Is "pro-choice" a misleading term?

[Quantipapa]

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.

I was asked "how may times"
So my response is, "I can't?"

I can. Dude come on.

[Estanglia]

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?

You can, but your opinion in this case is wrong and expect people to point that out.

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

I was asked "how may times"
So my response is, "I can't?"

I can. Dude come on.

NCR's not saying you can't have an opinion. They're saying you should expect people to react to it.

[The New California Republic]

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

I was asked "how may times"
So my response is, "I can't?"

I can. Dude come on.

That...makes no sense...

[Godular]

I'm not allowed to have my own opinion?

You can, but your opinion in this case is wrong and expect people to point that out.

I was asked "how may times"
So my response is, "I can't?"

I can. Dude come on.

NCR's not saying you can't have an opinion. They're saying you should expect people to react to it.

I might also include that an opinion has far more weight to it when it can be reinforced by stuff other than 'you can't make me change it!'

Those kind of comments merely make one sound petulant and immature.

[Katganistan]

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.

Were it actually worthy of getting into, I might. But there are less convoluted, more cogent arguments to get into.

[Katganistan]

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.

Pro choice is Pro CHOICE, not pro death.
I'm sorry that so many people cannot grasp this very simple concept, so I will explain it AGAIN.

Pro-choice means giving the woman, the actual, legal person in this equation, the absolute right to decide what happens to her own body, and to make it impossible for anyone other than her and her physician to make a medical decision for her.

If she wishes to have a baby that her boyfriend/spouse/fuck buddy/parents/grandparents/state/clergy does not want to be responsible for, they cannot FORCE her to have an abortion. Because it is her CHOICE on whether or not to remain pregnant.

At the same time, if a woman does NOT wish to have a baby that her boyfriend/spouse/fuck buddy/parents/grandparents/state/clergy wants her to have, they cannot PREVENT her from having an abortion.

The CHOICE is hers: whether to stay pregnant or not, without interference from other people for whatever their reasons might be.


Honestly, it's not hard to understand unless one is being willfully obtuse.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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.

Not all views are created equal or are valid. It's a very subjective thing. To you, your view is valid, but that doesn't need to be the case for someone else. All you can do is accept that people will disagree and not expect validation from everyone. Validation is not something every view is worthy of.

[Telconi]

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.

Pro choice is Pro CHOICE, not pro death.
I'm sorry that so many people cannot grasp this very simple concept, so I will explain it AGAIN.

Pro-choice means giving the woman, the actual, legal person in this equation, the absolute right to decide what happens to her own body, and to make it impossible for anyone other than her and her physician to make a medical decision for her.

If she wishes to have a baby that her boyfriend/spouse/fuck buddy/parents/grandparents/state/clergy does not want to be responsible for, they cannot FORCE her to have an abortion. Because it is her CHOICE on whether or not to remain pregnant.

At the same time, if a woman does NOT wish to have a baby that her boyfriend/spouse/fuck buddy/parents/grandparents/state/clergy wants her to have, they cannot PREVENT her from having an abortion.

The CHOICE is hers: whether to stay pregnant or not, without interference from other people for whatever their reasons might be.


Honestly, it's not hard to understand unless one is being willfully obtuse.

Choice to do what? Because everyone who supports a choice is 'pro-(absurdly color coded) choice'. And yet we don't call every ducking political position 'pro-choice'.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

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.

Were it actually worthy of getting into, I might. But there are less convoluted, more cogent arguments to get into.

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

[Katganistan]

Were it actually worthy of getting into, I might. But there are less convoluted, more cogent arguments to get into.

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

Repeating yourself doesn't make me any more likely to rehash what I already said about it the first time you and Des Bal posted it.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

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

Repeating yourself doesn't make me any more likely to rehash what I already said about it the first time you and Des Bal posted it.

Seems strange that you didn't link to whatever post you're referring to, then.

Or mention it at all before I repeated myself.

[The Free Joy State]

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.

Also, just to build on your point, NCR, not all pro-choice people have had or will (in their lifetime) have an abortion.

