NationStates

Caracasus wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote: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?

I don’t know about you but being Pro-Death sounds pretty rad.

I don't think it is misleading. Pro-choice is a two way street, IMO. Choice. Which can constitute choosing the termination of a pregnancy, or choosing carrying to term.

Estanglia wrote:
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.

Godular wrote: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.

So do you believe that fetus is a person or not?
If you don't, this argument doesn't make any sense. If you do, you can use this argument, but others can respond to it.
For example, I disagree with it, but I'm not going to argue against it only to have you retract it because neither of you ever sincerely believed what Godular wrote. Try not to hold multiple positions at the same time.

Hirota wrote:If only there was some sort of abortion related mega thread to quarantine this kind of thinking.

Heresy

Thermodolia wrote:

Caracasus wrote:
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?

I don’t know about you but being Pro-Death sounds pretty rad.

I have to agree actually.
It's pretty metal.

BigOstan wrote:

Estanglia wrote:
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.

So do you believe that fetus is a person or not?

This has already been argued at length in the abortion thread (speaking of which, I thought this thread was getting merged with the actual abortion thread...?), where it was shown that the fetus does not satisfy the conditions for being called a person.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:I don't think it is misleading. Pro-choice is a two way street, IMO. Choice. Which can constitute choosing the termination of a pregnancy, or choosing carrying to term.

It's misleading because it primes the listener to accept a simplification of the issue. Choice, for half of the conversation anyway, isn't even the salient issue. Pro abortion and anti abortion are the only labels that actually depict what you and the other side are for and against, respectively. Pro-choice and pro-life are meant to imply something unkind and uncharitable about the opposition, namely that they are anti-life or anti-choice. It's a deceitful language game.

Otira wrote:

Hirota wrote:If only there was some sort of abortion related mega thread to quarantine this kind of thinking.

Heresy

I think "phrases that sound misleading even to those of us with similar opinions on aborting policy" is distinct enough to deserve independence from the abortion megathread.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

BigOstan wrote:
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.

The phrase is misleading because if "pro-choice" activists were really pro-choice, they would defend a right to self-determination in any situation, such as the example I provided and you misunderstood. This is the case with pro-life activists, who also defend everyone else's right to life.
I don't really have a different term to suggest, because any honest name would be as absurd as the cause itself ("pro-abortion-on-demand"?)
There. A direct, straightforward, easy-to-understand answer to the question.

BigOstan wrote:

Estanglia wrote:
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.

So do you believe that fetus is a person or not?
If you don't, this argument doesn't make any sense. If you do, you can use this argument, but others can respond to it.
For example, I disagree with it, but I'm not going to argue against it only to have you retract it because neither of you ever sincerely believed what Godular wrote. Try not to hold multiple positions at the same time.

The argument is that it is irrelevant whether or not the fetus is a person because no born person has the right to be inside someone else's body and use their resources without their consent. Even if you treat it as a person, you'd still have to give it rights that supersede the mother's and that no other born person has. That's not holding multiple positions, that's pointing out that the fetus' personhood doesn't change much.

No, I don't believe that the fetus is a person.

Scomagia wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:I don't think it is misleading. Pro-choice is a two way street, IMO. Choice. Which can constitute choosing the termination of a pregnancy, or choosing carrying to term.

It's misleading because it primes the listener to accept a simplification of the issue. Choice, for half of the conversation anyway, isn't even the salient issue. Pro abortion and anti abortion are the only labels that actually depict what you and the other side are for and against, respectively. Pro-choice and pro-life are meant to imply something unkind and uncharitable about the opposition, namely that they are anti-life or anti-choice. It's a deceitful language game.

Except 1 thing, most of those I know who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion. They would rather have abortion be safe, legal, and rare. Oh and, they don't want to force women to have abortions, as is implied by pro-abortion. I know of very very few people who are actually pro-abortion.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Galloism wrote: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."

No, it has to do with right to self; and no that even presumes my blood were safe (it is); and fear is probably a motivator for a number of women who get abortions, moreso than people who reject blood being drawn.

BigOstan wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote: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.

