Abortion: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[Dyakovo]

I personally believe that life begins when the child's (or fetus') heart starts to beat, and ends when a person's heart ceases to beat.

Your belief is wrong.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

I personally believe that life begins when the child's (or fetus') heart starts to beat, and ends when a person's heart ceases to beat.

So if someone has a heart attack, they have already died?

And when you give them CPR they are restored to life. Conclusion: EMTs are necromancers.

[Godular]

I personally believe that life begins when the child's (or fetus') heart starts to beat, and ends when a person's heart ceases to beat.

Already debunked earlier in the thread.

[Godular]

So if someone has a heart attack, they have already died?

And when you give them CPR they are restored to life. Conclusion: EMTs are necromancers.

Or Jesus.

Of course, these terms are not mutually exclusive...

[Wallenburg]

So if someone has a heart attack, they have already died?

And when you give them CPR they are restored to life. Conclusion: EMTs are necromancers.

Henceforth, all men walking after a heart attack shall be known as "Lazarus".

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

I personally believe that life begins when the child's (or fetus') heart starts to beat, and ends when a person's heart ceases to beat.

It doesn't.

[Grave_n_idle]

I personally believe that life begins when the child's (or fetus') heart starts to beat, and ends when a person's heart ceases to beat.

That's a silly belief.

You don't need a heart, so how can it be a reliable metric of being alive?

[Neutraligon]

I personally believe that life begins when the child's (or fetus') heart starts to beat, and ends when a person's heart ceases to beat.

In hospitals time of death occurs when brain activity cannot be detected and drugs or similar issues are not the cause. People can have their heart restarted, so far there have not been people who have come back from brain death.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

I personally believe that life begins when the child's (or fetus') heart starts to beat, and ends when a person's heart ceases to beat.

In hospitals time of death occurs when brain activity cannot be detected and drugs or similar issues are not the cause. People can have their heart restarted, so far there have not been people who have come back from brain death.

True, but of course it doesn't really matter...

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I personally believe that life begins when the child's (or fetus') heart starts to beat, and ends when a person's heart ceases to beat.

No.

[The Alma Mater]

But seriously, stop framing the debate as "pro-life" and "pro-choice." They're sucky, sucky, false labels.

Why ? While it indeed is true that many "pro-lifers" are actually merely "pro-birth" in practice it is not that bad a description of their position.
And being pro-choice means exactly that: giving a choice. Many, probably even most, pro-choicers do not like abortions. They merely dislike taking away the choice even more.

[Neutraligon]

In hospitals time of death occurs when brain activity cannot be detected and drugs or similar issues are not the cause. People can have their heart restarted, so far there have not been people who have come back from brain death.

True, but of course it doesn't really matter...

That is true, but the factual inaccuracy was annoying me and needed correction.

[Ifreann]

I am pro-life. Most people would consider me pro-choice. And I hate the two terms. By these, I mean I against killing living fetuses. Thing is, I believe life begins at the same time it ends- when regular EEG signals are detectable from the brain (or, in the case of death, when they cease). This can happen from 19-25 weeks IIRC, so around the transition from second to third trimester. Before EEG signals are detected, abortion should be legal, and afterwards, the fetus is alive and should be illegal.

But seriously, stop framing the debate as "pro-life" and "pro-choice." They're sucky, sucky, false labels.

How are they?

[The Klishi Islands]

I am pro-life. Most people would consider me pro-choice. And I hate the two terms. By these, I mean I against killing living fetuses. Thing is, I believe life begins at the same time it ends- when regular EEG signals are detectable from the brain (or, in the case of death, when they cease). This can happen from 19-25 weeks IIRC, so around the transition from second to third trimester. Before EEG signals are detected, abortion should be legal, and afterwards, the fetus is alive and should be illegal.

But seriously, stop framing the debate as "pro-life" and "pro-choice." They're sucky, sucky, false labels.

How are they?

I'm just going to respond to everyone via Ifreann.

"Pro-life" says that side A is for life, which implies side B is pro-death. "Pro-choice" says that side B is for a woman's right to choose, and hence side A is against a woman's right to choose. The former is a bit more egregious of an issue that the latter, but the point stands, because not everything can be devolved into two sides, A and B. What side am I on, with my stated position? I am certainly against killing living fetuses, so that makes me "pro-life." But I have no problem with abortions before the fetuses are living (by my definition, which is in itself an issue because there is no medically accepted definition), so that makes me "pro-choice."