Most pro-choicers believe it should be available as an option, not a routine part of everyone's life experience.

[Albrenia]

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

Also, just to build on your point, NCR, not all pro-choice people have had or will (in their lifetime) have an abortion.

Most pro-choicers believe it should be available as an option, not a routine part of everyone's life experience.

I imagine for many (including myself, were I female) it would be only in very serious circumstances.

[Neutraligon]

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

Also, just to build on your point, NCR, not all pro-choice people have had or will (in their lifetime) have an abortion.

Most pro-choicers believe it should be available as an option, not a routine part of everyone's life experience.

Also...sadly enough there are many pro-lifers who have abortions, they just see their own circumstance as the exception.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Also, just to build on your point, NCR, not all pro-choice people have had or will (in their lifetime) have an abortion.

Most pro-choicers believe it should be available as an option, not a routine part of everyone's life experience.

Also...sadly enough there are many pro-lifers who have abortions, they just see their own circumstance as the exception.

Discredits them, sure, but also discredits those who make it out to be about "jealousy at not getting laid" or whatever.

[Fahran]

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.

This is a point I attempted to make earlier. When does the fetus become a stakeholder in your view?

[Quantipapa]

I'm still trying to refine it. Instead of pro-choice, how about pro-free. Free from the constraints of what everyone tells you to do with your body.

[The Free Joy State]

I'm still trying to refine it. Instead of pro-choice, how about pro-free. Free from the constraints of what everyone tells you to do with your body.

Why is this actually better than "pro-choice"? Is this not, actually, even more emotive and less descriptive than the comparatively neutral "pro-choice" (which merely describes pro-choice activists' priority -- the woman's choice)?

Does renaming the "pro-choice" (the position in favour of allowing women to seek safe and legal abortions if they choose them) not simultaneously imply that "pro-life" is "pro-slavery", i.e. pro forcing women to do what everyone else tells them to do with their body (this, for the record, is absolutely not my argument -- I'm merely pointing out the inevitable dichotomy that ensues by renaming "pro-choice" the, IMO, hugely inferior "pro-free")

[Dogmeat]

I'm still trying to refine it. Instead of pro-choice, how about pro-free. Free from the constraints of what everyone tells you to do with your body.

How is that in any way better?

[New haven america]

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)

No no no.

Pro-choice mean pro-choice, which means giving people the choice of what happens to their body.

[Katganistan]

I'm still trying to refine it. Instead of pro-choice, how about pro-free. Free from the constraints of what everyone tells you to do with your body.

Because that there is some stupid Orwellian descriptor. What next, pro-unfree?

[The New California Republic]

I'm still trying to refine it. Instead of pro-choice, how about pro-free. Free from the constraints of what everyone tells you to do with your body.

"Pro-free" just sounds like nonsense. I mean, it could easily be an economic/political argument for fuck's sake, so how is that any better? Pro-choice, on the other hand, at least has some connotations with being able to choose, whereas "free" is one of those terms that can mean a whole variety of different things depending on context.

[Quantipapa]

Pro free to not keep my baby of I choose not to.

[Quantipapa]

I'm still trying to refine it. Instead of pro-choice, how about pro-free. Free from the constraints of what everyone tells you to do with your body.

"Pro-free" just sounds like nonsense. I mean, it could easily be an economic/political argument for fuck's sake, so how is that any better? Pro-choice, on the other hand, at least has some connotations with being able to choose, whereas "free" is one of those terms that can mean a whole variety of different things depending on context.

So does the word choice.

[The Free Joy State]

Pro free to not keep my baby of I choose not to.

You've still got the word "choose" in there.

So, why does "pro-choice" not cover it in a more streamlined way? You're yet to explain why this is an actual improvement on the well understood "pro-choice". Also, (if you are actually pushing for this) please provide the new designation you'd give -- for the sake of parity -- for "pro-life" (which is arguably misleading when someone supports the death penalty and is opposed to welfare and health reforms).

Or are you searching for a new word for "pro-choice" for the hell of it now -- not because "pro-choice" is unclear or misleading at all?