The phrase is misleading because if "pro-choice" activists were really pro-choice, they would defend a right to self-determination in any situation, such as the example I provided and you misunderstood. This is the case with pro-life activists, who also defend everyone else's right to life.
I don't really have a different term to suggest, because any honest name would be as absurd as the cause itself ("pro-abortion-on-demand"?)
There. A direct, straightforward, easy-to-understand answer to the question.

Then maybe people exploiting the desire for 2-syllable soundbites to use them as hollow propaganda should step aside, and make way for those who are above that.

Scomagia wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:I don't think it is misleading. Pro-choice is a two way street, IMO. Choice. Which can constitute choosing the termination of a pregnancy, or choosing carrying to term.

It's misleading because it primes the listener to accept a simplification of the issue. Choice, for half of the conversation anyway, isn't even the salient issue. Pro abortion and anti abortion are the only labels that actually depict what you and the other side are for and against, respectively. Pro-choice and pro-life are meant to imply something unkind and uncharitable about the opposition, namely that they are anti-life or anti-choice. It's a deceitful language game.

I don't see them as unkind at all. At least not in my approach which, in the end, is what matters to me.

Galloism wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote: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."

No, it has to do with right to self; and no that even presumes my blood were safe (it is); and fear is probably a motivator for a number of women who get abortions, moreso than people who reject blood being drawn.

And yet, nowhere is outright fear of pregnancy implied by the phrase "pro-choice."

The New California Republic wrote:

BigOstan wrote:
So do you believe that fetus is a person or not?

This has already been argued at length in the abortion thread (speaking of which, I thought this thread was getting merged with the actual abortion thread...?), where it was shown that the fetus does not satisfy the conditions for being called a person.

The only thing you've shown in that thread is that you don't know the difference between your arbitrary definition and a fact. Which is redundant now that you've shown the same thing in this thread as well.

BigOstan wrote:

Galloism wrote: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.

Wasn't my implication - i was implying they voluntarily accepted a duty of care.

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.

Weird.

Also, in some countries you're required to perform, so I can't agree that this is an established consensus.

What countries are those, and who has been prosecuted for failure?

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.

Not generally no, unless they created the scenario that resulted in them being in deadly danger to start with, which would generally be punished somewhere between murder and negligent manslaughter, depending on the scenario. Or, alternatively, if they accepted a duty of care.

But that's for killing them, not for failing to save them.

Galloism wrote:

BigOstan wrote:
You don't have to be a paramedic to do that.

Wasn't my implication - i was implying they voluntarily accepted a duty of care.

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.

Weird.

Also, in some countries you're required to perform, so I can't agree that this is an established consensus.

What countries are those, and who has been prosecuted for failure?

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.

Not generally no, unless they created the scenario that resulted in them being in deadly danger to start with, which would generally be punished somewhere between murder and negligent manslaughter, depending on the scenario.

But that's for killing them, not for failing to save them.

"Created the scenario?" That sounds more like a continuous spectrum of blame than a discrete set of absolutes. How directly is "directly?"

BigOstan wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:This has already been argued at length in the abortion thread (speaking of which, I thought this thread was getting merged with the actual abortion thread...?), where it was shown that the fetus does not satisfy the conditions for being called a person.

The only thing you've shown in that thread is that you don't know the difference between your arbitrary definition and a fact. Which is redundant now that you've shown the same thing in this thread as well.

Hey man, I'm just telling you what has been discussed at length in the abortion thread, where clear definitions were given from multiple sources that showed that the fetus doesn't meet the conditions for being called a person, no need to get all excited.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Otira wrote:Heresy

I think "phrases that sound misleading even to those of us with similar opinions on aborting policy" is distinct enough to deserve independence from the abortion megathread.

It's not very misleading though. It's probably the best moniker to describe the opinions of it's constituents. Being in favor of choice rather than in favor of abortion.

Scomagia wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:I don't think it is misleading. Pro-choice is a two way street, IMO. Choice. Which can constitute choosing the termination of a pregnancy, or choosing carrying to term.

It's misleading because it primes the listener to accept a simplification of the issue. Choice, for half of the conversation anyway, isn't even the salient issue. Pro abortion and anti abortion are the only labels that actually depict what you and the other side are for and against, respectively. Pro-choice and pro-life are meant to imply something unkind and uncharitable about the opposition, namely that they are anti-life or anti-choice. It's a deceitful language game.

