supported. In other words, when the terminology is changed, it will be skywritten by squadrons of flying pigs.

I support abortion rights, but also like rhetoric. What you say is like predigested protein from a tub.

Is a person against murder horrible because poor people saved from murder are still poor? Should people who halt murders support poor post-not-murdered support funds?

I too like rhetoric. As a sales rep, it is the bread and butter of my industry. It is also the bread and butter of the GOP. They are good at oversimplifying issues. It might sell well to those who agree with them. But for everyone else it is transparent deception. The label is meaningless.

Republicans are trying to stop aid for an international organisation that has saved 25 million lives become they say it promotes abortion.

https://apnews.com/article/d9ef380ac...09197b39dea7fa

Pro-life, my arse.

Huh? What?

Oh, good. I thought it was just me.

I'd go with that just being a crappy attempt at rhetoric. A fine example of obfuscation, on the other hand...

In the context of this thread, the first question is - Is a forced birther horrible because poor people who are forced to give birth remain poor?

My answer to that is that whatever spawned that is fairly certain to be a caricature of what's actually being argued.

For the second - Should forced birthers support care for the babies that they forced poor people to carry to term once they have been born?

My answer to that is that it would be the moral and responsible thing to do. It would be in line with actually being pro-life, too. It's also been pretty well shown to be a pointless question, because there is a strong inverse correlation between being "pro-life" and actually acting to keep those who have been born alive and healthy. Alternately said, so called pro-lifers have quite the history of acting to increase death rates for those of all ages. That includes acting to increase abortion rates in practice. Pushing policy that's well known to be ineffective to replace known effective policy and firmly opposing effective policies very much is acting to increase abortion rates after all, regardless of lip service.

I would suggest that the big flaw in the analogy above is that the poor people who remain poor after not having been murdered are poor for reasons not directly connected with the law that prevents them from being murdered. It would indeed be ridiculous to expect a law that simply prevents one crime to solve a host of social problems, and that is true even if the social problems are real, and ought to be solved.

But however you might perceive the morality of forced birth, it is entirely different. The existence of a baby who might not have been born, as a living, separate entity sharing in the set of definable human rights, is a direct product of anti-abortion laws, and the need for ongoing support of child and mother is the direct consequence.

The analogy works only if it amounts to a stealth anti-abortion message, ignoring the mother's part and conflating abortion with the murder of a person who already exists as an enfranchised person in the world.