Most Americans are the same way: if you look at polls that don't use the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice," you'll see that a majority of Americans are ok with abortions in the first trimester, but the majority drops to a minority in the second and third. So if I was someone with those exact views- legal in first, illegal in second and third- then what am I? Pro-choice? Pro-life? If you look at the polls that do use those terms, you'll see the popular confusion, because a significant number of people who would probably be labeled by some "pro-choice" because of their support for legality in the first trimester label themselves pro-life (the margin is much narrower when you use those terms, in other words).

TL;DR The terms are nice buzzwords; they fit on bumper-stickers and campaign slogans better than "I am pro-woman's right to choose until EEG signals are detected from the fetal brain, after which I am against the abortion of the fetus." But they don't accurately portray many people's views. Combined with all the false science tossed around by the Republicans, they make the debate much more muddy than it needs to be.

[Grave_n_idle]

How are they?

I'm just going to respond to everyone via Ifreann.

"Pro-life" says that side A is for life, which implies side B is pro-death. "Pro-choice" says that side B is for a woman's right to choose, and hence side A is against a woman's right to choose. The former is a bit more egregious of an issue that the latter, but the point stands, because not everything can be devolved into two sides, A and B. What side am I on, with my stated position? I am certainly against killing living fetuses, so that makes me "pro-life." But I have no problem with abortions before the fetuses are living (by my definition, which is in itself an issue because there is no medically accepted definition), so that makes me "pro-choice."

Most Americans are the same way: if you look at polls that don't use the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice," you'll see that a majority of Americans are ok with abortions in the first trimester, but the majority drops to a minority in the second and third. So if I was someone with those exact views- legal in first, illegal in second and third- then what am I? Pro-choice? Pro-life? If you look at the polls that do use those terms, you'll see the popular confusion, because a significant number of people who would probably be labeled by some "pro-choice" because of their support for legality in the first trimester label themselves pro-life (the margin is much narrower when you use those terms, in other words).

TL;DR The terms are nice buzzwords; they fit on bumper-stickers and campaign slogans better than "I am pro-woman's right to choose until EEG signals are detected from the fetal brain, after which I am against the abortion of the fetus." But they don't accurately portray many people's views. Combined with all the false science tossed around by the Republicans, they make the debate much more muddy than it needs to be.

Pro-choice is entirely appropriate. Even people who are against abortion but think it's a woman's right to choose are 'pro-choice', because it's a platform that is about rights to choose - not a movement that is about making abortions happen.

'Pro-life' is a not a consistent platform - being against abortion is not the same as being pro-life. If you're pro-life, you can't be a hawk or in favour of a death penalty, or on the fence about euthanasia.

One of the terms is entirely appropriate. The other is deliberate attempt to present an anti-abortion movement as being a positive thing.

[The Klishi Islands]

I'm just going to respond to everyone via Ifreann.

"Pro-life" says that side A is for life, which implies side B is pro-death. "Pro-choice" says that side B is for a woman's right to choose, and hence side A is against a woman's right to choose. The former is a bit more egregious of an issue that the latter, but the point stands, because not everything can be devolved into two sides, A and B. What side am I on, with my stated position? I am certainly against killing living fetuses, so that makes me "pro-life." But I have no problem with abortions before the fetuses are living (by my definition, which is in itself an issue because there is no medically accepted definition), so that makes me "pro-choice."

Most Americans are the same way: if you look at polls that don't use the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice," you'll see that a majority of Americans are ok with abortions in the first trimester, but the majority drops to a minority in the second and third. So if I was someone with those exact views- legal in first, illegal in second and third- then what am I? Pro-choice? Pro-life? If you look at the polls that do use those terms, you'll see the popular confusion, because a significant number of people who would probably be labeled by some "pro-choice" because of their support for legality in the first trimester label themselves pro-life (the margin is much narrower when you use those terms, in other words).

TL;DR The terms are nice buzzwords; they fit on bumper-stickers and campaign slogans better than "I am pro-woman's right to choose until EEG signals are detected from the fetal brain, after which I am against the abortion of the fetus." But they don't accurately portray many people's views. Combined with all the false science tossed around by the Republicans, they make the debate much more muddy than it needs to be.

