Is "pro-choice" a misleading term?

[Petrasylvania]

Then "pro-choice" is a misleading term. It is a "right to kill".

Still no.

It's pro letting a woman decide, despite what others think, that she wants to continue her pregnancy and have a baby. Her parents, her clergy, her partner do not have the right to force her to have an abortion.

It's pro letting a woman decide, despite what others thing, that she does not for health, mental, fiscal reasons, or just because she does not want to go through with being pregnant terminating it. Her parents, her clergy, and her partner do not have the right to force her to have a baby.

It's been said repeatedly but apparently there are those here who can completely ignore that bit about not being coerced into aborting being part of pro-choice if they think they can score points with flinging around pro-murder which is inaccurate at best and completely disingenuous and an intentional distortion for the 'appeal to emotion' points the undiscerning think it earns.

You're addressing the guy who literally calls the right to choose Fetal Slavery as if the woman is an overseer cracking a whip.

[Katganistan]

By choices, I mean the fetus or entity in question consciously deciding to do or not do an action. A fetus also isn't capable as far as I'm aware of communicating a choice anyway.

Consciousness arguably emerges before a fetus is born. At the earliest, one might allege that it becomes possible between the 24th and 28th week of pregnancy.

Source.

And this is why, except for the most extreme of circumstances (meaning death for the mother or the fetus being non viable -- as in having mortal birth defects such as anencephaly -- abortions are not done after week 24. If the pregnancy has continued that long, it is not terminated without an overwhelmingly good reason.

Women are the members of the species who get pregnant and have to go through it. Why shouldn't they be the ones deciding whether to carry to term or terminate?

Equality before the law, Nana. It's quite the valuable concept. Your organs don't trump my rights any more than mine do yours.

When you become pregnant, you can have (or decline to have) as many abortions as you see fit.

I can't force you to have a vasectomy, can I?
Isn't that, by your logic, your organs trumping my right to assure no unwanted children?

I'm not suggesting the fetus should have equal rights. I'm saying that women are not more special than men because of their super duper special magical genitals.

Anybody said that?

Yes.
Distruzio.

Still no.

It's pro letting a woman decide, despite what others think, that she wants to continue her pregnancy and have a baby. Her parents, her clergy, her partner do not have the right to force her to have an abortion.

It's pro letting a woman decide, despite what others thing, that she does not for health, mental, fiscal reasons, or just because she does not want to go through with being pregnant terminating it. Her parents, her clergy, and her partner do not have the right to force her to have a baby.

It's been said repeatedly but apparently there are those here who can completely ignore that bit about not being coerced into aborting being part of pro-choice if they think they can score points with flinging around pro-murder which is inaccurate at best and completely disingenuous and an intentional distortion for the 'appeal to emotion' points the undiscerning think it earns.

You're addressing the guy who literally calls the right to choose Fetal Slavery as if the woman is an overseer cracking a whip.

I'm not interested in convincing someone who is not thinking critically and is simply flinging around accusations to earn brownie points from the equally indiscriminate.

It's the folks who are undecided and willing to think critically and logically who need to see both arguments, and to consider the weight they want to assign to logical, sourced, reasonable arguments versus name calling and appeals to emotion.

[Faltasia]

Consciousness arguably emerges before a fetus is born. At the earliest, one might allege that it becomes possible between the 24th and 28th week of pregnancy.

Source.

And this is why, except for the most extreme of circumstances (meaning death for the mother or the fetus being non viable -- as in having mortal birth defects such as anencephaly -- abortions are not done after week 24. If the pregnancy has continued that long, it is not terminated without an overwhelmingly good reason.

Equality before the law, Nana. It's quite the valuable concept. Your organs don't trump my rights any more than mine do yours.

When you become pregnant, you can have (or decline to have) as many abortions as you see fit.

I can't force you to have a vasectomy, can I?
Isn't that, by your logic, your organs trumping my right to assure no unwanted children?

Anybody said that?

Yes.
Distruzio.

