NationStates

Lost Memories wrote:
Ok, just to be obvious and less criptic. This really surprises me it wasn't already clear.
anti-abortion = Pro Early Human Rights

pro-abortion = Pro Late Human Rights

Why is it a surprise when people don't accept subjective labels?

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Lost Memories wrote:What about:

Pro Early Human Rights

Pro Late Human Rights

(implied, the rights of a child)

That isn't really accurate either, though. Weren't those who coined the phrase "human rights" meaning to use them to protect sentient human beings from unnecessary suffering and from murder, (the latter of which is wrong for cutting short the collection of experiences that we would consider someone's life) not to any fetus from human DNA from being killed before its life could even start?

Pro Early Personhood

Pro Late Personhood

?

The Black Forrest wrote:

Lost Memories wrote:
Ok, just to be obvious and less criptic. This really surprises me it wasn't already clear.
anti-abortion = Pro Early Human Rights

pro-abortion = Pro Late Human Rights

Why is it a surprise when people don't accept subjective labels?

Acceptance is different from understanding. The second was the issue there.

Galloism wrote:

BigOstan wrote: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.

Not generally, no.

Now, if you voluntarily took the position of a paramedic, I'd say that's different.

You don't have to be a paramedic to do that. It doesn't take any medical skills, really. You can (and should if you haven't) learn the basic way to do it from a 10 minute video. Where I'm from it's required to get a driver's licence. Also, in some countries you're required to perform, so I can't agree that this is an established consensus.

But let's try a different scenario: Can someone be punished for refusing to save the life of their spouse? Again assuming the rescue attempt wouldn't be dangerous and they have the necessary skills to try.

Lost Memories wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:That isn't really accurate either, though. Weren't those who coined the phrase "human rights" meaning to use them to protect sentient human beings from unnecessary suffering and from murder, (the latter of which is wrong for cutting short the collection of experiences that we would consider someone's life) not to any fetus from human DNA from being killed before its life could even start?

Pro Early Personhood

Pro Late Personhood

?

Not valid. Again how are you going to judge miscarriage? By your subjective labels; it could be called manslaughter.

Galloism wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote: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.

You also can't forcibly take my blood even if someone will die without it. Even though I'll make more and be completely full up in 24-48 hours.

Isn't that more because some people are afraid of blood being drawn? And/or for fear of contaminated blood entering the system? Nowhere is outright fear of pregnancy implied by the phrase "pro-choice."

Lost Memories wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Why is it a surprise when people don't accept subjective labels?

Acceptance is different from understanding. The second was the issue there.

Knowing the labels are subjective interpretation is understanding.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Lost Memories wrote:Pro Early Personhood

Pro Late Personhood

?

Not valid. Again how are you going to judge miscarriage? By your subjective labels; it could be called manslaughter.

I'm pretty sure they'd show some leniency for something as accident prone as pregnancy.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Not valid. Again how are you going to judge miscarriage? By your subjective labels; it could be called manslaughter.

I'm pretty sure they'd show some leniency for something as accident prone as pregnancy.

Hmmm? Doubtful if the effort is to define conception as personhood. The problem mainly being there isn't a definitive test to show it will happen so that opens the door to "What did she do?" Or worse; she is obviously not fit to birth children.

BigOstan wrote:

Galloism wrote: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.

In practice, people are afraid of CPR attempts doing more harm than good. Nowhere are people's motives for abortion implied relevant by the phrase "pro-choice."

If it's your job, you are more likely to have training in how to do it right, so the tradeoff shifts.

The Black Forrest wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:I'm pretty sure they'd show some leniency for something as accident prone as pregnancy.

Hmmm? Doubtful if the effort is to define conception as personhood. The problem mainly being there isn't a definitive test to show it will happen so that opens the door to "What did she do?" Or worse; she is obviously not fit to birth children.

They've made that decision for other criminals already, and no one called it "anti-choice," because it was taken away by due process. Why is the one crime for which this punishment actually fits the exception?

Lost Memories wrote:

Estanglia wrote:Which would be pro choice and which would be pro life?

Isn't it self evident?

Who supports childs being considered persons since their conception?
Who wants to wait some time after the conception to grant them the qualification as human beings?


Ok, just to be obvious and less criptic. This really surprises me it wasn't already clear.

anti-abortion = Pro Early Human Rights

pro-abortion = Pro Late Human Rights

Firstly, as Godular's already said in this thread, treating the fetus as a person changes nothing. You're still granting a right to the fetus that no other born person has.

Secondly, these labels are inaccurate. You can still believe that fetuses are humans and have rights and still believe that abortion should be legal because the rights of a non-sentient life shouldn't trump the rights of a sentient life.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Hmmm? Doubtful if the effort is to define conception as personhood. The problem mainly being there isn't a definitive test to show it will happen so that opens the door to "What did she do?" Or worse; she is obviously not fit to birth children.

They've made that decision for other criminals already, and no one called it "anti-choice," because it was taken away by due process. Why is the one crime for which this punishment actually fits the exception?

Of course. There are pro-life/anti-choice types who considering women who get abortions to be criminals.

How is the use of "anti-choice" wrong?

The Black Forrest wrote:

Lost Memories wrote:Pro Early Personhood

Pro Late Personhood

?

Not valid. Again how are you going to judge miscarriage? By your subjective labels; it could be called manslaughter.

Is a car accident a murder?

But yes, car accidents when caused by incompetence can be charged with manslaughter.
A truck driver who by not respecting security measures causes a car incident, and from the car incident someone dies, is a possible receiver of a manslaughter accusation.


