Is "pro-choice" a misleading term?

[Godular]

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.

Wrong.

Firstly, there are things that you get in return for paying those taxes. You might not use all of those benefits, but you do receive them in turn.

Secondly, if you don't want to pay taxes, move. Or don't make money. It's hard for somebody to collect taxes from you when you don't have a dime to your name.

Those kind of solutions don't really help a woman with another 'person' living inside of her and potentially causing all kinds of health complications.

Thirdly, the government does not exactly qualify as another born person, does it?

The point of this example being that lots of people have their resources used without their consent.

Poor comparison. If looked into with more detail, it actually counters a pro-life argument more than reinforces it.

[Page]

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?"

People are always going to use simple and short labels rather than describe an ideology in sufficient detail. Like it or not, the terms pro-choice and pro-life are here to stay.

I agree though that it is really a debate about personhood, or it should be. There are two ways one can justify a pro-choice position: One can say that the right of the person who is pregnant to bodily autonomy takes priority over the right of a fetus to live, or one can argue that a fetus is not a person and therefore has no stake in the matter. I prefer the latter argument, and based on the fact that a fetus does not have an identity, thoughts, memories, desires, and does not even process sensory input until at least the start of the third trimester, I say that abortion within the first trimester is a morally neutral act. Once the fetus can experience pain and/or other sensory input, then the ethical considerations for the fetus can be considered.

[Holy Tedalonia]

I'm waiting when there's a time where ai space ships, will commence "aborthumans.exe"

Then this debate would take a drastic turn.

[The New California Republic]

I'm waiting when there's a time where ai space ships, will commence "aborthumans.exe"

Then this debate would take a drastic turn.

You are confusing "abortion" with "murder".

[Godular]

I'm waiting when there's a time where ai space ships, will commence "aborthumans.exe"

Then this debate would take a drastic turn.

You are confusing "abortion" with "murder".

Sums up a large portion of the argument, right there.

[Galloism]

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?"

People are always going to use simple and short labels rather than describe an ideology in sufficient detail. Like it or not, the terms pro-choice and pro-life are here to stay.

I agree though that it is really a debate about personhood, or it should be. There are two ways one can justify a pro-choice position: One can say that the right of the person who is pregnant to bodily autonomy takes priority over the right of a fetus to live, or one can argue that a fetus is not a person and therefore has no stake in the matter. I prefer the latter argument, and based on the fact that a fetus does not have an identity, thoughts, memories, desires, and does not even process sensory input until at least the start of the third trimester, I say that abortion within the first trimester is a morally neutral act. Once the fetus can experience pain and/or other sensory input, then the ethical considerations for the fetus can be considered.

To be honest, the former is a better straight up argument in my opinion.

After all, if my cousin is dying and needs a kidney, he has no right to mine - even though I can live perfectly well with only one.

The concept that right to self is generally greater than the lives of the others is a fairly well established legal principle, all things considered.

[Holy Tedalonia]

I'm waiting when there's a time where ai space ships, will commence "aborthumans.exe"

Then this debate would take a drastic turn.

You are confusing "abortion" with "murder".

Moreso kill. I have not yet seen a law saying machinery can't kill.

Murder is the illegal form of killing, so it is moreso likely that it would be killing.

[The New California Republic]

You are confusing "abortion" with "murder".

Moreso kill. I have not yet seen a law saying machinery can't kill.

Murder is the illegal form of killing, so it is moreso likely that it would be killing.

Way to miss the point entirely...

[Holy Tedalonia]

Moreso kill. I have not yet seen a law saying machinery can't kill.

Murder is the illegal form of killing, so it is moreso likely that it would be killing.

Way to miss the point entirely...

Missing points? Bah, never! I'm great at math.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

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?"

I was under the impression that both labels are designed to infer that being against them is bad. Who wants to be pro-death or anti-choice?

Then it boils down to one question: are you an honest person or not?

[Page]

People are always going to use simple and short labels rather than describe an ideology in sufficient detail. Like it or not, the terms pro-choice and pro-life are here to stay.

I agree though that it is really a debate about personhood, or it should be. There are two ways one can justify a pro-choice position: One can say that the right of the person who is pregnant to bodily autonomy takes priority over the right of a fetus to live, or one can argue that a fetus is not a person and therefore has no stake in the matter. I prefer the latter argument, and based on the fact that a fetus does not have an identity, thoughts, memories, desires, and does not even process sensory input until at least the start of the third trimester, I say that abortion within the first trimester is a morally neutral act. Once the fetus can experience pain and/or other sensory input, then the ethical considerations for the fetus can be considered.

