Is "pro-choice" a misleading term?

[Petrasylvania]

I'm sorry but treating an underdeveloped fetus as a person is ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous to impose its supposed rights over those of a fully grown human.

Especially since once they're born pro-birthers dismiss them as Somebody Else's Problem on top of ranting about the newborn welfare leeches stealing tax money from them.

[Kubrath]

I'm sorry but treating an underdeveloped fetus as a person is ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous to impose its supposed rights over those of a fully grown human.

Especially since once they're born pro-birthers dismiss them as Somebody Else's Problem on top of ranting about the newborn welfare leeches stealing tax money from them.

Exactly. I'll only take a pro-birther seriously if they set up or participate in contributing to a fund for newborns who were abandoned or live in poor families. I also don't think I've seen many of those folks protesting the recent family separations.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

pro-choice is a misleading term because it does not allow input from people who are pro-life.

How the hell did you get that from pro-choice?

I'm getting more and more confused the more I read his argument.

[Petrasylvania]

What on Earth are you talking about?

pro-choice is a misleading term because it does not allow input from people who are pro-life.

The term is Pro Choice. Not Pro Consensus. Individual women get to choose, not a committee of Evangelicals who will stop giving a shit the moment the fetus gets born.

[Katganistan]

Pro-choice = pro-abortion and that's my opinion. I know you guys talk about nobody wants it etc. etc. but the point is, you guys focus on the exceptions rather than the life that you pop.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Nothing comprehensible.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

pro-choice is a misleading term because it does not allow input from people who are pro-life.

The term is Pro Choice. Not Pro Consensus. Individual women get to choose, not a committee of Evangelicals who will stop giving a shit the moment the fetus gets born.

Both myself and Des Bal have addressed why this talking point is not at all meaningful. I suggest you look over it.

[The South Falls]

I would think no. It espouses the point.

Women get to choose.

[North Prarie]

No, not really, actually it's my stance on abortion pretty summed up.

We should avoid killing babies, but if it is needed and/or necessary, then the woman has the right of choice over her body. Bam.

[Estanglia]

How the hell did you get that from pro-choice?

I'm getting more and more confused the more I read his argument.

Same here. I can't tell if he's being serious or not.

[Katganistan]

The term is Pro Choice. Not Pro Consensus. Individual women get to choose, not a committee of Evangelicals who will stop giving a shit the moment the fetus gets born.

Both myself and Des Bal have addressed why this talking point is not at all meaningful. I suggest you look over it.

Read, and dismissed.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Both myself and Des Bal have addressed why this talking point is not at all meaningful. I suggest you look over it.

Read, and dismissed.

So you have no answer to why it's any less hypocritical to support laws against murder without supporting welfare?

Or what of my child support analogies?

Anyone can "dismiss" something. Ability to refute it is a more meaningful metric.

[Quantipapa]

Pro-choice = pro-abortion and that's my opinion. I know you guys talk about nobody wants it etc. etc. but the point is, you guys focus on the exceptions rather than the life that you pop.

What in the butter-spreading fuck are you on about now? We have literally repeatedly refuted your position with logical reasoning and even me having pointed out how claiming we don’t care about ‘lives’ is both unjust and flat wrong.

And then you wing another dollop of crap the very next day, and essentially demonstrate you’ve learned NOTHING.

You do not help your case at all by doing this.

At least you admit that you not caring " about ‘lives’ is both unjust and flat wrong."

[The Free Joy State]

What in the butter-spreading fuck are you on about now? We have literally repeatedly refuted your position with logical reasoning and even me having pointed out how claiming we don’t care about ‘lives’ is both unjust and flat wrong.

And then you wing another dollop of crap the very next day, and essentially demonstrate you’ve learned NOTHING.

You do not help your case at all by doing this.

At least you admit that you not caring " about ‘lives’ is both unjust and flat wrong."

Well done. /s

You failed to help your case once again.

Godular says that it is simply unjust and wrong for you to repeatedly attempt to claim that pro-choicers don't care about lives. You attempt to twist his words, but do it so poorly that anyone can see straight through it for the dreadful attempt at manipulation that it is.

[The New California Republic]

What in the butter-spreading fuck are you on about now? We have literally repeatedly refuted your position with logical reasoning and even me having pointed out how claiming we don’t care about ‘lives’ is both unjust and flat wrong.

At least you admit that you not caring " about ‘lives’ is both unjust and flat wrong."

That isn't what he meant and you know it, stop interpreting things facetiously and then formulating some bullshit "gotcha" nonsense from it. Nobody is taken in by it.

[Godular]

At least you admit that you not caring " about ‘lives’ is both unjust and flat wrong."

Well done. /s

You failed to help your case once again.

Godular says that it is simply unjust and wrong for you to repeatedly attempt to claim that pro-choicers don't care about lives. You attempt to twist his words, but do it so poorly that anyone can see straight through it for the dreadful attempt at manipulation that it is.

