Is "pro-choice" a misleading term?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I see you haven't address Des-Bal's point.

You mean "abortion is murder, and if women can't afford to care for a child, tough shit"?

Firstly, they key word here was the "if." It's meant to show why it isn't hypocritical, by extending the "abortion is murder" logic to its inevitable conclusion.

Secondly, nowhere was the phrase "tough shit" even used.

You'd think someone with thousands of posts would know better by now than to outright misrepresent what someone is saying. Guess some people never learn.

[Petrasylvania]

You mean "abortion is murder, and if women can't afford to care for a child, tough shit"?

Firstly, they key word here was the "if." It's meant to show why it isn't hypocritical, by extending the "abortion is murder" logic to its inevitable conclusion.

Secondly, nowhere was the phrase "tough shit" even used.

You'd think someone with thousands of posts would know better by now than to outright misrepresent what someone is saying. Guess some people never learn.

Or you might have noticed the point, the hypocrisy of TAXATION IS THEFT libertarians demanding women carry to term regardless of if they're capable of affording the costs related to rearing a child. But if talking shit about posters gives you a special feeling, then you be you.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Firstly, they key word here was the "if." It's meant to show why it isn't hypocritical, by extending the "abortion is murder" logic to its inevitable conclusion.

Secondly, nowhere was the phrase "tough shit" even used.

You'd think someone with thousands of posts would know better by now than to outright misrepresent what someone is saying. Guess some people never learn.

Or you might have noticed the point, the hypocrisy of TAXATION IS THEFT libertarians demanding women carry to term regardless of if they're capable of affording the costs related to rearing a child. But if talking shit about posters gives you a special feeling, then you be you.

Still not hypocrisy. IF it were murder it'd be analogous to murdering a baby already born because you can't afford it, and then blaming everyone opposed to welfare for the murder. That's the point being made. Why else do you think Des said "if?"

[Petrasylvania]

Or you might have noticed the point, the hypocrisy of TAXATION IS THEFT libertarians demanding women carry to term regardless of if they're capable of affording the costs related to rearing a child. But if talking shit about posters gives you a special feeling, then you be you.

Still not hypocrisy. IF it were murder it'd be analogous to murdering a baby already born because you can't afford it, and then blaming everyone opposed to welfare for the murder. That's the point being made. Why else do you think Des said "if?"

So "women shouldn't be sluts". Even better.

[Estanglia]

Still not hypocrisy. IF it were murder it'd be analogous to murdering a baby already born because you can't afford it, and then blaming everyone opposed to welfare for the murder. That's the point being made. Why else do you think Des said "if?"

So "women shouldn't be sluts". Even better.

Still not the point being made.

[Godular]

Still sounds a lot like people agreeing with each other and somehow getting angry over it. This is all rather meta.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Still not hypocrisy. IF it were murder it'd be analogous to murdering a baby already born because you can't afford it, and then blaming everyone opposed to welfare for the murder. That's the point being made. Why else do you think Des said "if?"

So "women shouldn't be sluts". Even better.

Depends on the individual. Some advocate for adoption instead.

Anti-abortion laws harm monogamous couples anyway, especially if they can't afford the kid. Hell of a lot of collateral damage for a 50% of voters who could've just dispensed with the half-measures and criminalized "sluttiness" so that non-sluts in need of abortions wouldn't be harmed.

All this is putting aside the fact that you're continuing to put words in people's mouths. A lot of people on this site are guilty of it, but thus far your posts stand out to me.

[Tekania]

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?"

In order to make choices one needs agency. A fetus lacks agency. So it's not an imposition of choice, the fetus would have to have agency to impose a choice on it. The only one that has agency is a pregnancy is the mother. So the only one capable of making choices is the mother. So the moniker "pro-choice" is not misleading at all. It's described perfectly what it is.

[Des-Bal]

So "women shouldn't be sluts". Even better.

1. The point was your total failure to construct a logical argument. What you said was illogical because it's trying to manufacture "irony" from the idea that someone can say "I don't want higher taxes but I also don't want to murder children." I would sit here and explain it clearer but two people just did it pretty clearly so this is either a willful ignorance or a not reading thing. To say that abortion saves on social services is a stupid, stupid argument.
2. Whoa! What did that strawman ever do to you?

[Des-Bal]

In order to make choices one needs agency. A fetus lacks agency. So it's not an imposition of choice, the fetus would have to have agency to impose a choice on it. The only one that has agency is a pregnancy is the mother. So the only one capable of making choices is the mother. So the moniker "pro-choice" is not misleading at all. It's described perfectly what it is.

