Is "pro-choice" a misleading term?

[Communaccord]

Um...Nooo...

Um... Yes.

In the case of Rape you would be correct, as a child was forcibly conceived, but if you consider consensual sexual activity, which results in pregnancy, by consenting to sex you are consenting to any resulting consequences of said behavior.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and consent can be revoked at any time. Having consensual sex is acknowledging the risk of getting pregnant, nothing more. If she gets pregnant and does not wish to be, she should indeed have the capacity to remedy the situation with both immediacy and effect.

That is to say, dealing with the 'consequences' also includes getting an abortion if one is felt necessary.

So yes, in non rape cases, the mother has consented to having child as an extent of engaging in sex.

Incorrect, as stated above.

okay this one of the problems with these conversations. As an adult you are free to make your own decisions, yes? Well, that also menas you must take responsibility for the consequence of your actions, and newsflash, sexual intercourse makes babies, so if you want to have sex, you better be ready to raise a kid or put it up for adoption. That's what it means to be an adult.

[BigOstan]

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

In all cases except rape, the mother accepted the duty by getting pregnant.

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

Germany for example. The second question is irrelevant, a law is valid even if it was never broken.

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.

Even in the US, spouses have a duty to rescue each other. Don't get me wrong, you have a right to your opinion. But that's clearly not a universally accepted one.

[Neutraligon]

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

In all cases except rape, the mother accepted the duty by getting pregnant.

Looks at women who used contraception and still got pregnant.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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.

They're not irrelevant, really, not if you are indeed allowing yourself to have a dialogue with someone who has a different stance than yours. Something I do often, and no, not on NSG. A conversation need not be charged with emotion. That you think it must be is a bit strange. One can have a conversation with someone else who doesn't necessarily think like us about this very subject without resolving to appeals to emotion. Discussing facts.

[Estanglia]

Um... Yes.



Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and consent can be revoked at any time. Having consensual sex is acknowledging the risk of getting pregnant, nothing more. If she gets pregnant and does not wish to be, she should indeed have the capacity to remedy the situation with both immediacy and effect.

That is to say, dealing with the 'consequences' also includes getting an abortion if one is felt necessary.



Incorrect, as stated above.

okay this one of the problems with these conversations. As an adult you are free to make your own decisions, yes? Well, that also menas you must take responsibility for the consequence of your actions, and newsflash, sexual intercourse makes babies, so if you want to have sex, you better be ready to raise a kid or put it up for adoption. That's what it means to be an adult.

Firstly, the creation of children is not the only reason people have sex.
Secondly, what about people who have used contraceptives?

[Communaccord]

In all cases except rape, the mother accepted the duty by getting pregnant.

Looks at women who used contraception and still got pregnant.

there is always a chance of failure with contraception. The only guaranteed way to have pregnancy free sex I know of is to get your partners tubes tied, or get sterilized.

[Galloism]

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

Imagine this - a guy who is a retired army lieutenant and surgical tech robs a gas station. He, in a moment of panic, shoots the gas station attendant.

Two scenarios -

1) He flees the building and the gas station attendant dies
2) He drops the gun and renders medical assistance, and the gas station attendant lives.

The first is murder. The second is assault with a deadly weapon and/or attempted murder (depending on state).

That's what i mean by creating the scenario.

[BigOstan]

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.

Let me remind you how that went: you gave a number of definitions and each of them failed to include someone who would reasonably be considered a person and has been born. Each time that was pointed out. You kept giving more and more convoluted definitions, until nobody cared to debunk them. At that point I considered it just a bit of harmless trolling on your part, but now you're lying about what happened and that's going a bit too far.

[Petrolheadia]

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.

Let me remind you how that went: you gave a number of definitions and each of them failed to include someone who would reasonably be considered a person and has been born. Each time that was pointed out. You kept giving more and more convoluted definitions, until nobody cared to debunk them. At that point I considered it just a bit of harmless trolling on your part, but now you're lying about what happened and that's going a bit too far.

So who is a person?

If early and mid-stage fetuses have personhood, that makes an unsettling legal precedent of non-conscious cells being persons that could technically make things like shaving or amputations murder.

[Galloism]

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

In all cases except rape, the mother accepted the duty by getting pregnant.

Not really. A person doesn't accept a car accident by getting in one - shit happens.

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

Germany for example. The second question is irrelevant, a law is valid even if it was never broken.

A law never prosecuted isn't a functional law.

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.

Even in the US, spouses have a duty to rescue each other. Don't get me wrong, you have a right to your opinion. But that's clearly not a universally accepted one.

What states do spouses have a duty to rescue each other? Please cite the statute(s).

[Petrolheadia]

In all cases except rape, the mother accepted the duty by getting pregnant.

Not really. A person doesn't accept a car accident by getting in one - shit happens.

The difference between well-done abortions through most of the pregnancy and car accidents is that there can't be deaths of persons in the former.

[Galloism]

Not really. A person doesn't accept a car accident by getting in one - shit happens.

The difference between well-done abortions through most of the pregnancy and car accidents is that there can't be deaths of persons in the former.

What?

[Communaccord]

okay this one of the problems with these conversations. As an adult you are free to make your own decisions, yes? Well, that also menas you must take responsibility for the consequence of your actions, and newsflash, sexual intercourse makes babies, so if you want to have sex, you better be ready to raise a kid or put it up for adoption. That's what it means to be an adult.

Firstly, the creation of children is not the only reason people have sex.
Secondly, what about people who have used contraceptives?