Being pro-life doesn't make you anti-choice, nor pro-choice anti-life, it means you prioritize life above choice or choice above life, respectively. I support freedom of movement, but I support everyone else's right to freedom from theft more, so if you are a thief you go to jail where your movement is restricted, that doesn't mean I'm anti-freedom-of-movement.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

BigOstan wrote:
The phrase is misleading because if "pro-choice" activists were really pro-choice, they would defend a right to self-determination in any situation, such as the example I provided and you misunderstood. This is the case with pro-life activists, who also defend everyone else's right to life.
I don't really have a different term to suggest, because any honest name would be as absurd as the cause itself ("pro-abortion-on-demand"?)
There. A direct, straightforward, easy-to-understand answer to the question.

Then maybe people exploiting the desire for 2-syllable soundbites to use them as hollow propaganda should step aside, and make way for those who are above that.

Some words are useful despite being two syllables long. I don't think the term "pro-life" is misleading. It means exactly what it says.

Neutraligon wrote:

Scomagia wrote:It's misleading because it primes the listener to accept a simplification of the issue. Choice, for half of the conversation anyway, isn't even the salient issue. Pro abortion and anti abortion are the only labels that actually depict what you and the other side are for and against, respectively. Pro-choice and pro-life are meant to imply something unkind and uncharitable about the opposition, namely that they are anti-life or anti-choice. It's a deceitful language game.

Except 1 thing, most of those I know who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion. They would rather have abortion be safe, legal, and rare. Oh and, they don't want to force women to have abortions, as is implied by pro-abortion. I know of very very few people who are actually pro-abortion.

Pro abortion doesn't imply forced abortion. Not at all. I don't even know how you ended up thinking it does.It implies you support the practice of abortion or, at least,the legal practice of abortion. They are literally for legal abortion. Pro abortion demonstrates their views much better than pro-choice does. It is absolutely clear what they support without dragging their opponents through the mud by implying uncharitable motivations. Anything else is just a language game, pure and simple. Same thing applies to the anti abortion folks.

Scomagia wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:Except 1 thing, most of those I know who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion. They would rather have abortion be safe, legal, and rare. Oh and, they don't want to force women to have abortions, as is implied by pro-abortion. I know of very very few people who are actually pro-abortion.

Pro abortion doesn't imply forced abortion. Not at all. I don't even know how you ended up thinking it does.

It can be taken as supporting forcing women to have abortions.

It implies you support the practice of abortion or, at least,the legal practice of abortion.

Which can also include supporting forcing women to have an abortion.

They are literally for legal abortion.

That does not mean they like the idea of abortion. Someone can truly hate the idea of abortion and what they view as the necessity of abortion while still supporting it's legality.

Pro abortion demonstrates their views much better than pro-choice does.

It does not because many who support the legality of abortion also hate abortion.

It is absolutely clear what they support without dragging their opponents through the mud by implying uncharitable motivations.

Actually no because it is not actually clear on what they support. Supporting the legality of something you actually despise does not mean you are pro that thing.

Anything else is just a language game, pure and simple. Same thing applies to the anti abortion folks.

Except for one thing...most people who are pro-life are for abortion under certain circumstances, namely when the life of the mother is in danger. Your pro and anti-abortion thing is actually highly inaccurate. It isn't word games when the words you are using are more inaccurate the the labels currently being used.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Scomagia wrote:It's misleading because it primes the listener to accept a simplification of the issue. Choice, for half of the conversation anyway, isn't even the salient issue. Pro abortion and anti abortion are the only labels that actually depict what you and the other side are for and against, respectively. Pro-choice and pro-life are meant to imply something unkind and uncharitable about the opposition, namely that they are anti-life or anti-choice. It's a deceitful language game.

I don't see them as unkind at all. At least not in my approach which, in the end, is what matters to me.

Then you haven't given any serious thought to these labels. They are intended to function a certain way and they do so quite effectively. It just so happens that what they are intended to do is build a narrative around the different sides in a way that is meant not to further discussion or even attempt accuracy but to load the conversation with emotion. How you use the labels is absolutely irrelevant to the effect they have on the conversation.