Is "pro-choice" a misleading term?

[The South Falls]

Honestly just stick with the existing labels.

[Albrenia]

Honestly just stick with the existing labels.

But that would make sense!

[Katganistan]

Honestly just stick with the existing labels.

But that would make sense!

Srsly.

[Nekokuni]

Honestly just stick with the existing labels.

Indeed. It really isn't that hard.

[The Free Joy State]

Honestly just stick with the existing labels.

I think this is a very sound proposal.

[Quantipapa]

Honestly just stick with the existing labels.

I think this is a very sound proposal.

Yup, pro-life because it's what it is. Opposite of not pro-life.

[The Free Joy State]

I think this is a very sound proposal.

Yup, pro-life because it's what it is. Opposite of not pro-life.

The South Falls meant the names of both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" should remain as they are.

I am sure you realised this.

[Quantipapa]

And I'm agreeing with the pro-life side of it, can? Geez.

[The Free Joy State]

And I'm agreeing with the pro-life side of it, can? Geez.

But do not link it to my post and attempt to make it sound as though I agree with you.

If one is misleading, both are. Otherwise, both should stand.

[Quantipapa]

And I'm agreeing with the pro-life side of it, can? Geez.

But do not link it to my post and attempt to make it sound as though I agree with you.

If one is misleading, both are. Otherwise, both should stand.

Up to you.

[The Free Joy State]

But do not link it to my post and attempt to make it sound as though I agree with you.

If one is misleading, both are. Otherwise, both should stand.

Up to you.

And -- for that matter -- you are yet to explain why (as you're so insistent that "pro-choice" needs to be changed, for some reason), "pro-life" is not remotely misleading if someone opposes abortion but is in favour of the death penalty and against health reform and welfare.

Or, is it rather, that pro-choice is not misleading but that you are seeking to enforce a less flattering, less descriptive name to your political opponents?

[Quantipapa]

Up to you.

And -- for that matter -- you are yet to explain why (as you're so insistent that "pro-choice" needs to be changed, for some reason), "pro-life" is not remotely misleading if someone opposes abortion but is in favour of the death penalty and against health reform and welfare.[/quote

In the context of abortion Pro life is exactly that, protecting the life that began upon conception. In this same context pro-choice is representative of a person's choice to extinguish that life. Sure it is a choice, but the greater emphasis is on extinguishing that life. That's my view on this. I've said before that pro-life people have problems with humans after they're born and there's hypocrisy in it, but pro-choice people cannot acknowledge there's a certain wantonness practiced by some of their members too. Double standards.

[The Free Joy State]

And -- for that matter -- you are yet to explain why (as you're so insistent that "pro-choice" needs to be changed, for some reason), "pro-life" is not remotely misleading if someone opposes abortion but is in favour of the death penalty and against health reform and welfare.

In the context of abortion Pro life is exactly that, protecting the life that began upon conception. In this same context pro-choice is representative of a person's choice to extinguish that life. Sure it is a choice, but the greater emphasis is on extinguishing that life. That's my view on this. I've said before that pro-life people have problems with humans after they're born and there's hypocrisy in it, but pro-choice people cannot acknowledge there's a certain wantonness practiced by some of their members too. Double standards.

So...

Pro-life is representative of their first priority: the foetus' life.
Pro-choice is representative of their first priority: the woman's choice.

Both names apply only in relation to abortion: nothing to do with behaviour outside of that context (nothing prior to conception, after birth, etc).

Now, considering that, why do either of those names need to be changed?

[Quantipapa]

Incomplete.

[The Free Joy State]

Incomplete.

Or succint, neat, to the point and well-understood.

If one is incomplete, so is the other.

[Quantipapa]

Incomplete.

Or succint, neat, to the point and well-understood.

If one is incomplete, so is the other.

Fine. Pro Choice to Extinguish Life
Pro Life from point of Conception

Now it's complete.

[The Free Joy State]

Or succint, neat, to the point and well-understood.

If one is incomplete, so is the other.

Fine. Pro Choice to Extinguish Life
Pro Life from point of Conception

Now it's complete.

So you do just want to disparage your opponents, rather than engage in constructive debate? Because you seem to keep throwing out slurs against pro-choicers, despite being told that pro-choicers are not pro-abortion.

Not every pro-choice person has had an abortion, will have an abortion or would have an abortion. Or, for that matter, is female (thus putting them in a position to consider abortion as a personal option for them). Many women would only choose them in serious circumstances. Not every pro-choice person supports abortion in the same situations. Pro-choicers are not a hive mind. The one thing pro-choicers have in common is the belief that abortions should be safe and legal, not compulsory, and not routine.