Thank you. The only response I could come up with would have gotten me warned for flaming.

Quantipapa: It is exactly as Free Joy stated. I told you that it is wrong and unjust for you to claim that pro-choicers do not ‘care’ about lives, and you CONTINUE TO MAKE THIS CLAIM ANYWAY. Worse, you try and put words in my mouth by twisting those I have spoken. Is your worldview so outlandishly fragile as to require that degree of madness?

Congratulations. You are now foe-gunned.

You are misleading.

You.

[The New California Republic]

Well done. /s

You failed to help your case once again.

Godular says that it is simply unjust and wrong for you to repeatedly attempt to claim that pro-choicers don't care about lives. You attempt to twist his words, but do it so poorly that anyone can see straight through it for the dreadful attempt at manipulation that it is.

Thank you. The only response I could come up with would have gotten me warned for flaming.

Quantipapa: It is exactly as Free Joy stated. I told you that it is wrong and unjust for you to claim that pro-choicers do not ‘care’ about lives, and you CONTINUE TO MAKE THIS CLAIM ANYWAY. Worse, you try and put words in my mouth by twisting those I have spoken. Is your worldview so outlandishly fragile as to require that degree of madness?

Congratulations. You are now foe-gunned.

You are misleading.

You.

Deep breaths. Deep breaths. In. Hold it. And out. In. Hold it. And out.

[The South Falls]

Well, now it's clear you've an attention decifit problem, since you missed the post I actually replied to.

People can do what they want with their bodies.

(implied, and not get judged for it)

And then some say there is no way to find a common ground or to come to an agreement on some matters. Sure, if one side is unable to understand a sentence inside a context, that's may be the case.
I personally believe there is always a way to come to an understanding, so long both sides are honest about their needs. Being able to understand written text should be a given, and not something to even need to question, but sadly reality disagrees.

I had a long day, including about a mile of drumline marching, and my energy was sapped. Calm down. I know you're freaking out, but the fact I missed that post shouldn't be something to get mad over. Take a chill pill.

[Godular]

Thank you. The only response I could come up with would have gotten me warned for flaming.

Quantipapa: It is exactly as Free Joy stated. I told you that it is wrong and unjust for you to claim that pro-choicers do not ‘care’ about lives, and you CONTINUE TO MAKE THIS CLAIM ANYWAY. Worse, you try and put words in my mouth by twisting those I have spoken. Is your worldview so outlandishly fragile as to require that degree of madness?

Congratulations. You are now foe-gunned.

You are misleading.

You.

Deep breaths. Deep breaths. In. Hold it. And out. In. Hold it. And out.

The Foe-gun is sufficient, I think. I know well enough when to back off the high octane.

[Quantipapa]

I guess it means that you don't believe that "not caring about ‘lives’ is both unjust and flat wrong."
That's even more unfortunate, because I (and this is my opinion no matter how much you want to verbally abuse me for it) believe that it is unjust and flat out wrong. All I want is for you people to acknowledge that my view is valid.

[The New California Republic]

I guess it means that you don't believe that "not caring about ‘lives’ is both unjust and flat wrong."
That's even more unfortunate, because I (and this is my opinion no matter how much you want to verbally abuse me for it) believe that it is unjust and flat out wrong. All I want is for you people to acknowledge that my view is valid.

Playing the victim after that little shameless display that you just pulled really isn't going to wash I'm afraid.

[Quantipapa]

I guess it means that you don't believe that "not caring about ‘lives’ is both unjust and flat wrong."
That's even more unfortunate, because I (and this is my opinion no matter how much you want to verbally abuse me for it) believe that it is unjust and flat out wrong. All I want is for you people to acknowledge that my view is valid.

Playing the victim after that little shameless display that you just pulled really isn't going to wash I'm afraid.

I'm not being a victim. I just stated my opinion after clarifying your previous opinion.

[Telconi]

I'm sorry but treating an underdeveloped fetus as a person is ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous to impose its supposed rights over those of a fully grown human.

Especially since once they're born pro-birthers dismiss them as Somebody Else's Problem on top of ranting about the newborn welfare leeches stealing tax money from them.

Blanket statements are against the rules my friend.

[Quantipapa]

Especially since once they're born pro-birthers dismiss them as Somebody Else's Problem on top of ranting about the newborn welfare leeches stealing tax money from them.

Blanket statements are against the rules my friend.

Pro-choicers make blanket statements too but nobody gives them trouble for it, really.

[The New California Republic]

Playing the victim after that little shameless display that you just pulled really isn't going to wash I'm afraid.

I'm not being a victim. I just stated my opinion after clarifying your previous opinion.

Sorry buddy, but you very much were trying to play the victim card, it was extremely misplaced.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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?

Why would people adopt for themselves a label premised on accepting the positions and arguments of their political opponents, people with whom they fundamentally disagree?

Because that way is best!