Is "pro-choice" a misleading term?

[The New California Republic]

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.

Report it then, rather than (quite ironically actually, considering another rule I know of...) attempt to use it as a weapon against him in the thread.

[Telconi]

Blanket statements are against the rules my friend.

Report it then, rather than (quite ironically actually, considering another rule I know of...) attempt to use it as a weapon against him in the thread.

Huh, must have missed the part where a friendly reminder is a weapon.

[Godular]

Report it then, rather than (quite ironically actually, considering another rule I know of...) attempt to use it as a weapon against him in the thread.

Huh, must have missed the part where a friendly reminder is a weapon.

Or the part where you edited out the trollnaming. Mayhap avoid being so quick to post a zinger.

That being said, would you like to contribute to the topic at hand?

[The New California Republic]

Report it then, rather than (quite ironically actually, considering another rule I know of...) attempt to use it as a weapon against him in the thread.

Huh, must have missed the part where a friendly reminder is a weapon.

Sorry, that just won't wash I'm afraid, I actually saw what you wrote before you edited it.

[Telconi]

Huh, must have missed the part where a friendly reminder is a weapon.

Or the part where you edited out the trollnaming. Mayhap avoid being so quick to post a zinger.

That being said, would you like to contribute to the topic at hand?

Pretty sure I didn't miss my own edit. thanks for checking.

I've already said pretty much all I have to say on the subject, my opinion on the label hasn't changed since then.

[The Serbian Empire]

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?"

They are both named to look like the “Morally righteous view”, as is the case with most political terms

While if you look at them from the opposite view point, they really mean pro-death (pro-choice) and anti-choice (pro-life). Either way, the opponents of either opposite view end up looking at the other side with extreme disdain.

[Estanglia]

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."

Taking quotes out of context? Nice.

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.

And acting like the victim. Even better.

All I want is for you people to acknowledge that my view is valid.

FYI, you'd have an easier time getting us to do that if you didn't misrepresent us, take what we say out of context and repeat lies ad infinitum.

Blanket statements are against the rules my friend.

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

Another one of these? I think this is the second time you've accused pro-choicers of doing something only you have done in this thread. Our only 'blanket statement' (if you could even call it that)-where we pointed out that pro-choice and pro-life accurately describe what the person prioritises (the mother's choice, or the fetus's life respectively)-was accurate, yours on the other hand...

[Quantipapa]

I think pro-life is a misleading term because it's actually better than that. It's technically pro-birth. I say this because my problem with pro-lifers is that they make so many claims about the sanctity of life in the womb, but are so judgmental and shitty about people outside the womb it's downright hypocritical.

I'm able to criticize the people in my own camp.

[The New California Republic]

I'm able to criticize the people in my own camp.

That doesn't really prove anything.

[The South Falls]

I'm able to criticize the people in my own camp.

That doesn't really prove anything.

You can criticize a movement, but it means jackshit if you espouse those ideas.

[Quantipapa]

I'm able to criticize the people in my own camp.

That doesn't really prove anything.

as usual, picking on the unimportant part without actually being productive.

[Godular]

Y'know, I'm just going to post an ever so slight alteration to the comment that you got into trouble over, just in case it really was the absence of that one word that caused the maddening result.

We have literally repeatedly refuted your position with logical reasoning and even me having pointed out how >YOU< claiming we don’t care about ‘lives’ is both unjust and flat wrong.

That highly emphasized word there might not have been physically present the first time, but it was rather specifically still there. Why is this? Because YOU were the only one claiming that we do not 'care about lives'. YOU were the only one doing that. Nobody here has admitted to it, nor will they ever do so, because that claim (which YOU made) is an outright falsehood that does not even deserve further mention.

Mayhap this clarifies things. Mayhap it will not. If it does not: the problem is with you, not with us.

[Quantipapa]

Y'know, I'm just going to post an ever so slight alteration to the comment that you got into trouble over, just in case it really was the absence of that one word that caused the maddening result.

We have literally repeatedly refuted your position with logical reasoning and even me having pointed out how >YOU< claiming we don’t care about ‘lives’ is both unjust and flat wrong.

That highly emphasized word there might not have been physically present the first time, but it was rather specifically still there. Why is this? Because YOU were the only one claiming that we do not 'care about lives'. YOU were the only one doing that. Nobody here has admitted to it, nor will they ever do so, because that claim (which YOU made) is an outright falsehood that does not even deserve further mention.

Mayhap this clarifies things. Mayhap it will not. If it does not: the problem is with you, not with us.

Action (killing baby) speaks louder than words (we care about lives). Exceptions applied.

[Godular]

Action (killing baby) speaks louder than words (we care about lives). Exceptions applied.

Fundamentally and monumentally incorrect.