And -- despite what you may have been told -- not every pro-life person will not have an abortion.

And a hard and fast abortion ban can lead to plenty of extinguished lives: women who can't have cancer treatment until it's too late; women who die with septic miscarriages, women who die when ectopic pregnancies rupture or pre-eclampsia turns into eclampsia.

And those women were sentient people.

[Estanglia]

In the context of abortion Pro life is exactly that, protecting the life that began upon conception. In this same context pro-choice is representative of a person's choice to extinguish that life. Sure it is a choice, but the greater emphasis is on extinguishing that life.

Lol no. From this very thread and the abortion thread, you can see that almost all pro-choicers here see abortion as wrong or undesirable and the ones who don't see it as a morally neutral, not good, act.

Stop trying to tar every pro choicer as liking abortions. It's a lie and you know it.

Or succint, neat, to the point and well-understood.

If one is incomplete, so is the other.

Fine. Pro Choice to Extinguish Life
Pro Life from point of Conception

Now it's complete.

Ignoring how incorrect 'pro-choice to extinguish life' is, which I've already pointed out how stupid it is above, how are either of these better than pro-choice and pro-life?
Your replacement for pro-choice makes it sound like pro-choicers agree with abortion, which they don't.
Your replacement for pro-life still holds the issue of them not being pro-life in other areas, which is even more relevant with the 'from point of conception' bit.
Also, I love how you've said that

That's my view on this. I've said before that pro-life people have problems with humans after they're born and there's hypocrisy in it, but pro-choice people cannot acknowledge there's a certain wantonness practiced by some of their members too. Double standards.

then paint all pro-choicers as those abortion-loving members and all pro-lifers as pro-life all the time.

[The New California Republic]

"Pro-free" just sounds like nonsense. I mean, it could easily be an economic/political argument for fuck's sake, so how is that any better? Pro-choice, on the other hand, at least has some connotations with being able to choose, whereas "free" is one of those terms that can mean a whole variety of different things depending on context.

So does the word choice.

No. It doesn't. The word "free" is far more opaque as to what it is referring to.

Saying "pro-free" to someone would draw ire, even just on the basis that the grammar is piss-poor...

[Quantipapa]

So does the word choice.

No. It doesn't. The word "free" is far more opaque as to what it is referring to.

Saying "pro-free" to someone would draw ire, even just on the basis that the grammar is piss-poor...

Piss where, in the toilet?

[The New California Republic]

No. It doesn't. The word "free" is far more opaque as to what it is referring to.

Saying "pro-free" to someone would draw ire, even just on the basis that the grammar is piss-poor...

Piss where, in the toilet?

Piss-poor I said. Read it again, instead of resorting to facetiousness.

[The Free Joy State]

So does the word choice.

No. It doesn't. The word "free" is far more opaque as to what it is referring to.

Saying "pro-free" to someone would draw ire, even just on the basis that the grammar is piss-poor...

"Pro-free" would, as I pointed out earlier, upset pro-lifers even more. As, if "pro-choice" were to become "pro-free" (and "pro-free" would be a silly phrase, and not only because it is painfully ungrammatical) "pro-life" would -- by implication -- be "pro-slavery".

That's why both the current phrases make so much more sense.

[Quantipapa]

No. It doesn't. The word "free" is far more opaque as to what it is referring to.

Saying "pro-free" to someone would draw ire, even just on the basis that the grammar is piss-poor...

"Pro-free" would, as I pointed out earlier, upset pro-lifers even more. As, if "pro-choice" were to become "pro-free" (and "pro-free" would be a silly phrase, and not only because it is painfully ungrammatical) "pro-life" would -- by implication -- be "pro-slavery".

That's why both the current phrases make so much more sense.

Yea yea yea, keep insisting.

[The Free Joy State]

"Pro-free" would, as I pointed out earlier, upset pro-lifers even more. As, if "pro-choice" were to become "pro-free" (and "pro-free" would be a silly phrase, and not only because it is painfully ungrammatical) "pro-life" would -- by implication -- be "pro-slavery".

That's why both the current phrases make so much more sense.

Yea yea yea, keep insisting.

And the comment contributes precisely... what to the discussion?

[The New California Republic]

"Pro-free" would, as I pointed out earlier, upset pro-lifers even more. As, if "pro-choice" were to become "pro-free" (and "pro-free" would be a silly phrase, and not only because it is painfully ungrammatical) "pro-life" would -- by implication -- be "pro-slavery".

That's why both the current phrases make so much more sense.

Yea yea yea, keep insisting.

Your arguments keep getting shot down, and you resort to stuff like this as a comeback?

You might as well start resorting to the playground "I know you are but what am I?" comeback, it is on the same level as what you have just said.