Is "pro-choice" a misleading term?

[Cekoviu]

I mean, it's pretty vague, but I don't think it's dishonest.

[Scomagia]

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?

Pro and anti abortion with the relevant qualifiers added to express the nuance of the given individual's position.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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

Pro and anti abortion with the relevant qualifiers added to express the nuance of the given individual's position.

Wouldn't that make communication a bit more complicated? And not for expressing nuance, but length?

[Scomagia]

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.

Fuck the incredible depth of experience and meaning that pregnancy can give women, right?

[Cekoviu]

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

Pro and anti abortion with the relevant qualifiers added to express the nuance of the given individual's position.

This implies that pro-choice people are actually pro-abortion, though, which isn't true in most cases (we're pro-the right to abort, not crazed fetus murderers).

[Lost Memories]

New ideas for labels:

Pro Child's Life

Pro Single's Freedom


Though, all the pro-choice variations which focus on the mothers feel to be missing the point, since the center of the opposition and disagreement is on the child status as a person.
The moment both sides will be able to agree on when the personhood starts, all this emotive two camp split and its related debate will be over.

[Petrolheadia]

New ideas for labels:

Pro Child's Life

Pro Single's Freedom


Though, all the pro-choice variations which focus on the mothers feel to be missing the point, since the center of the opposition and disagreement is on the child status as a person.
The moment both sides will be able to agree on when the personhood starts, all this emotive two camp split and its related debate will be over.

This implies the fetus can be considered a child.

[Lost Memories]

This implies the fetus can be considered a child.

Hello. Yes, that is the point of opposition, over which all this debate is based on. Solve that (in a way anyone can agree with) and you have solved the debate.

Though, this isn't the place for this, do that in the already existing abortion thread, plz.

[Scomagia]

Pro and anti abortion with the relevant qualifiers added to express the nuance of the given individual's position.

Wouldn't that make communication a bit more complicated? And not for expressing nuance, but length?

It may be more complicated but only because the existing terms are relatively trite and simplistic by comparison. An issue with the depth of abortion does not need simplistic labels, it needs complex ones that are illustrative of your actual thoughts.

[Benuty]

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.

Fuck the incredible depth of experience and meaning that pregnancy can give women, right?

Their experience is irrelevant to avoiding a situation where humanity chimps out and starts sacrificing people to bloodthirsty gods begging for fertility to come back. Of course, a classic style of fundamentalism could just as easily seize power on the promises of focusing on fertility rates.

The greatest good is for humanity to be disconnected from the process entirely, and have it managed by a neutral party ensuring the species survives.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Wouldn't that make communication a bit more complicated? And not for expressing nuance, but length?

It may be more complicated but only because the existing terms are relatively trite and simplistic by comparison. An issue with the depth of abortion does not need simplistic labels, it needs complex ones that are illustrative of your actual thoughts.

I don't know. I think that the terms we have are ok all things considered. If you want more depth about why X or Y person thinks a certain way, all you have to do is ask for further clarification. I get that not everyone will humor you and engage, but many will and then you'll find out why they think in a particularly fashion. My two cents.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

chimps out

Anyone else notice this?

[Scomagia]

Pro and anti abortion with the relevant qualifiers added to express the nuance of the given individual's position.

This implies that pro-choice people are actually pro-abortion, though, which isn't true in most cases (we're pro-the right to abort, not crazed fetus murderers).

Which is why you would qualify pro abortion with "legal" or "legalization" so it come out as "pro legal abortion" or "pro abortion legalization". Pro and anti abortion with the relevant qualifiers added allows you to express your opinion in an emotionally neutral way that also allows for individual nuance. Pro-choice and pro-life are not so easily malleable, even with qualifiers.

[Scomagia]

It may be more complicated but only because the existing terms are relatively trite and simplistic by comparison. An issue with the depth of abortion does not need simplistic labels, it needs complex ones that are illustrative of your actual thoughts.

I don't know. I think that the terms we have are ok all things considered. If you want more depth about why X or Y person thinks a certain way, all you have to do is ask for further clarification. I get that not everyone will humor you and engage, but many will and then you'll find out why they think in a particularly fashion. My two cents.

I think the labels I suggested make it clear what you believe from the jump, is all. Pro-choice and pro-life load the conversation with emotion without even being all that expressive of what people really believe.

[Scomagia]

Fuck the incredible depth of experience and meaning that pregnancy can give women, right?

Their experience is irrelevant to avoiding a situation where humanity chimps out and starts sacrificing people to bloodthirsty gods begging for fertility to come back. Of course, a classic style of fundamentalism could just as easily seize power on the promises of focusing on fertility rates.

The greatest good is for humanity to be disconnected from the process entirely, and have it managed by a neutral party ensuring the species survives.

You presuppose that we can be removed from reproduction without serious adverse effects on our sense of meaning and purpose. Pure, grade-A futuristic bullshit.

[Benuty]

chimps out

Anyone else notice this?

It's a pretty accurate description to a fallen humanity acting out a Lovecraftian style holocaust trying to save itself. That said the neutral party will have to be artificial intelligence since I think the late Stephen Hawking was a bit too pessimistic towards AI. It certainly would go a long way in improving their status with the communion of life, and ultimately their empathy as well.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I don't know. I think that the terms we have are ok all things considered. If you want more depth about why X or Y person thinks a certain way, all you have to do is ask for further clarification. I get that not everyone will humor you and engage, but many will and then you'll find out why they think in a particularly fashion. My two cents.