To be honest, the former is a better straight up argument in my opinion.

After all, if my cousin is dying and needs a kidney, he has no right to mine - even though I can live perfectly well with only one.

The concept that right to self is generally greater than the lives of the others is a fairly well established legal principle, all things considered.

The first is a moral dilemma. You weigh one's right against another.

The second is to say that a fetus has no moral stake in the matter because it does not and cannot care. So I think it's a superior argument to say that abortion is morally neutral rather than morally justifiable.

[Crockerland]

"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.

Wrong.

Right.

Firstly, there are things that you get in return for paying those taxes. You might not use all of those benefits, but you do receive them in turn.

Not sure how that turns "No born person has the right to use another person's body or resources without their consent." into "No born person has the right to use another person's body or resources without their consent unless they give them something in return."

Secondly, if you don't want to pay taxes, move. Or don't make money. It's hard for somebody to collect taxes from you when you don't have a dime to your name.

Those kind of solutions don't really help a woman with another 'person' living inside of her and potentially causing all kinds of health complications.

If you don't want to have a fetus growing inside you, don't have sex.

Thirdly, the government does not exactly qualify as another born person, does it?

The government is made up of people, most of who are "born persons", excepting Marco Rubio who was clearly grown in a vat. This seems like a sovereign citizen-style argument, "I'm not representing my person in court today," if three crooks form a corporation, and then, acting as that corporation, rob a bank, does it no longer count as a violation of your rights to not have your resources used without your consent because their corporation is not a born person?

The point of this example being that lots of people have their resources used without their consent.

Poor comparison. If looked into with more detail, it actually counters a pro-life argument more than reinforces it.

That is subjective, depending on your views on taxation, the comparison takes no intrinsic stance towards the issue of taxes, thus it doesn't support either side of the argument. This comparison merely serves to illustrate the question: If no born person has the right to use another person's body or resources without their consent, why do we take people's resources as part of taxation without their consent?

[Petrolheadia]

You are confusing "abortion" with "murder".

Moreso kill. I have not yet seen a law saying machinery can't kill.

Murder is the illegal form of killing, so it is moreso likely that it would be killing.

You can't kill something with no conscience, unless you think scrapyard workers are mass-murderers.

And fetuses don't have it until about 24th week.

[Lost Memories]

New Names:

Pro Murdering Babies

Pro Rapists Control of Womens Bodies

If we go by the focus of the debate, which the op wisely determined into: "Does that not mean the real crux of the issue is more fetal personhood vs. lack thereof?" some better labels would be:

Pro Human Rights Asap.

Pro Delayed Human Rights.

I'm waiting when there's a time where ai space ships, will commence "aborthumans.exe"

Then this debate would take a drastic turn.

You are confusing "abortion" with "murder".

It's not murder if your human rights are delayed. /s

[Petrolheadia]

You are confusing "abortion" with "murder".

It's not murder if your human rights are delayed. /s

It's not murder if it can't be conscious.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

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?"

People are always going to use simple and short labels rather than describe an ideology in sufficient detail. Like it or not, the terms pro-choice and pro-life are here to stay.

I agree though that it is really a debate about personhood, or it should be. There are two ways one can justify a pro-choice position: One can say that the right of the person who is pregnant to bodily autonomy takes priority over the right of a fetus to live, or one can argue that a fetus is not a person and therefore has no stake in the matter. I prefer the latter argument, and based on the fact that a fetus does not have an identity, thoughts, memories, desires, and does not even process sensory input until at least the start of the third trimester, I say that abortion within the first trimester is a morally neutral act. Once the fetus can experience pain and/or other sensory input, then the ethical considerations for the fetus can be considered.

Yeah, the latter's always struck me as a more meaningful argument.

Who gets to say where "body" ends and "everything else" begins? If you are physically required to show up, in person, for jury duty, are they "using your body" too?

Pro-choice doesn't even begin to describe EITHER of these philosophies being expressed anyway, let alone criticisms thereof. Its use discredits everyone who has ever used it.

[Petrolheadia]

You are confusing "abortion" with "murder".

It's not murder if your human rights are delayed. /s

It's not murder if it can't be conscious.

[Galloism]

To be honest, the former is a better straight up argument in my opinion.

After all, if my cousin is dying and needs a kidney, he has no right to mine - even though I can live perfectly well with only one.

The concept that right to self is generally greater than the lives of the others is a fairly well established legal principle, all things considered.

The first is a moral dilemma. You weigh one's right against another.

