Is "pro-choice" a misleading term?

[Dogmeat]

Because they're not the same thing. Pro-choice people are generally in favor of people living, and so cannot be fairly described as anti-life. If you're pro-live, then you genuinely don't think people should have a choice, and so can be fairly described as anti-choice.

EDIT: not that most people do describe pro-life people as anti-choice. You seem to be getting very worked up about semantics.

In fairness I got worked up because some dude above said exactly that - anti-choice. But none of you called him out on it. Double standards.

I literally just described how it is not.

[Telconi]

Dehumanizing the enemy, an old tactic.But why? How can this infant h\rt you?

It's not dehumanisation, it's pointing out the truth-the fetus isn't conscious when most abortions occur and it has no way of communicating consent if it even was.

>Unconcious
>Unable of communicating rather it does or does not wish to consent
>Therefore totally cool.to do with it as you wish.

Holy date rape Batman...

[The New California Republic]

Is carnally knowing a baby not non-consensual? A baby is incapable of giving consent. Non-consensual is defined as 'not agreed to by one or more of the people involved'. They are not mutually exclusive terms.

Except in that case there are laws involved. And it has already been established that the fetus isn't a person, so consent doesn't apply.

[Telconi]

Is carnally knowing a baby not non-consensual? A baby is incapable of giving consent. Non-consensual is defined as 'not agreed to by one or more of the people involved'. They are not mutually exclusive terms.

Except in that case there are laws involved. And it has already been established that the fetus isn't a person, so consent doesn't apply.

Legal self justification is my favorite.

[The New California Republic]

Except in that case there are laws involved. And it has already been established that the fetus isn't a person, so consent doesn't apply.

Legal self justification is my favorite.

Cool.

[Estanglia]

It's not dehumanisation, it's pointing out the truth-the fetus isn't conscious when most abortions occur and it has no way of communicating consent if it even was.

>Unconcious
>Unable of communicating rather it does or does not wish to consent
>Therefore totally cool.to do with it as you wish.

Holy date rape Batman...

You do understand the difference between an adult woman and a fetus? Perhaps I should've specified in my post: An adult woman has been conscious, is fully developed and has a personal, subjective view of the world, a fetus is none of those three.

[Telconi]

>Unconcious
>Unable of communicating rather it does or does not wish to consent
>Therefore totally cool.to do with it as you wish.

Holy date rape Batman...

You do understand the difference between an adult woman and a fetus? Perhaps I should've specified in my post: An adult woman has been conscious, is fully developed and has a personal, subjective view of the world, a fetus is none of those three.

Yes.

Are any of these relevant to the issue of consent?

[The New California Republic]

You do understand the difference between an adult woman and a fetus? Perhaps I should've specified in my post: An adult woman has been conscious, is fully developed and has a personal, subjective view of the world, a fetus is none of those three.

Yes.

Are any of these relevant to the issue of consent?

Is consciousness and an ability to experience the world subjectively relevant as far as being able to give consent is concerned? Hmm. Let me think...

[Telconi]

Yes.

Are any of these relevant to the issue of consent?

Is consciousness and an ability to experience the world subjectively relevant as far as being able to give consent is concerned? Hmm. Let me think...

Don't hurt yourself.

[The New California Republic]

Is consciousness and an ability to experience the world subjectively relevant as far as being able to give consent is concerned? Hmm. Let me think...

Don't hurt yourself.

What?

[Estanglia]

You do understand the difference between an adult woman and a fetus? Perhaps I should've specified in my post: An adult woman has been conscious, is fully developed and has a personal, subjective view of the world, a fetus is none of those three.

Yes.

Are any of these relevant to the issue of consent?

Well, the ability to subjectively understand the world is important.
Another big thing is the ability to give consent, which is something a fetus can't do.

[Petrasylvania]

Don't hurt yourself.

What?

He said you're so stupid thinking causes you injury.

[Telconi]

What?

He said you're so stupid thinking causes you injury.

No, that'd be you who said that. Please don't build straw men with my face on them.

[The New California Republic]

What?

He said you're so stupid thinking causes you injury.

Well if that is the only sorely misplaced comeback that he has, then I guess I win that debate by default.

[The South Falls]

He said you're so stupid thinking causes you injury.

No, that'd be you who said that. Please don't build straw men with my face on them.

Explain what you meant then.

[The New California Republic]

No, that'd be you who said that. Please don't build straw men with my face on them.

Explain what you meant then.

He was just trying to wind me up, just ignore him.

[Quantipapa]

Pro choice people do the following:
1. Hide behind the legal definition of a foetus to imply that a baby is a non human
2. Make the case that the non human cannot choose anything therefore is of less value than the woman carrying him/her
3. Ignore that animals give no consent for anything, yet have laws protecting them (oh but animals have conscience and are aware, and they don't live in a weekend womb - oh how convenient).
4. Refuse to admit that the woman who consensually has sex need to realise that she is responsible for her actions and cannot murder a human as a solution for her unintended consequence.
5. Then insult everyone who disagrees with them.