No it doesn't, the issue isn't some people saying "choosing is bad" it's people saying "abortion kills babies." The word pro-choice is an argument in support of itself.

[Quantipapa]

It's misleading. End of matter. Close thread.

[The New California Republic]

It's misleading. End of matter. Close thread.

[The Free Joy State]

In order to make choices one needs agency. A fetus lacks agency. So it's not an imposition of choice, the fetus would have to have agency to impose a choice on it. The only one that has agency is a pregnancy is the mother. So the only one capable of making choices is the mother. So the moniker "pro-choice" is not misleading at all. It's described perfectly what it is.

No it doesn't, the issue isn't some people saying "choosing is bad" it's people saying "abortion kills babies." The word pro-choice is an argument in support of itself.

So is "pro-life", if that's how you want to view it. Each "side" -- if you like -- chose their terminology to reflect their priority.

Pro-lifers (which I think is still YMMV depending on their views on welfare, the death penalty and healthcare, but still...) prioritises the life of the foetus. Ergo, they call themselves "pro-life". I could take a dig at their stance on the life of the woman, but won't because I'm aware that there are plenty of pro-life people who allow abortion if the woman's life is in imminent danger and know that pro-life people want to preserve the maximum number of lives (or a reasonable amount do; there are some I've come across who'd let the mother die).

Pro-choicers prioritise preserving the choice of the woman. The foetus, as Tekania said, cannot have any will to make any choice because it is insenate. It feels and knows nothing until the third trimester. That and the fact that the foetus dwells inside the woman, using her organs, and her blood and potentially killing her. So maintaining the choice of the woman is the pro-choicers' priority.

IMO, the only way to avoid accusations of bias and emotive/unclear language on both sides would be to invent a new list of terms to cover every aspect of pro-choice/life beliefs (anti-abortion and pro-abortion are both inaccurate terms; pro-lifers rarely oppose all abortion, even in medical emergencies, and pro-choicers rarely -- if ever -- encourage abortion). There'd need to be new terms for people who oppose all abortion, those who allow only emergency abortions if all else has been tried and the woman will die, those who allow abortions only for medical problems...

I think the terms are widely understood (and argue that "pro-choice" is accurate). And I don't see the point in adding further divisions in the abortion debate. It's already hard enough to get a group of pro-choicers and pro-lifers who all believe in welfare, comprehensive sex education and free contraception to come together over the things that unite them. Imagine how much harder it would be if there were further artificial divisions.

[Estanglia]

It's misleading. End of matter. Close thread.

Care to explain how?
Answer: it's not. Pro-choice=pro the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion, which is the goal of the pro-choice movement.

[Petrasylvania]

So "women shouldn't be sluts". Even better.

1. The point was your total failure to construct a logical argument. What you said was illogical because it's trying to manufacture "irony" from the idea that someone can say "I don't want higher taxes but I also don't want to murder children." I would sit here and explain it clearer but two people just did it pretty clearly so this is either a willful ignorance or a not reading thing. To say that abortion saves on social services is a stupid, stupid argument.
2. Whoa! What did that strawman ever do to you?

And you missed the point which was calling out people who demand women carry to term to feel good about their personal beliefs but then howl in outrage at having to pay taxes that pay for programs that would help economically disadvantaged women forced to carry to term raise offspring.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

1. The point was your total failure to construct a logical argument. What you said was illogical because it's trying to manufacture "irony" from the idea that someone can say "I don't want higher taxes but I also don't want to murder children." I would sit here and explain it clearer but two people just did it pretty clearly so this is either a willful ignorance or a not reading thing. To say that abortion saves on social services is a stupid, stupid argument.
2. Whoa! What did that strawman ever do to you?

And you missed the point which was calling out people who demand women carry to term to feel good about their personal beliefs but then howl in outrage at having to pay taxes that pay for programs that would help economically disadvantaged women forced to carry to term raise offspring.

Still not hypocritical. Nice try, though.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I think the terms are widely understood (and argue that "pro-choice" is accurate). And I don't see the point in adding further divisions in the abortion debate. It's already hard enough to get a group of pro-choicers and pro-lifers who all believe in welfare, comprehensive sex education and free contraception to come together over the things that unite them. Imagine how much harder it would be if there were further artificial divisions.

So you imply that this conflates welfare, sex ed and contraception, and yet you call the divisions artificial? Sounds to me more like it's coalition that is artificial if you ask me.

The terms are widely "understood" like a variety of other ill-defined terms are "understood." People think they know what "Christian" means when they can't address the Bible's contradictions. People think they know what "Muslim" means when they can't address those of the Qur'an. People think they know what "pro-choice" means when it's non-sequitur at best, misleading at worst.