Pro-choice is entirely appropriate. Even people who are against abortion but think it's a woman's right to choose are 'pro-choice', because it's a platform that is about rights to choose - not a movement that is about making abortions happen.

'Pro-life' is a not a consistent platform - being against abortion is not the same as being pro-life. If you're pro-life, you can't be a hawk or in favour of a death penalty, or on the fence about euthanasia.

One of the terms is entirely appropriate. The other is deliberate attempt to present an anti-abortion movement as being a positive thing.

I suppose I agree with you, but I still ask the question, what is that group of Americans who are "pro-choice" in the first trimester and anti-choice in the second and third? Can you put a label on them?

[Ifreann]

How are they?

I'm just going to respond to everyone via Ifreann.

"Pro-life" says that side A is for life, which implies side B is pro-death. "Pro-choice" says that side B is for a woman's right to choose, and hence side A is against a woman's right to choose. The former is a bit more egregious of an issue that the latter, but the point stands, because not everything can be devolved into two sides, A and B.

So contrary to your saying that the labels are false, they are in fact not false.

What side am I on, with my stated position? I am certainly against killing living fetuses, so that makes me "pro-life." But I have no problem with abortions before the fetuses are living (by my definition, which is in itself an issue because there is no medically accepted definition), so that makes me "pro-choice."

Except that people who are pro-life oppose the legalisation of abortion and support its prohibition, so clearly you aren't pro-life.

Most Americans are the same way: if you look at polls that don't use the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice," you'll see that a majority of Americans are ok with abortions in the first trimester, but the majority drops to a minority in the second and third. So if I was someone with those exact views- legal in first, illegal in second and third- then what am I? Pro-choice? Pro-life? If you look at the polls that do use those terms, you'll see the popular confusion, because a significant number of people who would probably be labeled by some "pro-choice" because of their support for legality in the first trimester label themselves pro-life (the margin is much narrower when you use those terms, in other words).

Which is not really a problem with the labels at all, but a problem with people's understanding of them and the issue of abortion. People call spiders insects when they're actually arachnids. Does this mean the label "insect" is sucky and false? Of course not.

TL;DR The terms are nice buzzwords; they fit on bumper-stickers and campaign slogans better than "I am pro-woman's right to choose until EEG signals are detected from the fetal brain, after which I am against the abortion of the fetus."

Foetuses aren't aborted. Pregnancies are aborted. If NASA called off a planned launch after they've started the countdown, are they aborting the rocket, or are they aborting the countdown?

But they don't accurately portray many people's views. Combined with all the false science tossed around by the Republicans, they make the debate much more muddy than it needs to be.

They do accurately portray many people's views, though. They don't completely describe people's views, but that doesn't make them inaccurate.

[The Supreme Empire Of Ichildror]

No, Never

A fetus even if it does not think still has a right to life. It is a human being, and even if it is not a fully-developed person deserves the right to life. A person has sex willingly and if the person gets pregnant it is their fault.

[Ifreann]

No, Never

A fetus even if it does not think still has a right to life. It is a human being, and even if it is not a fully-developed person deserves the right to life. A person has sex willingly and if the person gets pregnant it is their fault.

The right to life does not include a right to use another person's body without their permission. That why no one's ever kicked your door in to harvest blood and organs from you.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No, Never

A fetus even if it does not think still has a right to life. It is a human being, and even if it is not a fully-developed person deserves the right to life. A person has sex willingly and if the person gets pregnant it is their fault.

It's time to pull out every stock rebuttal.

No, Never

A fetus even if it does not think still has a right to life.

A woman has the right to her own body.

It is a human being,

Which is irrelevant, because no human being has the right to use another person's body against their will.

A person has sex willingly and if the person gets pregnant it is their fault.

1.) Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
2.) Pregnancy as punishment is not okay.

[Memio]

I believe everyone has a right to their own bodies.
If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant or give birth, they shouldn't have too.
If there's a reason for wanting an abortion, even one along the lines of "I don't want to have a baby", then I feel she should be able too.

[The Klishi Islands]

I'm just going to respond to everyone via Ifreann.

"Pro-life" says that side A is for life, which implies side B is pro-death. "Pro-choice" says that side B is for a woman's right to choose, and hence side A is against a woman's right to choose. The former is a bit more egregious of an issue that the latter, but the point stands, because not everything can be devolved into two sides, A and B.

