Is "pro-choice" a misleading term?

[Crockerland]

It's not murder if your human rights are delayed. /s

Shame that abortion isn't defined as murder, isn't it?

The legal system says OJ Simpson did not commit murder, so it must be true

[Holy Tedalonia]

Moreso kill. I have not yet seen a law saying machinery can't kill.

Murder is the illegal form of killing, so it is moreso likely that it would be killing.

You can't kill something with no conscience, unless you think scrapyard workers are mass-murderers.

And fetuses don't have it until about 24th week.

Did you read my text, I said kill not murder.

I'm assuming you consider euthanasia, and the killing of those who are in deep coma's and etc completely ok.

[The New California Republic]

Shame that abortion isn't defined as murder, isn't it?

The legal system says OJ Simpson did not commit murder, so it must be true

Yup, because those two things are equivalent and comparable.

[The Galactic Liberal Democracy]

They're both just very ambiguous terms to simplify political debate, so yes it is misleading

Yes, they are both very misleading. Pro choice sounds very vague even though it applies to one specific topic, while pro-life is just plain stupid, as only abortions late into pregnancy kill infants. By using these terms, you are suggesting Hitler is pro life and people who let children starve and not have access to healthcare because of their parents financial status are too. Pro choice sounds like an extremely libertarian concept where the government doesn't intervene in the decisions of others, when it only applies to one topic that people argue about disproportionately. The really should be called pro-birthrate and pro-abortion.

[Petrolheadia]

You can't kill something with no conscience, unless you think scrapyard workers are mass-murderers.

And fetuses don't have it until about 24th week.

Did you read my text, I said kill not murder.

I'm assuming you consider euthanasia, and the killing of those who are in deep coma's and etc completely ok.

These folks have the capacity to be conscious, and likely are.

As for euthanasia, situations can be extreme.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Yeah, the latter's always struck me as a more meaningful argument.

Who gets to say where "body" ends and "everything else" begins? If you are physically required to show up, in person, for jury duty, are they "using your body" too?

Pro-choice doesn't even begin to describe EITHER of these philosophies being expressed anyway, let alone criticisms thereof. Its use discredits everyone who has ever used it.

When you go for jury duty, are you hooked up to the judge so that s/he can use your blood? Does the judge use your bone marrow, your kidney filtration system, your liver?

No?

Then it's not comparable.

What did you say? You "support abortion access"? Are you quite sure about that, because -- after that nod-of-the-head platitude -- I can't help but note that you're making a lot of pro-life arguments.

Congratulations, you have discredited yourself.

Imagine that. Accused of lying precisely because I'm too honest to go along with empty platitudes. Guess that's what happens when you're the only one not taken in by this "political cause first, principles second" fad.

It's still "using your body," it's just a difference of degree. And neither "pro-choice" nor "it's her body" inherently invoke the degree of burden involved, so you STILL need better phrases.

[BigOstan]

When you go for jury duty, are you hooked up to the judge so that s/he can use your blood? Does the judge use your bone marrow, your kidney filtration system, your liver?

Yes. And the rest of your body, because your entire body has to show up. I don't know why are you so focused on being physically connected, even when the effect on your freedom is the same. AFAIK conjoined twins aren't allowed to kill each other.

Could you die with dangerous high blood pressure due to doing jury duty?

Yes. Or in a car accident. Doesn't make much difference either way once you're dead.

[The Free Joy State]

When you go for jury duty, are you hooked up to the judge so that s/he can use your blood? Does the judge use your bone marrow, your kidney filtration system, your liver?

No?

Then it's not comparable.

What did you say? You "support abortion access"? Are you quite sure about that, because -- after that nod-of-the-head platitude -- I can't help but note that you're making a lot of pro-life arguments.

Congratulations, you have discredited yourself.

Imagine that. Accused of lying precisely because I'm too honest to go along with empty platitudes. Guess that's what happens when you're the only one not taken in by this "political cause first, principles second" fad.

I have more to do than going through years of other people's posts. Imagine that.

My points about how non-comparable jury duty and pregnancy are still stand.

[Galloism]

To be honest, the former is a better straight up argument in my opinion.

After all, if my cousin is dying and needs a kidney, he has no right to mine - even though I can live perfectly well with only one.

The concept that right to self is generally greater than the lives of the others is a fairly well established legal principle, all things considered.

Emphasis mine. Keeping both kidneys isn't just a matter of "bodily autonomy for its own sake." It also means that if one of your kidneys fails, you don't have a spare. Even if it doesn't, there's also the stress of that fact hanging over your head.

Also, requiring people to provide others your kidneys gives them less incentive to take care of their own.

Abortion is perfectly legal by default. The right to it doesn't depend upon how good a reason someone has to abort.

You also can't forcibly take my blood even if someone will die without it. Even though I'll make more and be completely full up in 24-48 hours.

[Galloism]

The concept that right to self is generally greater than the lives of the others is a fairly well established legal principle, all things considered.

Should people be required to perform CPR if they think someone needs it and there's no threat to their safety? It seems like another case of my self-determination vs someone's life, but law often makes a different decision here.

Not generally, no.

Now, if you voluntarily took the position of a paramedic, I'd say that's different.

[Eglaecia]

Yes it is. The baby doesn't get a choice, only the woman who puts herself before a child. Abortion supporters should just hurry up and embrace the term "pro-abortion" (or pro infanticide) because let's be real, that's what they're really advocating.

[Crockerland]

The legal system says OJ Simpson did not commit murder, so it must be true

Yup, because those two things are equivalent and comparable.