The second is to say that a fetus has no moral stake in the matter because it does not and cannot care. So I think it's a superior argument to say that abortion is morally neutral rather than morally justifiable.

I mean, the first is a pretty well established moral dilemma, while for the second you will need to overcome the notion that society has a right to care for those who cannot care for themselves.

After all, a person in a coma does not and cannot care what happens to him/her. Yet society does, and barring hard situations (like comas you are never expected to wake from, which we still argue about), we generally err on protecting the individual - even if they can't protect themselves and don't know to protect themselves.

[Crockerland]

It's not murder if your human rights are delayed. /s

It's not murder if it can't be conscious.

It's time the comatose people payed for their crimes.

[The Free Joy State]

People are always going to use simple and short labels rather than describe an ideology in sufficient detail. Like it or not, the terms pro-choice and pro-life are here to stay.

I agree though that it is really a debate about personhood, or it should be. There are two ways one can justify a pro-choice position: One can say that the right of the person who is pregnant to bodily autonomy takes priority over the right of a fetus to live, or one can argue that a fetus is not a person and therefore has no stake in the matter. I prefer the latter argument, and based on the fact that a fetus does not have an identity, thoughts, memories, desires, and does not even process sensory input until at least the start of the third trimester, I say that abortion within the first trimester is a morally neutral act. Once the fetus can experience pain and/or other sensory input, then the ethical considerations for the fetus can be considered.

Yeah, the latter's always struck me as a more meaningful argument.

Who gets to say where "body" ends and "everything else" begins? If you are physically required to show up, in person, for jury duty, are they "using your body" too?

Pro-choice doesn't even begin to describe EITHER of these philosophies being expressed anyway, let alone criticisms thereof. Its use discredits everyone who has ever used it.

When you go for jury duty, are you hooked up to the judge so that s/he can use your blood? Does the judge use your bone marrow, your kidney filtration system, your liver? Could you die with dangerous high blood pressure due to doing jury duty?

No?

Then it's not comparable.

What did you say? You "support abortion access"? Are you quite sure about that, because -- after that nod-of-the-head platitude -- I can't help but note that you're making a lot of pro-life arguments.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

People are always going to use simple and short labels rather than describe an ideology in sufficient detail. Like it or not, the terms pro-choice and pro-life are here to stay.

I agree though that it is really a debate about personhood, or it should be. There are two ways one can justify a pro-choice position: One can say that the right of the person who is pregnant to bodily autonomy takes priority over the right of a fetus to live, or one can argue that a fetus is not a person and therefore has no stake in the matter. I prefer the latter argument, and based on the fact that a fetus does not have an identity, thoughts, memories, desires, and does not even process sensory input until at least the start of the third trimester, I say that abortion within the first trimester is a morally neutral act. Once the fetus can experience pain and/or other sensory input, then the ethical considerations for the fetus can be considered.

To be honest, the former is a better straight up argument in my opinion.

After all, if my cousin is dying and needs a kidney, he has no right to mine - even though I can live perfectly well with only one.

The concept that right to self is generally greater than the lives of the others is a fairly well established legal principle, all things considered.

Emphasis mine. Keeping both kidneys isn't just a matter of "bodily autonomy for its own sake." It also means that if one of your kidneys fails, you don't have a spare. Even if it doesn't, there's also the stress of that fact hanging over your head.

Also, requiring people to provide others your kidneys gives them less incentive to take care of their own.

Abortion is perfectly legal by default. The right to it doesn't depend upon how good a reason someone has to abort.

[The New California Republic]

You are confusing "abortion" with "murder".

It's not murder if your human rights are delayed. /s

Shame that abortion isn't defined as murder, isn't it?

[BigOstan]

The concept that right to self is generally greater than the lives of the others is a fairly well established legal principle, all things considered.

Should people be required to perform CPR if they think someone needs it and there's no threat to their safety? It seems like another case of my self-determination vs someone's life, but law often makes a different decision here.

[The New California Republic]

You are confusing "abortion" with "murder".

It's not murder if your human rights are delayed. /s

Shame that abortion isn't defined as murder, isn't it?

[Shazbotdom]

I always figured that "Pro-Life" with just "Pro-Birth" seeing as many who follow that ideology dont' really care what happens to the child after it is born, which is why they won't properly fund education, healthcare, etc.

While "Pro-choice" doesn't mean "Pro-Abortion", it just means that the individual wants to allow women the Choice to get the procedure if they wished to get it. It, in no way, means that they want to mandate abortion across the board as some sort of population control, which is what many "Pro-Birth" people tend to paint the picture as.


But, that's just my $0.02