You're addressing the guy who literally calls the right to choose Fetal Slavery as if the woman is an overseer cracking a whip.

I'm not interested in convincing someone who is not thinking critically and is simply flinging around accusations to earn brownie points from the equally indiscriminate.

It's the folks who are undecided and willing to think critically and logically who need to see both arguments, and to consider the weight they want to assign to logical, sourced, reasonable arguments versus name calling and appeals to emotion.

Very well said. I find that taking the time to self-reflect on our views is also an important step in understanding this issue more. There are fundamental issues that both sides hold very dearly, and some irreconcilable differences in terms of definition.

My two cents - the term "choice", while incomplete (definitions are usually incomplete), signifies the core of what the pro-choice folks are prioritizing - A woman's right to decide what is best for body - health, economics, etc. While a fetus' life is supremely important, when it threatens the mother, it is (while ideal) impossible to assign equal value to both beings. The woman, then has to choose, and must reserve the right to rationally decide what is best for her, instead of having values of others dictate what she can or cannot do. And this is, in the context of countries where abortions are allowed, legal. While no situation where abortion is involved is ideal or desirable, it's the freedom to own one's body that is the fundamental core of the pro-choice movement. As such it is not a misleading term.

Similarly, with the pro-life term, their fundamental belief is that life begins at conception - human life, and to forcibly take it in its most defenseless form is equal to murder. Murder, of course, is wrong. Thus, abortion is wrong. While pro-lifers have serious problems justifying their hypocrisy - that every life should be given a chance, (but if chance dictates you're different from me, you're in for a lifetime of discrimination), it is not unreasonable to at least consider the view that what's in the womb is a living being, and ask what value is the being worth? For pro-choicers, less than the woman, for a range of reasons. For the pro-lifers, it's an irrelevant question - it's a life. It shouldn't even be up for discussion. As such it is not a misleading term.

I apologize for my mini-reaction earlier on. It's just sometimes I find the endless short form bantering leading nowhere. I was not picking on anyone in particular, but this is a debate that I've been following for some time. I have my views on whether I support abortion or not, but in the matter of representation, I see no need to change anything.

[Dogmeat]

No. It's still human.

Then "pro-choice" is a misleading term. It is a "right to kill".

That's a pretty essential right for any animal. Even Vegans ingest and digest living cells. But something tells me you don't actually have a problem with that.

[Fahran]

Did we? I can't remember that.

I've been on NS awhile. I've discussed everything from the correct terminology for a baby rabbit to Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism.

No, dude, it doesn't work that way.

Do elaborate, dude.

[Fahran]

And this is why, except for the most extreme of circumstances (meaning death for the mother or the fetus being non viable -- as in having mortal birth defects such as anencephaly -- abortions are not done after week 24. If the pregnancy has continued that long, it is not terminated without an overwhelmingly good reason.

We actually don't have any indication of that in the seven states where abortions are legally performed after the 24 week mark because the statistics on it aren't readily available. We do know that minimal difference exists between women who obtain abortions in the first trimester and women who obtain an abortions after the 20 week mark though. While studies suggest that most abortions after 24 weeks are for fetal anomalies, we have no statistics to back that up. And I've been trying to find statistics to back it up.

Source.

[The New California Republic]

Did we? I can't remember that.

I've been on NS awhile..

I thought you were meaning me and you specifically. I had an antiquity nation, so I have seen it all.

[Fahran]

I thought you were meaning me and you specifically. I had an antiquity nation, so I have seen it all.

Oh, I did. We spoke earlier in this thread if I recall rightly. You're old.

[Northern Syria]

Of course. Most liberals are supportive of choice when it comes to abortion, but are perfectly okay restricting choice with regards to gun ownership. Conversely, most people who call themselves pro-life don't have any qualms with the death penalty. But describing yourself as pro-life or pro-choice sounds better than describing yourself as "anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion."

It's not just abortion, though, it's other issues too. For instance, few people say, "I support torture," they prefer to say, "I support enhanced interrogation techniques." Nor do people say they support genocide; it's actually "ethnic cleansing."