I think the labels I suggested make it clear what you believe from the jump, is all. Pro-choice and pro-life load the conversation with emotion without even being all that expressive of what people really believe.

The issue then is not entirely about language but how certain people react to it. In which case, the problem is not changing the language but rather teaching people not have knee-jerk reactions to the language.

If you tell me you're ''pro-choice'', instead of calling you a murderer, I will ask you why are you pro-choice. If you tell me you're ''pro-life'', instead of calling you anti-choice, I will ask you why you're pro-life.

I'm not against your position, BTW. I just think that instead of changing language, what we need to do is change how we react to it in this instance. We should not make assumptions without first talking to the person.

[Lost Memories]

Scomagia is giving me ideas.

Pro abortion only for medical reasons. (PL)

Pro abortion on deregulated request. (PC)

[The Black Forrest]

Anyone else notice this?

It's a pretty accurate description to a fallen humanity acting out a Lovecraftian style holocaust trying to save itself. That said the neutral party will have to be artificial intelligence since I think the late Stephen Hawking was a bit too pessimistic towards AI. It certainly would go a long way in improving their status with the communion of life, and ultimately their empathy as well.

Lovecraftian? Ok bit of a stretch but hey whatever floats your boat.

Hawkings views on AI were more of statement about humanity and what they would use it for....

[Petrolheadia]

Scomagia is giving me ideas.

Pro abortion only for medical reasons. (PL)

Pro abortion on deregulated request. (PC)

That's going into "Non-religious Winter Holiday" territory.

[The Black Forrest]

I think the labels I suggested make it clear what you believe from the jump, is all. Pro-choice and pro-life load the conversation with emotion without even being all that expressive of what people really believe.

The issue then is not entirely about language but how certain people react to it. In which case, the problem is not changing the language but rather teaching people not have knee-jerk reactions to the language.

If you tell me you're ''pro-choice'', instead of calling you a murderer, I will ask you why are you pro-choice. If you tell me you're ''pro-life'', instead of calling you anti-choice, I will ask you why you're pro-life.

I'm not against your position, BTW. I just think that instead of changing language, what we need to do is change how we react to it in this instance. We should not make assumptions without first talking to the person.

But Nana; it's easier to denigrate people!

[Scomagia]

I think the labels I suggested make it clear what you believe from the jump, is all. Pro-choice and pro-life load the conversation with emotion without even being all that expressive of what people really believe.

The issue then is not entirely about language but how certain people react to it. In which case, the problem is not changing the language but rather teaching people not have knee-jerk reactions to the language.

If you tell me you're ''pro-choice'', instead of calling you a murderer, I will ask you why are you pro-choice. If you tell me you're ''pro-life'', instead of calling you anti-choice, I will ask you why you're pro-life.

I'm not against your position, BTW. I just think that instead of changing language, what we need to do is change how we react to it in this instance. We should not make assumptions without first talking to the person.

I'm picking up what you're putting down, Nana. People really shouldn't assume each others opinions or reasons for having them. Better language could help with that but so could just being reasonable .

[Benuty]

It's a pretty accurate description to a fallen humanity acting out a Lovecraftian style holocaust trying to save itself. That said the neutral party will have to be artificial intelligence since I think the late Stephen Hawking was a bit too pessimistic towards AI. It certainly would go a long way in improving their status with the communion of life, and ultimately their empathy as well.

Lovecraftian? Ok bit of a stretch but hey whatever floats your boat.

Hawking's views on AI were more of a statement about humanity and what they would use it for....

Well, Lovecraftian more in the sense of people embracing a sort of mass "hate plague", and raging around the earth like a plane smashing into a terminal at the speed of an apocalyptic arrow of wrath. Not so much the dreadful insignificance of a coming cosmic horror or fear of race mixing, but either way the descriptor works. It reminds me a bit of Cthulhu (2007) where people just gave in to the hate and started killing, and got mad as the end was coming. There was one scene where a soccer mom was running around with a UZI on a highway gunning people down as the deep ones started to emerge. On the matter of AI, and Hawking sure I do worry it will be used for war, and frankly, I don't want it used for war since that is such a limited potential.

I would rather it be used to help humans, and at the same time, we help it grow in more than just knowledge. Call me a bit of a pained optimist when it comes with AI, but I am the kind of person to think "what would robots do at a Catholic communion?". I can imagine robots giving inspirational speeches to their fellows down in the dumps, and etc.

[Lost Memories]

Pro strict abortion (PL)

Pro liberal abortion (PC)

This pair makes me wonder if some of the debaters usually just pick a side based on that dumb conservative-liberal american split, while overlooking the "why" being strict or "why" being loose with the application of a medical measure can be good or bad.
The pro-choice and pro-life camps being already politically charged sure doesn't help either to solve the polarization they have.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

The issue then is not entirely about language but how certain people react to it. In which case, the problem is not changing the language but rather teaching people not have knee-jerk reactions to the language.

If you tell me you're ''pro-choice'', instead of calling you a murderer, I will ask you why are you pro-choice. If you tell me you're ''pro-life'', instead of calling you anti-choice, I will ask you why you're pro-life.

I'm not against your position, BTW. I just think that instead of changing language, what we need to do is change how we react to it in this instance. We should not make assumptions without first talking to the person.

I'm picking up what you're putting down, Nana. People really shouldn't assume each others opinions or reasons for having them. Better language could help with that but so could just being reasonable .

In which case, yes, it would be easier to change language.