Also please, pro-life and pro-choice are as much subjective labels as any other label. OP raised a question if there are better ways to define and label them, by looking at the core point of the debate = at which stage some cells become an human being, deserving all the care and protection of the Law. Are you going to entertain the OP point, or just play contrarian?
Bring out your label making dictionary and propose something.

Lost Memories wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Not valid. Again how are you going to judge miscarriage? By your subjective labels; it could be called manslaughter.

Is a car accident a murder?

It can be if mens rea is proven...

The New California Republic wrote:

Lost Memories wrote:Is a car accident a murder?

It can be if mens rea is proven...

There was actually a simpler way to answer that, figured it out only minutes later.

Is a miscarriage of a 9 months kid a possible target of legal action in your nation? (I'm not american, so no idea how your laws work)
Under a similar premise of the possibility of proving the miscarriage was caused by someone (not necessarily the mother)
What if someone, not the mother, caused a mother to miscarriage a 9 month stage kid? What if instead the same actions were done by the mother?

The definition of personhood just defines past which stage all those charges can apply. The mechanism is the same, just the range of application changes.

Lost Memories wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Not valid. Again how are you going to judge miscarriage? By your subjective labels; it could be called manslaughter.

Is a car accident a murder?

But yes, car accidents when caused by incompetence can be charged with manslaughter.
A truck driver who by not respecting security measures causes a car incident, and from the car incident someone dies, is a possible receiver of a manslaughter accusation.


Also please, pro-life and pro-choice are as much subjective labels as any other label. OP raised a question if there are better ways to define and label them, by looking at the core point of the debate = at which stage some cells become an human being, deserving all the care and protection of the Law. Are you going to entertain the OP point, or just play contrarian?
Bring out your label making dictionary and propose something.

Since many who are pro-choice do not consider personhood of the fetus as important (ie the might be willing to grant that a fetus is a person...and are still pro-choice) it really isn't about what you claim it to be about. There are those in this very thread who feel like that. No born person who has rights and protection of the Law has the rights pro-life people are trying to give fetuses.

Lost Memories wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Not valid. Again how are you going to judge miscarriage? By your subjective labels; it could be called manslaughter.

Is a car accident a murder?

Been answered.

But yes, car accidents when caused by incompetence can be charged with manslaughter.
A truck driver who by not respecting security measures causes a car incident, and from the car incident someone dies, is a possible receiver of a manslaughter accusation.

Also please, pro-life and pro-choice are as much subjective labels as any other label. OP raised a question if there are better ways to define and label them, by looking at the core point of the debate = at which stage some cells become an human being, deserving all the care and protection of the Law. Are you going to entertain the OP point, or just play contrarian?
Bring out your label making dictionary and propose something.

How is pro-choice and anti-choice subjective?

Pro-life has already shown it's subjective in that are many who say the "unborn" most be protected and yet it's ok to execute people. Add in those who have their hypothesis of personhood for the fetus and now even conception.

Labels are fine when they are used to define something. The problem is people seek to redefine and use as insult or read more into what is said.....

Well, good fun with the thread jacking, my contribution is already done.
There is already an abortion thread to talk about that, if I didn't misread, this thread should be about labels which truly capture the nature of the opposition.

Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are misleading terms.

Both terms are used to paint the opposite side as bad. If someone is not "pro-life", they must therefore be "anti-life"; and if one ain't "pro-choice", they are therefore "anti-choice". That's really the main reason for the terms being used to describe the sides of the abortion debate.

Now, "pro-life" is arguably more misleading than "pro-choice".
People who are "pro-choice" argue that abortion should be allowed because a woman has control over her own body and should therefore have the choice to chose to terminate the pregnancy. A fetus is completely incapable of making a choice, therefore, a fetus' choice doesn't really matter compared to the woman's choice.

While I think "pro-life" is more misleading, I do think that both terms are intentionally misleading.

Of course it's a misleading term, just like Pro-life is misleading term. Both are meant to imply something virtuous about you while implying something negative about your opposition. This is why I tell people that I am Pro-abortion, rather than pro-choice. I don't like to play sneaky language games to smear the people who disagree with me.

The New California Republic wrote:

Quantipapa wrote:
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.

Precisely, each side chose their term. Of course they chose terms that sound nice. If each side chose the opposition name you get stuff like I said. Truly horrid names no one would endorse without sounding downright evil. The OP kind of sounds like they want one side to pick and designate both terms which makes no sense to me.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

BigOstan wrote: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.

In practice, people are afraid of CPR attempts doing more harm than good. Nowhere are people's motives for abortion implied relevant by the phrase "pro-choice."

If it's your job, you are more likely to have training in how to do it right, so the tradeoff shifts.

If you look a bit deeper down the thread, you'll see that the actual question was "Is it ethical to legally bind someone to perform CPR?", not "Why don't people want to perform CPR?".

Pro-choice is a misleading term; they prefer picky-choosers

BigOstan wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:In practice, people are afraid of CPR attempts doing more harm than good. Nowhere are people's motives for abortion implied relevant by the phrase "pro-choice."

If it's your job, you are more likely to have training in how to do it right, so the tradeoff shifts.

If you look a bit deeper down the thread, you'll see that the actual question was "Is it ethical to legally bind someone to perform CPR?", not "Why don't people want to perform CPR?".

And if you look at what this thread was about, by definition, it is whether the phrase "pro-choice" is misleading or not.

Therefore, my point still applies.