Pro-abortion would be misleading too, but that doesn't prove that "pro-choice" is not. We need something more descriptive than either term. Until then, we need to stop pretending 2-syllable shorthands sum up the issue.

[The Free Joy State]

I think the terms are widely understood (and argue that "pro-choice" is accurate). And I don't see the point in adding further divisions in the abortion debate. It's already hard enough to get a group of pro-choicers and pro-lifers who all believe in welfare, comprehensive sex education and free contraception to come together over the things that unite them. Imagine how much harder it would be if there were further artificial divisions.

So you imply that this conflates welfare, sex ed and contraception, and yet you call the divisions artificial? Sounds to me more like it's coalition that is artificial if you ask me.

Actually, the bolded wasn't what I was saying at all, I was not saying that a person must be pro-welfare and pro-contraception, for example. I didn't want to make the post too long. My point was that, where pro-choicers and pro-lifers could find common ground in some social issues (that would often minimise the need for abortion), they are already divided by those two-syllable shorthands (as you yourself put it).

Further official divisions -- who is in favour of allowing abortion only if the mother will surely die imminently from who is in favour of only allowing abortion if the mother could die within days -- will only serve to make the abortion debate yet more toxic, putting up barriers where they needn't exist.

Pro-abortion would be misleading too, but that doesn't prove that "pro-choice" is not. We need something more descriptive than either term. Until then, we need to stop pretending 2-syllable shorthands sum up the issue.

And pro-life? Is that not misleading, if someone is fully in favour of the death penalty and fully against anything that would help a born-child have a good quality of life?

The two terms serve their purpose well enough. More precision is needlessly complex, will never be used (seeing as each group chose the name that reflected their priorities best -- the life of the foetus and the choice of the woman -- and so are generally felt most suited; not only that but any alternative would certainly be longer and abstract and probably would not be accepted in academic circles or used by the media for that reason). Besideswhich, more precision in the range of different views will add nothing but barriers and barriers equal greater toxicity.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Further official divisions -- who is in favour of allowing abortion only if the mother will surely die imminently from who is in favour of only allowing abortion if the mother could die within days -- will only serve to make the abortion debate yet more toxic, putting up barriers where they needn't exist.

Still sounds to me like the division is more of a continuous spectrum than a discrete set of neat little categories, and the current labels are more misleading in ignoring this than new ones would be in acknowledging it. Just in different contexts than I initially though.

And pro-life? Is that not misleading, if someone is fully in favour of the death penalty and fully against anything that would help a born-child have a good quality of life?

Show me where I called pro-life non-misleading. I'll wait.

The two terms serve their purpose well enough. More precision is needlessly complex, will never be used (seeing as each group chose the name that reflected their priorities best -- the life of the foetus and the choice of the woman -- and so are generally felt most suited; not only that but any alternative would certainly be longer and abstract and probably would not be accepted in academic circles or used by the media for that reason).

We'll never know until we try.

Meanwhile, what of those of us who prioritize more accurate representation of the nature of the debate?

[Des-Bal]

And you missed the point which was calling out people who demand women carry to term to feel good about their personal beliefs but then howl in outrage at having to pay taxes that pay for programs that would help economically disadvantaged women forced to carry to term raise offspring.

I got the point, I was noting that "You want lower taxes but also disapprove of murder!" is a terribly ineffective means of calling people out.

[Quantipapa]

Pro-ending life. Because it's what it is no matter how bad we feel about it. That's what happens. So cutting it down to the core act of what it is.

No more confusion.

[Anatidae]

Pro-ending life. Because it's what it is no matter how bad we feel about it. That's what happens. So cutting it down to the core act of what it is.

No more confusion.

This is absurd. If someone were truly "pro-ending life" that would mean they prefer abortion over childbirth. Virtually no one prefers this. Folks who are pro-choice are equally in support of pregnancies being carried to term, if that is what the person chooses. Are you actually so ignorant as to believe people who are in favor of the right to decide their own reproductive choices think that way because they just don't like fetuses?

[The New California Republic]

Pro-ending life. Because it's what it is no matter how bad we feel about it. That's what happens. So cutting it down to the core act of what it is.

No more confusion.

Lol. No it isn't. That makes it sound like they are pro-euthanasia as well, when that isn't necessarily the case, as pro-choice does not imply pro-euthanasia.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

Pro choice is misleading because it implies you can do what you want. If it's true you can apply it to other crimes but the real words is not a single label can be applied it's complex

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Pro choice is misleading because it implies you can do what you want. If it's true you can apply it to other crimes but the real words is not a single label can be applied it's complex

What we're using the term for is for the abortion debate, however.