[The South Falls]

Y'know, I'm just going to post an ever so slight alteration to the comment that you got into trouble over, just in case it really was the absence of that one word that caused the maddening result.



That highly emphasized word there might not have been physically present the first time, but it was rather specifically still there. Why is this? Because YOU were the only one claiming that we do not 'care about lives'. YOU were the only one doing that. Nobody here has admitted to it, nor will they ever do so, because that claim (which YOU made) is an outright falsehood that does not even deserve further mention.

Mayhap this clarifies things. Mayhap it will not. If it does not: the problem is with you, not with us.

Action (killing baby) speaks louder than words (we care about lives). Exceptions applied.

We care about the mother's life. The mom has sovereignty.

[Quantipapa]

Action (killing baby) speaks louder than words (we care about lives). Exceptions applied.

We care about the mother's life. The mom has sovereignty.

Fundamentally and monumentally incorrect.

[The New California Republic]

Fundamentally and monumentally incorrect.

We care about the mother's life. The mom has sovereignty.

Fundamentally and monumentally incorrect.

Is there a reason that you are just snidely copying what other people have said? You have already done the exact same thing to me earlier.

[The New California Republic]

That doesn't really prove anything.

as usual, picking on the unimportant part without actually being productive.

I just cut out the guff.

[Estanglia]

Y'know, I'm just going to post an ever so slight alteration to the comment that you got into trouble over, just in case it really was the absence of that one word that caused the maddening result.



That highly emphasized word there might not have been physically present the first time, but it was rather specifically still there. Why is this? Because YOU were the only one claiming that we do not 'care about lives'. YOU were the only one doing that. Nobody here has admitted to it, nor will they ever do so, because that claim (which YOU made) is an outright falsehood that does not even deserve further mention.

Mayhap this clarifies things. Mayhap it will not. If it does not: the problem is with you, not with us.

Action (killing baby) speaks louder than words (we care about lives). Exceptions applied.

Really? I don't even want to get into how dumb this is. But I will because why not.
Firstly, individually not all pro-choicers have done abortions.
Secondly, in group terms it still fails as pro-choicers as a general rule do not like, or agree with, abortion. We, as a general rule, find the action wrong or evil, or at the very least a morally neutral act, so saying we're pro-killing babies is a lie, especially when you've been told over and over again that supporting somebody's right to do an action doesn't mean you support that action.
Thirdly, you're using your terms wrong. It's a fetus, not a baby.
Fourth, how many times are you still gonna act like pro-choices love killing the fetus?

[Estanglia]

We care about the mother's life. The mom has sovereignty.

Fundamentally and monumentally incorrect.

Nice tactic, copying someone else's words.

[Page]

I'll restate my opinion from past abortion discussions on NS that abortion (at least within the first two trimesters) is not morally justified but rather morally neutral. As a fetus until the late stage of development does not have sentience, sapience, thoughts, feelings, or even sensory perception. I think the pro-choice argument of "the bodily sovereignty of the mother overrides the right of the fetus to live" is detrimental, because it essentially concedes to the anti-abortion side that the fetus is a stakeholder, which it is not.

Something that does not have subjective experience has no stake in the matter.

[The New California Republic]

Action (killing baby) speaks louder than words (we care about lives).

I hate to break it to you: not all pro-choice people perform abortions.

[Quantipapa]

Action (killing baby) speaks louder than words (we care about lives). Exceptions applied.

Really? I don't even want to get into how dumb this is. But I will because why not.
Firstly, individually not all pro-choicers have done abortions.
Secondly, in group terms it still fails as pro-choicers as a general rule do not like, or agree with, abortion. We, as a general rule, find the action wrong or evil, or at the very least a morally neutral act, so saying we're pro-killing babies is a lie, especially when you've been told over and over again that supporting somebody's right to do an action doesn't mean you support that action.
Thirdly, you're using your terms wrong. It's a fetus, not a baby.
Fourth, how many times are you still gonna act like pro-choices love killing the fetus?

I'm not allowed to have my own opinion?

[The New California Republic]

Really? I don't even want to get into how dumb this is. But I will because why not.
Firstly, individually not all pro-choicers have done abortions.
Secondly, in group terms it still fails as pro-choicers as a general rule do not like, or agree with, abortion. We, as a general rule, find the action wrong or evil, or at the very least a morally neutral act, so saying we're pro-killing babies is a lie, especially when you've been told over and over again that supporting somebody's right to do an action doesn't mean you support that action.
Thirdly, you're using your terms wrong. It's a fetus, not a baby.
Fourth, how many times are you still gonna act like pro-choices love killing the fetus?

I'm not allowed to have my own opinion?

Stop playing the victim card. If you put forward an opinion, you have to expect people to react to it.

[The South Falls]

We care about the mother's life. The mom has sovereignty.

Fundamentally and monumentally incorrect.

Wrong guy.