Is "pro-choice" a misleading term?

[Quantipapa]

Question is why?

Because nobody thinks of themselves as being pro-abortion.

It's not a conspiracy or anything.

I didn't think it was a conspiracy? Just drifting into "why"-ish questions.

[Godular]

"pro-choice" = "pro-self" ≈ self-ish

Does that not mean the real crux of the issue is more fetal personhood vs. lack thereof than "choice?"

That Is the point, but the whole discourse is often carried on so dishonestly that that's gets easily overlooked.

Regarding your edited point: Even if the Fetus were to be treated as a person, that still does not give it the right to use the woman's body and resources without her consent. No born person gets this right. Giving a fetus any exception to this means that you are just 'calling it a person' but treating it as something more, or the woman as something less.

Look to your own argument before talking about 'dishonesty'.

[Estanglia]

You've also got the people who don't agree with abortion but consider it a necessary evil that should be legal. Calling them pro-abortion would be incorrect.

Then should the people who agree with abortion and consider it necessary be called pro-abortion?

Maybe, but the pro-choice label also applies to these people.

[The Free Joy State]

You've also got the people who don't agree with abortion but consider it a necessary evil that should be legal. Calling them pro-abortion would be incorrect.

Then should the people who agree with abortion and consider it necessary be called pro-abortion?

"A necessary evil" is not the same as "necessary". Not every pregnancy should end in abortion. Just the ones the woman doesn't want/does want but cannot carry due to medical emergency.

No-one is "pro-abortion". No-one loves abortion.

People are pro-choice. Pro the woman's choice over whether to carry the foetus to term or not. There is nothing more to it than that.

That is why "pro-choice" is the most fitting term.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

New Names:

Pro Murdering Babies

Pro Rapists Control of Womens Bodies

[Quantipapa]

New Names:

Pro Murdering Babies

Pro Rapists Control of Womens Bodies

Even if I agree with some of the sentiment above, this is unproductive and mean.

[Communaccord]

It's plainly obvious that "pro-life" is a vague platitude, but even as someone who supports abortion access, I've always felt comparably uncomfortable with the phrase "pro-choice," which seems more often to be off the hook. The whole damn point of anti-abortion laws is to treat a fetus as a person. In that context, is abortion not imposing the choice on the fetus? Does that not mean the real crux of the issue is more fetal personhood vs. lack thereof than "choice?"

And does this make opposition to abortion "anti-choice?" Suppose some individual advocate of abortion criminalization supports more choice in what food to eat, what to do in one's personal time, than some individual advocate of abortion rights. Who of the two would be more "pro-choice?"

The terms "pro-life"/"pro-choice" are only defined in accordance with views on abortion, so what people believe outside of those issues are totally irrelevant.

A person can consider themselves to be "pro-life" while supporting the death penalty. Why? Because only the stance on abortion counts.

And a person always portrays their stance on a political view in its best light, to win over undecided people. As other posters have said: who'd want to be "anti-life" or "anti-choice"?

EDIT: Though, I think pro-choice makes sense. It's pro the woman's choice over whether to carry the foetus to term or not. What else would you call it?

It only makes sense if you consider the unborn a non-person, or consider them a person without rights.

[The New California Republic]

New Names:

Pro Murdering Babies

Pro Rapists Control of Womens Bodies

Even if I agree with some of the sentiment above, this is unproductive and mean.

Sense the tone, it has an air of sarcasm about it.

[Godular]

The terms "pro-life"/"pro-choice" are only defined in accordance with views on abortion, so what people believe outside of those issues are totally irrelevant.

A person can consider themselves to be "pro-life" while supporting the death penalty. Why? Because only the stance on abortion counts.

And a person always portrays their stance on a political view in its best light, to win over undecided people. As other posters have said: who'd want to be "anti-life" or "anti-choice"?

EDIT: Though, I think pro-choice makes sense. It's pro the woman's choice over whether to carry the foetus to term or not. What else would you call it?

It only makes sense if you consider the unborn a non-person, or consider them a person without rights.

Incorrect. No born person has the right to use another person's body or resources without their consent. If we treated a fetus as a person, giving it the right to remain within the woman's body without her consent treats it as something more, or her as something less.

[The Free Joy State]

The terms "pro-life"/"pro-choice" are only defined in accordance with views on abortion, so what people believe outside of those issues are totally irrelevant.

A person can consider themselves to be "pro-life" while supporting the death penalty. Why? Because only the stance on abortion counts.

And a person always portrays their stance on a political view in its best light, to win over undecided people. As other posters have said: who'd want to be "anti-life" or "anti-choice"?

EDIT: Though, I think pro-choice makes sense. It's pro the woman's choice over whether to carry the foetus to term or not. What else would you call it?

It only makes sense if you consider the unborn a non-person, or consider them a person without rights.

I go with the UN. A person has full human rights, birth to death.

The sentient mother's rights outrank the insensate foetus. I find abortion unfortunate, sad even, but sometimes necessary. No woman, no girl, should be forced to risk her life, her mental wellbeing, to carry a pregnancy, especially a rape-baby, the result of incest, a foetus that will die within hours of birth, or a foetus that will/has a high likelihood of killing her.

She is a conscious human being and it would be inhumane. The foetus will probably be aborted before the 13th week and feels nothing until the third trimester.

[Ifreann]

Sure isn't taking long for this thread to become an abortion thread.

[The New California Republic]

Sure isn't taking long for this thread to become an abortion thread.

This shit needs merged with the other Abortion thread.

[Godular]

Already put in the request.