"I can't debunk this, b-but.... uhhh... this isn't comparable!! "

Who do you think came up with the definition of murder exactly? Either the legal system is infallible in determining what murder is and isn't, and thus OJ Simpson didn't commit murder, or it isn't, and thus appealing to it's opinion on the definition of murder is pointless.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Congratulations, you have discredited yourself.

Imagine that. Accused of lying precisely because I'm too honest to go along with empty platitudes. Guess that's what happens when you're the only one not taken in by this "political cause first, principles second" fad.

I have more to do than going through years of other people's posts. Imagine that.

My points about how non-comparable jury duty and pregnancy are still stand.

I since addressed them to the post. It's a little hard to remember where you were in the conversation when honesty is precisely what gets you smeared as a liar.

Frankly, I'm not sure I should've bothered, in light of the nature of the mind that produced it.

EDIT: And by the way, I cited those posts not to say you should've researched, but to show how at odds with reality your words are. If I merely repeated my assertion that I supported abortion rights, only a hypocrite would treat repetition as a substitute for proof.

[The New California Republic]

Yup, because those two things are equivalent and comparable.

"I can't debunk this, b-but.... uhhh... this isn't comparable!! "

Of course I can't debunk something that isn't comparable.

Who do you think came up with the definition of murder exactly? Either the legal system is infallible in determining what murder is and isn't, and thus OJ Simpson didn't commit murder, or it isn't, and thus appealing to it's opinion on the definition of murder is pointless.

Defining an action as murder or not is different from implementing said definitions during, say, miscarriages of justice in a trial .

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

"I can't debunk this, b-but.... uhhh... this isn't comparable!! "

Of course I can't debunk something that isn't comparable.

Who do you think came up with the definition of murder exactly? Either the legal system is infallible in determining what murder is and isn't, and thus OJ Simpson didn't commit murder, or it isn't, and thus appealing to it's opinion on the definition of murder is pointless.

Defining an action as murder or not is different from implementing said definitions during, say, miscarriages of justice in a trial .

Yeah, his exoneration was unfortunate, but it needed to happen, and it's for the best it happened when a celebrity had everything to lose by doing it again instead of when some nobody had nothing to lose by doing it again.

[Lost Memories]

What about:

Pro Early Human Rights

Pro Late Human Rights

(implied, the rights of a child)

[Estanglia]

Yes it is. The baby doesn't get a choice, only the woman who puts herself before a child. Abortion supporters should just hurry up and embrace the term "pro-abortion" (or pro infanticide) because let's be real, that's what they're really advocating.

Firstly, infanticide only applies to infants, and iirc infants are very young (born) children, so infanticide wouldn't apply to unborn fetuses, most of whom are aborted before 13 weeks.
Secondly, not everyone who is pro-choice believes that abortion is good or likes abortion. There are several in this thread and the abortion thread who are pro-choice but disagree with abortion.
Thirdly, are you a mind reader and are able to tell the goals of everyone in the pro-choice movement? Because, judging from what I've seen, I'm sure that it's only a radical minority who love the idea of aborting a fetus. Feel free to prove me wrong, though.

[The New California Republic]

What about:

Pro Early Human Rights

Pro Late Human Rights

(implied, the rights of a child)

Applied in what manner?

[Estanglia]

What about:

Pro Early Human Rights

Pro Late Human Rights

(implied, the rights of a child)

Which would be pro choice and which would be pro life?

[Lost Memories]

What about:

Pro Early Human Rights

Pro Late Human Rights

(implied, the rights of a child)

Applied in what manner?

We're talking about the labels for two political views over an ethical matter. What are you asking here?

[The Black Forrest]

New Names:

Pro Murdering Babies

Pro Rapists Control of Womens Bodies

If we go by the focus of the debate, which the op wisely determined into: "Does that not mean the real crux of the issue is more fetal personhood vs. lack thereof?" some better labels would be:

Pro Human Rights Asap.

Pro Delayed Human Rights.

Or lord. That sounds like the new effort to redefine gender labels.

You are confusing "abortion" with "murder".

It's not murder if your human rights are delayed. /s

Rather simple minded. You might have an argument if all pregnancies where guaranteed for birth.

How do you test for miscarriages? How do you know it was legitimate?

More important? Why would you want to know?

[The Black Forrest]

Applied in what manner?

We're talking about the labels for two political views over an ethical matter. What are you asking here?

You are not talking about ethics. You are talking about morality.

[Lost Memories]

What about:

Pro Early Human Rights

Pro Late Human Rights

(implied, the rights of a child)

Which would be pro choice and which would be pro life?

Isn't it self evident?

Who supports childs being considered persons since their conception?
Who wants to wait some time after the conception to grant them the qualification as human beings?


Ok, just to be obvious and less criptic. This really surprises me it wasn't already clear.

anti-abortion = Pro Early Human Rights

pro-abortion = Pro Late Human Rights

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

What about:

Pro Early Human Rights

Pro Late Human Rights

(implied, the rights of a child)

That isn't really accurate either, though. Weren't those who coined the phrase "human rights" meaning to use them to protect sentient human beings from unnecessary suffering and from murder, (the latter of which is wrong for cutting short the collection of experiences that we would consider someone's life) not to any fetus from human DNA from being killed before its life could even start?

[The New California Republic]

Applied in what manner?

We're talking about the labels for two political views over an ethical matter. What are you asking here?

I know, but I am asking how they would be applied, as in who would be put into each category, as it would be a bit of a misnomer to put pro-life people into the pro early human rights category, as it implies they don't give a shit about human rights later on. Similarly, pro-choice people do believe in human rights for babies and children, so throwing them into the pro late human rights category would be a misnomer too...