I don't donate to the ACLU because I believe in the civil rights for all people, outside the womb, and inside. Is there a similar organization I can donate to?
Consider the EFF. They're more narrowly focused, and unlikely to come in conflict with your beliefs. And, with a battle over Net Neutrality being almost inevitable, they could use our help, too.
That this is being downvoted is extremely telling of the audience here. Engage in a discussion if you disagree. Downvoting unpopular opinions into oblivion is how you get a SV/liberal echo chamber.
This is being downvoted because of the intentionally passive-aggressive language that was used by the poster. It's fairly clear that the poster isn't interested in engaging in a discussion due to this. Even ignoring the phrasing, it wasn't a post that merits much discussion -- simply responses in the form of references to groups similar to the ACLU that are anti-abortion.
I am afraid you have read way too far into my comment. It really isn't, it's simply a way of rephrasing the argument, rather than just saying "I am Pro-life" which will get surely downvoted to oblivion, I phrased in a way that might make sense to rational thinkers -- that I believe civil rights should be applied to all created beings, both born and unborn, but boy was I wrong. I am legitimately interesting in supporting civil liberties, as I have had the graces of benefiting from civil liberty groups myself in the past, I just cannot look past the fact that the ACLU views persons inside the womb as somehow less human than those immediately outside.
I think I read into your comment exactly how you intended and have just described. Perhaps the "intentionally" portion of my "intentionally passive-aggressive" comment was incorrect, but the rest of what you just described is exactly what I (and I presume other down-voters) understood your comment to be.
Your phrasing as "I believe in the civil rights for all people, outside the womb, and inside" carries the implicit assumption that pro-abortion people do not, in fact, believe in the civil rights for all people. The reality is that the down-voters likely do believe in the civil rights for all people, but do not believe that a fetus is a person yet. Since that is generally the debate between those who are for and against abortion, the feeling of passive-aggression from your comment stems from entirely disregarding the other side's point of view and instead simply implying that they don't care about civil liberties.
FWIW, I think just saying "I am pro-life" wouldn't have gotten you down-voted to oblivion.
The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE's core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them.
Not so much pro life, as I like to disassociate myself from that hypocritical stance, but I like to call myself "whole life" or basically pro life for the whole life, from beginning to end.
To really spell it out, as these "pro-life/pro-choice" terms are somewhat esoteric and not always understood by foreign speakers, the ACLU is in favor of abortion rights and many conservatives are against abortion rights.
The terms I usually see are "pro-choice" and "anti-choice." Everyone on the planet is "pro-life" and thinks abortion is a bad thing, the question is whether outlawing abortion results in better outcomes than allowing it. I think there is room for reasonable disagreement, though legally speaking it's largely a settled issue.
I feel like you have that backwards. All evidence indicates that legal abortion results in no more abortions occurring, but those that do occur will be safer. Legally speaking there seem to be a fair number of people who want to outlaw it anyway.
That the terms you usually see are "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" means nothing more than that your particular filter bubble is strongly pro-choice. Pro-lifers never call themselves "anti-choice"; they call themselves "pro-life." Conversely, pro-choice activists never call themselves "pro-life" (except maybe in rhetorical arguments such as the one you just provided).
It can be better than the alternative, but I think you would be hard pressed to have anyone say abortion is a good thing. The ideal would be no unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
That response assumes that "unwanted pregnancies" are the only reason a woman would want an abortion. There's plenty of medical reasons why it would be necessary.
I believe that outside of the weirdness in America and the church, and perhaps a few religious groups a lot of people really don't care. I'd say a vast majority of people in the world aren't caught up this particular whirlpool of emotions.
Legally speaking, the situation could change drastically based off of new composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, legislation making abortion de facto banned, or an amendment to the Constitution explicitly banning it.
I appreciate that you're concerned for people inside and outside of the womb, but I think you're not paying enough attention to a third group: the people who are the womb.