[Quantipapa]

6. Come up with pointless attempts to debunk what I say above.

[The South Falls]

Pro choice people do the following:
1. Hide behind the legal definition of a foetus to imply that a baby is a non human
2. Make the case that the non human cannot choose anything therefore is of less value than the woman carrying him/her
3. Ignore that animals give no consent for anything, yet have laws protecting them (oh but animals have conscience and are aware, and they don't live in a weekend womb - oh how convenient).
4. Refuse to admit that the woman who consensually has sex need to realise that she is responsible for her actions and cannot murder a human as a solution for her unintended consequence.
5. Then insult everyone who disagrees with them.

1. No we don't. We use logic like y'all do.
2. It cannot give consent or anything.
3. Animals don't cause harm to humans, at least not harm that can't be avoided.
4. "Let's punish the woman for wanting to have sex! That'll teach them to be god-fearing!
5. Nope.

[The South Falls]

6. Come up with pointless attempts to debunk what I say above.

6. You're doing all the things you complained about in point 5.

7. You cannot controvert what I say. MY WILL IS GOLD.

[The New California Republic]

Pro choice people do the following:
1. Hide behind the legal definition of a foetus to imply that a baby is a non human

Nope. They aren't legally a person. That is entirely different from saying that they are not human. Nobody has claimed the latter.

2. Make the case that the non human cannot choose anything therefore is of less value than the woman carrying him/her

Nobody said that. Someone brought up the ridiculous point that the fetus should have a choice. A fetus is both incapable of choosing and incapable of communicating any choice.

3. Ignore that animals give no consent for anything, yet have laws protecting them (oh but animals have conscience and are aware, and they don't live in a weekend womb - oh how convenient).

So? The ability to consent and applicable laws are two separate things. And a very bad example, considering we kill animals all the time...

Also, "weekend womb"?? What the actual fuck?

4. Refuse to admit that the woman who consensually has sex need to realise that she is responsible for her actions and cannot murder a human as a solution for her unintended consequence.

Consent to have sex is not consent to get or remain pregnant.

5. Then insult everyone who disagrees with them.

Insults? Where?

6. Come up with pointless attempts to debunk what I say above.

Pointless? Hardly. I just blew the invalid points that you made clean out of the water.

[The South Falls]

Pro choice people do the following:
1. Hide behind the legal definition of a foetus to imply that a baby is a non human

Nope. They aren't legally a person. That is entirely different from saying that they are not human. Nobody has claimed the latter.

2. Make the case that the non human cannot choose anything therefore is of less value than the woman carrying him/her

Nobody said that. Someone brought up the ridiculous point that the fetus should have a choice. A fetus is both incapable of choosing and incapable of communicating any choice.

3. Ignore that animals give no consent for anything, yet have laws protecting them (oh but animals have conscience and are aware, and they don't live in a weekend womb - oh how convenient).

So? The ability to consent and applicable laws are two separate things. And a very bad example, considering we kill animals all the time...

Also, "weekend womb"?? What the actual fuck?

4. Refuse to admit that the woman who consensually has sex need to realise that she is responsible for her actions and cannot murder a human as a solution for her unintended consequence.

Consent to have sex is not consent to get or remain pregnant.

5. Then insult everyone who disagrees with them.

Insults? Where?

6. Come up with pointless attempts to debunk what I say above.

Pointless? Hardly. I just blew the invalid points that you made clean out of the water.

You remember his word is gold, right?

[The New California Republic]

You remember his word is gold, right?

Fuck. I forgot that he raised his impenetrable Anti-Criticism Shield™

[Estanglia]

Pro choice people do the following:
1. Hide behind the legal definition of a foetus to imply that a baby is a non human

Not off to a good start are ya? We haven't denied they are human, we've denied they're people. Sort of a difference.

2. Make the case that the non human cannot choose anything therefore is of less value than the woman carrying him/her

For those that believe that the fetus is less valuable, It's that the fetus is insensate, incapable of consciousness and physically dependent on the mother. If the mother dies or is harmed by a lack of an option to abort, a life, a person has been damaged or destroyed. A fetus not only, at the time of most abortions occurring, can't feel any pain, it hasn't had a life experience.
Some of us don't believe that, and value both equally (E.g Godular's argument).

3. Ignore that animals give no consent for anything, yet have laws protecting them (oh but animals have conscience and are aware, and they don't live in a weekend womb - oh how convenient).

Ironically, you've just provided the debunking argument here: the animals are conscious, independent lifeforms with the capability to feel pain. Hence the protections. Fetuses at the time of most abortions aren't.

4. Refuse to admit that the woman who consensually has sex need to realise that she is responsible for her actions and cannot murder a human as a solution for her unintended consequence.

She is taking responsibility for her actions: she's just doing it in a way you don't like.
She could've also been consenting to protected sex. What then?

5. Then insult everyone who disagrees with them.

Guess what? IIRC, Only one of us have came close to insulting you. That's hardly representative.
It also seems somewhat ironic that you smear us at the same time as complaining about being smeared.

6. Come up with pointless attempts to debunk what I say above.

So, debunking your falsehoods is pointless? Still gonna try.
Also seems Ironic you complain about people being rude then treat our responses to you as pointless.

[Petrasylvania]

Anyone who wants to ban abortion really ought to show consistency and refuse treatment for cancer.