So contrary to your saying that the labels are false, they are in fact not false.

Fine. They're not false, they're misleading.

What side am I on, with my stated position? I am certainly against killing living fetuses, so that makes me "pro-life." But I have no problem with abortions before the fetuses are living (by my definition, which is in itself an issue because there is no medically accepted definition), so that makes me "pro-choice."

Except that people who are pro-life oppose the legalisation of abortion and support its prohibition, so clearly you aren't pro-life.

So pro-life doesn't mean pro-life, it means anti-abortion. Again, this is where the terms become misleading.

Most Americans are the same way: if you look at polls that don't use the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice," you'll see that a majority of Americans are ok with abortions in the first trimester, but the majority drops to a minority in the second and third. So if I was someone with those exact views- legal in first, illegal in second and third- then what am I? Pro-choice? Pro-life? If you look at the polls that do use those terms, you'll see the popular confusion, because a significant number of people who would probably be labeled by some "pro-choice" because of their support for legality in the first trimester label themselves pro-life (the margin is much narrower when you use those terms, in other words).

Which is not really a problem with the labels at all, but a problem with people's understanding of them and the issue of abortion. People call spiders insects when they're actually arachnids. Does this mean the label "insect" is sucky and false? Of course not.

That's a matter of scientific misunderstanding and/or improper terminology. It has nothing to do with two charged, politicized, and misleading terms.

TL;DR The terms are nice buzzwords; they fit on bumper-stickers and campaign slogans better than "I am pro-woman's right to choose until EEG signals are detected from the fetal brain, after which I am against the abortion of the fetus."

Foetuses aren't aborted. Pregnancies are aborted. If NASA called off a planned launch after they've started the countdown, are they aborting the rocket, or are they aborting the countdown?

My bad. That would be a case of improper terminology on my part.

But they don't accurately portray many people's views. Combined with all the false science tossed around by the Republicans, they make the debate much more muddy than it needs to be.

They do accurately portray many people's views, though. They don't completely describe people's views, but that doesn't make them inaccurate.

So many people's views = 1) totally in favor of choice until the moment the baby is born, and 2) totally against abortion no matter what the circumstances? Public polls show this doesn't accurately portray public views at all.

[Ifreann]

So contrary to your saying that the labels are false, they are in fact not false.

Fine. They're not false, they're misleading.


Except that people who are pro-life oppose the legalisation of abortion and support its prohibition, so clearly you aren't pro-life.

So pro-life doesn't mean pro-life, it means anti-abortion. Again, this is where the terms become misleading.


Which is not really a problem with the labels at all, but a problem with people's understanding of them and the issue of abortion. People call spiders insects when they're actually arachnids. Does this mean the label "insect" is sucky and false? Of course not.

That's a matter of scientific misunderstanding and/or improper terminology. It has nothing to do with two charged, politicized, and misleading terms.


Foetuses aren't aborted. Pregnancies are aborted. If NASA called off a planned launch after they've started the countdown, are they aborting the rocket, or are they aborting the countdown?

My bad. That would be a case of improper terminology on my part.


They do accurately portray many people's views, though. They don't completely describe people's views, but that doesn't make them inaccurate.

So many people's views = 1) totally in favor of choice until the moment the baby is born, and 2) totally against abortion no matter what the circumstances? Public polls show this doesn't accurately portray public views at all.

That's not what either term means.

[The Flutterlands]

More people I can't take seriously as 'Pro-life'

[Ashmoria]

Pro-choice is entirely appropriate. Even people who are against abortion but think it's a woman's right to choose are 'pro-choice', because it's a platform that is about rights to choose - not a movement that is about making abortions happen.

'Pro-life' is a not a consistent platform - being against abortion is not the same as being pro-life. If you're pro-life, you can't be a hawk or in favour of a death penalty, or on the fence about euthanasia.

One of the terms is entirely appropriate. The other is deliberate attempt to present an anti-abortion movement as being a positive thing.

I suppose I agree with you, but I still ask the question, what is that group of Americans who are "pro-choice" in the first trimester and anti-choice in the second and third? Can you put a label on them?

people who are against late term abortions don't know why women have late term abortions (or are unconcerned about the health of pregnant women and their fetuses)