[Communaccord]

It only makes sense if you consider the unborn a non-person, or consider them a person without rights.

Incorrect. No born person has the right to use another person's body or resources without their consent. If we treated a fetus as a person, giving it the right to remain within the woman's body without her consent treats it as something more, or her as something less.

Um...Nooo...In the case of Rape you would be correct, as a child was forcibly conceived, but if you consider consensual sexual activity, which results in pregnancy, by consenting to sex you are consenting to any resulting consequences of said behavior. So yes, in non rape cases, the mother has consented to having child as an extent of engaging in sex.

[Crockerland]

It only makes sense if you consider the unborn a non-person, or consider them a person without rights.

Incorrect. No born person has the right to use another person's body or resources without their consent. If we treated a fetus as a person, giving it the right to remain within the woman's body without her consent treats it as something more, or her as something less.

Like a taxpayer?

[Northern Poland]

pro choice is a misleading term

[Communaccord]

It only makes sense if you consider the unborn a non-person, or consider them a person without rights.

I go with the UN. A person has full human rights, birth to death.

The sentient mother's rights outrank the insensate foetus. I find abortion unfortunate, sad even, but sometimes necessary. No woman, no girl, should be forced to risk her life, her mental wellbeing, to carry a pregnancy, especially a rape-baby, the result of incest, a foetus that will die within hours of birth, or a foetus that will/has a high likelihood of killing her.

She is a conscious human being and it would be inhumane. The foetus will probably be aborted before the 13th week and feels nothing until the third trimester.

foetus feel pain at twenty weeks, WELL before third trimester.

[Ifreann]

pro choice is a misleading term

Pretty much everyone understands what is meant by it, so no, not really.

[Godular]

I go with the UN. A person has full human rights, birth to death.

The sentient mother's rights outrank the insensate foetus. I find abortion unfortunate, sad even, but sometimes necessary. No woman, no girl, should be forced to risk her life, her mental wellbeing, to carry a pregnancy, especially a rape-baby, the result of incest, a foetus that will die within hours of birth, or a foetus that will/has a high likelihood of killing her.

She is a conscious human being and it would be inhumane. The foetus will probably be aborted before the 13th week and feels nothing until the third trimester.

foetus feel pain at twenty weeks, WELL before third trimester.

That doesn't really counter the point.

[Godular]

Incorrect. No born person has the right to use another person's body or resources without their consent. If we treated a fetus as a person, giving it the right to remain within the woman's body without her consent treats it as something more, or her as something less.

Like a taxpayer?

I am uncertain where you're going with that.

[The Free Joy State]

I go with the UN. A person has full human rights, birth to death.

The sentient mother's rights outrank the insensate foetus. I find abortion unfortunate, sad even, but sometimes necessary. No woman, no girl, should be forced to risk her life, her mental wellbeing, to carry a pregnancy, especially a rape-baby, the result of incest, a foetus that will die within hours of birth, or a foetus that will/has a high likelihood of killing her.

She is a conscious human being and it would be inhumane. The foetus will probably be aborted before the 13th week and feels nothing until the third trimester.

foetus feel pain at twenty weeks, WELL before third trimester.

Live Science says otherwise:

The science shows that based on gestational age, the fetus is not capable of feeling pain until the third trimester," said Kate Connors, a spokesperson for ACOG[American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists]. The third trimester begins at about 27 weeks of pregnancy[…]

[T]he neurons that extend from the spinal cord into the brain need to reach all the way to the area of the brain where pain is perceived. This does not occur until between 23 and 24 weeks, according to the review.

Moreover, the nerves' existence isn't enough to produce the experience of pain, the authors wrote in their review. Rather, "These anatomical structures must also be functional," the authors wrote. It's not until around 30 weeks that there is evidence of brain activity that suggests the fetus is "awake."

Davis noted that while these time frames aren't exact — some fetuses may develop a little earlier, and some fetuses may develop a little later — "there isn't any science to suggest that those pathways [for pain] are complete around the 20th week" of pregnancy.

And 92% of foetuses are aborted before 13 weeks.

[Crockerland]

It only makes sense if you consider the unborn a non-person, or consider them a person without rights.

I go with the UN. A person has full human rights, birth to death.

This might mean more if the UN cared at all about human rights.

[Godular]

Incorrect. No born person has the right to use another person's body or resources without their consent. If we treated a fetus as a person, giving it the right to remain within the woman's body without her consent treats it as something more, or her as something less.

Um...Nooo...

Um... Yes.

In the case of Rape you would be correct, as a child was forcibly conceived, but if you consider consensual sexual activity, which results in pregnancy, by consenting to sex you are consenting to any resulting consequences of said behavior.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and consent can be revoked at any time. Having consensual sex is acknowledging the risk of getting pregnant, nothing more. If she gets pregnant and does not wish to be, she should indeed have the capacity to remedy the situation with both immediacy and effect.

That is to say, dealing with the 'consequences' also includes getting an abortion if one is felt necessary.

So yes, in non rape cases, the mother has consented to having child as an extent of engaging in sex.

Incorrect, as stated above.

[Crockerland]

Like a taxpayer?

I am uncertain where you're going with that.

"No born person has the right to use another person's body or resources without their consent."
Paying your taxes is not voluntary, therefore, a taxpayer is equivalent to a woman being treated as "something less", because the taxpayer's resources are used without his/her consent. The point of this example being that lots of people have their resources used without their consent.

[Kyrinasaj]

They're both just very ambiguous terms to simplify political debate, so yes it is misleading