There's a great quote about this:

Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

[The New California Republic]

I thought you were meaning me and you specifically. I had an antiquity nation, so I have seen it all.

Oh, I did. We spoke earlier in this thread if I recall rightly. You're old.

Indeed I am, and getting older.

---

Nor do people say they support genocide; it's actually "ethnic cleansing."

...

...I have never heard anyone say that. Where the hell do you live??

[Twilight Imperium]

Of course. Most liberals are supportive of choice when it comes to abortion, but are perfectly okay restricting choice with regards to gun ownership. Conversely, most people who call themselves pro-life don't have any qualms with the death penalty. But describing yourself as pro-life or pro-choice sounds better than describing yourself as "anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion."

It's not just abortion, though, it's other issues too. For instance, few people say, "I support torture," they prefer to say, "I support enhanced interrogation techniques." Nor do people say they support genocide; it's actually "ethnic cleansing."

It's almost like there's a difference between supporting the right to choose anything and supporting the right to make a specific choice. Even the most strident proponent of the Second Amendment would probably blink at someone owning an Abrams tank.

It's often been noted that "pro-life" people stop giving nearly as much of a shit about life after it's been born, so it works perfectly for the "pro-choice" crowd to only support choices related to bodily autonomy in the "ridiculously convoluted accusations of hypocrisy" Olympics.

E: dangit, I responded to a throwaway again well, still though

[Estanglia]

Organs don't. Sapience does.

I'm not suggesting the fetus should have equal rights. I'm saying that women are not more special than men because of their super duper special magical genitals.

They can get pregnant. A man cannot. They have to spend 9 months carrying a fetus, giving it nutrients. A man doesn't.
There's a reason women can abort.

[The Black Forrest]

Organs don't. Sapience does.

I'm not suggesting the fetus should have equal rights. I'm saying that women are not more special than men because of their super duper special magical genitals.

Actually they kind of are in this event. A man is a tiny part of the process. All the work is on the woman.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

It isn't a person...

It is human. Ending human life is a killing. Period.

The right to kill is more appropriate than "pro-choice".

No. There is nothing more right to kill another being than in a typical case of self-defense. So no, right-to-kill has jack all to do with pro-choice.

Let’s see what the first retort will be...

[Fahran]

No. There is nothing more right to kill another being than in a typical case of self-defense. So no, right-to-kill has jack all to do with pro-choice.

Let’s see what the first retort will be...

Again, the self-defense and slavery arguments are really problematic unless you're a right libertarian. Really, they're just poor analogies in general. Stick to the "it's not a person and has no rights." It winds up looking better and being more unassailable.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

No. There is nothing more right to kill another being than in a typical case of self-defense. So no, right-to-kill has jack all to do with pro-choice.

Let’s see what the first retort will be...

Again, the self-defense and slavery arguments are really problematic unless you're a right libertarian. Really, they're just poor analogies in general. Stick to the "it's not a person and has no rights." It winds up looking better and being more unassailable.

I disagree. I don’t rely on the slavery argument unless that is what you mean by my usage of ‘no person has the right to use another person’s body without their consent.’ And the analogy holds quite steadily for self-defense. People complain that the fetus does not harm the woman, but it very much does. It may not mean to do so, but that is not a practical concern.

All that matters is whether the woman wishes its presence to continue. If yes, yay. If not, such is unfortunate, but there will be other opportunities.

[Quantipapa]

I go there every once and a while, and the same people shout about their holy right to dismember children, so then I leave.

Yeah, I haven't even gone there once.

This was in the other thread I'm on. That's the kind of reputation you people have.

[Twilight Imperium]

This was in the other thread I'm on. That's the kind of reputation you people have.

Better than going to the CDT where people argue about whose book their sky father likes the best. At least the pro-choice position is about something real, not make-believe

[USS Monitor]

We have another abortion thread, and we don't need more Quantipapa one-liners or anti-Christian snark.