I've already cited how contraceptives greatly reduce, but do not mitigate the chance of pregnancy. As for 'other reasons', get your partner's dang tubes tied if your not ready to raise a kid, or don't have sex at all.

[Petrolheadia]

The difference between well-done abortions through most of the pregnancy and car accidents is that there can't be deaths of persons in the former.

What?

The mother doesn't die, the personnel doesn't and a lump of non-conscious cells is not a person.

[Petrolheadia]

Firstly, the creation of children is not the only reason people have sex.
Secondly, what about people who have used contraceptives?

I've already cited how contraceptives greatly reduce, but do not mitigate the chance of pregnancy. As for 'other reasons', get your partner's dang tubes tied if your not ready to raise a kid, or don't have sex at all.

Or get a fucking abortion.

[Neutraligon]

Firstly, the creation of children is not the only reason people have sex.
Secondly, what about people who have used contraceptives?

I've already cited how contraceptives greatly reduce, but do not mitigate the chance of pregnancy. As for 'other reasons', get your partner's dang tubes tied if your not ready to raise a kid, or don't have sex at all.

And if you can't afford the surgery to get your tubes tied? Or if you want to have children in the future? Or if you do not want to deal with the risks of surgery?

[Scomagia]

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.

Nut that does not mean they like the idea of abortion. SOmeone can truely 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.

There's absolutely nothing about the label pro abortion that actually implies anything about forced abortions. It really doesn't follow.

As for the rest of your post, you're basically quibbling that because the field is nuanced my terms are insufficiently nuanced. And I'd agree with you, there, but the existing terms are even less nuanced than that. If you want more nuance you can qualify pro and anti abortion in all kinds of useful ways. Pro emergency abortion, for instance, tells you exactly what that person wants. You'd have to not understand English to not understand their position.

I'm arguing for better communication and you're arguing the merit of emotionally loaded terms for reasons that I really don't understand. Isn't it better for the labels people apply to themselves to be accurate and illustrative of their actual opinions?

[BigOstan]

In all cases except rape, the mother accepted the duty by getting pregnant.

Looks at women who used contraception and still got pregnant.

How does contraception make it any different? They made the choice to have sex knowing that contraception can fail.

[Petrolheadia]

Looks at women who used contraception and still got pregnant.

How does contraception make it any different? They made the choice to have sex knowing that contraception can fail.

Then we should ban airbags, crumple zones, ABS, ESP, etc., because getting into a car means you know there can be a crash.

[Communaccord]

I've already cited how contraceptives greatly reduce, but do not mitigate the chance of pregnancy. As for 'other reasons', get your partner's dang tubes tied if your not ready to raise a kid, or don't have sex at all.

And if you can't afford the surgery to get your tubes tied? Or if you want to have children in the future? Or if you do not want to deal with the risks of surgery?

Getting tubes tied is actually rather cheap, it's getting them untied that's expensive. And also get this: there's risk with surgery in abortion to (including greater risk in future childbearing depending upon the procedure), so that seems rather selfish to migrate that risk over to women.

[Petrolheadia]

And if you can't afford the surgery to get your tubes tied? Or if you want to have children in the future? Or if you do not want to deal with the risks of surgery?

Getting tubes tied is actually rather cheap, it's getting them untied that's expensive. And also get this: there's risk with surgery in abortion to (including greater risk in future childbearing depending upon the procedure), so that seems rather selfish to migrate that risk over to women.

And getting tubes tied gives around 100% risk in future childbearing.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

And if you can't afford the surgery to get your tubes tied? Or if you want to have children in the future? Or if you do not want to deal with the risks of surgery?

Getting tubes tied is actually rather cheap, it's getting them untied that's expensive. And also get this: there's risk with surgery in abortion to (including greater risk in future childbearing depending upon the procedure), so that seems rather selfish to migrate that risk over to women.

If you follow the doctor's instructions, potential risks after having an abortion are greatly reduced.

[Scomagia]

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.

They're not irrelevant, really, not if you are indeed allowing yourself to have a dialogue with someone who has a different stance than yours. Something I do often, and no, not on NSG. A conversation need not be charged with emotion. That you think it must be is a bit strange. One can have a conversation with someone else who doesn't necessarily think like us about this very subject without resolving to appeals to emotion. Discussing facts.

I think you misunderstood. Pro-choice and pro-life are a big part of what gives the discussion an emotional charge. I'm suggesting using more neutral language specifically because I don't like these kinds of discussions to be emotional.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

They're not irrelevant, really, not if you are indeed allowing yourself to have a dialogue with someone who has a different stance than yours. Something I do often, and no, not on NSG. A conversation need not be charged with emotion. That you think it must be is a bit strange. One can have a conversation with someone else who doesn't necessarily think like us about this very subject without resolving to appeals to emotion. Discussing facts.

I think you misunderstood. Pro-choice and pro-life are a big part of what gives the discussion an emotional charge. I'm suggesting using more neutral language specifically because I don't like these kinds of discussions to be emotional.

Ok, which terms do you think are more appropriate, or rather, more neutral?

[Benuty]

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?"

Honestly, the human element needs to be permanently removed from the question of fertility, and species reproduction entirely. No one should be able to get pregnant, and as such the need for abortion will plummet. The pro-life crowd will bemoan the loss of natural reproduction but celebrate the end to abortion. The pro-choice crowd will probably dislike the fact they no longer have cultural relevance anymore when it comes to reproduction and abortion. Instead, they should for all intents, and purposes refocus their efforts on combatting the rampancy of STD's, and unequal distribution of sexual education.