Is "pro-choice" a misleading term?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

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?"

[Caracasus]

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?"

I was under the impression that both labels are designed to infer that being against them is bad. Who wants to be pro-death or anti-choice?

[Petrolheadia]

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?"

It also means the support of abortion is "anti-life", so we're even.

And the terms are only applied to abortion, so it does not matter what this or that guy does outside the issue.

[Aureumterra]

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

[Crockerland]

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?"

Personally I think both terms make sense.

I support the right to life for a fetus but not universally, and I also support the right of a woman to choose whether or not to kill that fetus in many cases such as rape, danger to her own live, and many varieties of birth defects, etc. but again not universally, I could see why someone would say the woman should have a right to choose no matter what and that always trump's a fetus' right to life (Pro-Choice), and how someone could say the fetus should have the right to life no matter what and that always trump's a woman's choice (Pro-Life), both terms are in line with their respective positions.

[Xelsis]

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 pure theory, not necessarily. One can believe in fetal personhood and still support abortion, on the grounds that the "choice" outweighs the "life", which is where the two terms actually work.

For the vast majorities, however, you're right in that it is about fetal personhood vs. fetal non-personhood, and a framing of the argument in those terms would be better fitting in most cases.

[Ifreann]

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?

Why would people adopt for themselves a label premised on accepting the positions and arguments of their political opponents, people with whom they fundamentally disagree?

[The Free Joy State]

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?"

The terms "pro-life"/"pro-choice" are only defined in accordance with views on abortion, so what people believe outside of those issues are totally irrelevant.

A person can consider themselves to be "pro-life" while supporting the death penalty. Why? Because only the stance on abortion counts.

And a person always portrays their stance on a political view in its best light, to win over undecided people. As other posters have said: who'd want to be "anti-life" or "anti-choice"?

EDIT: Though, I think pro-choice makes sense. It's pro the woman's choice over whether to carry the foetus to term or not. What else would you call it?

[Telconi]

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?"

I think it's disengenuous when people defend their position as 'advocating choice, not abortion'. In nearly every other political issue, the side in favor of the issue describes themselves as 'pro [issue]' despite the fact that that almost never indicates a desire for compelled action. For example, people who are "pro-gay marriage" support the choice of gay marriage People who are 'pro-transgender', 'pro-welfare', 'pro-gun', 'pro-education assistance', 'pro-voter', 'pro-immigrant' and many others are likewise in support of the *choice* of a person to gender transition, receive welfare, own a gun, go to college, vote, or immigrate. In none of these situations does the movement advocate for compelled action on these things.

[Hirota]

If only there was some sort of abortion related mega thread to quarantine this kind of thinking.

[Crockerland]

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?"

I think it's disengenuous when people defend their position as 'advocating choice, not abortion'. In nearly every other political issue, the side in favor of the issue describes themselves as 'pro [issue]' despite the fact that that almost never indicates a desire for compelled action. For example, people who are "pro-gay marriage" support the choice of gay marriage People who are 'pro-transgender', 'pro-welfare', 'pro-gun', 'pro-education assistance', 'pro-voter', 'pro-immigrant' and many others are likewise in support of the *choice* of a person to gender transition, receive welfare, own a gun, go to college, vote, or immigrate. In none of these situations does the movement advocate for compelled action on these things.

Pro-gay-marriage person here, I desire to compel the government's marriage authorities to legally wed gay people if asked.

[Telconi]

I think it's disengenuous when people defend their position as 'advocating choice, not abortion'. In nearly every other political issue, the side in favor of the issue describes themselves as 'pro [issue]' despite the fact that that almost never indicates a desire for compelled action. For example, people who are "pro-gay marriage" support the choice of gay marriage People who are 'pro-transgender', 'pro-welfare', 'pro-gun', 'pro-education assistance', 'pro-voter', 'pro-immigrant' and many others are likewise in support of the *choice* of a person to gender transition, receive welfare, own a gun, go to college, vote, or immigrate. In none of these situations does the movement advocate for compelled action on these things.

Pro-gay-marriage person here, I desire to compel the government's marriage authorities to legally wed gay people if asked.

Indeed...

[The New California Republic]

If only there was some sort of abortion related mega thread to quarantine this kind of thinking.

Yup. This thread seems kinda redundant, and may be merged with said thread before long...

[Lost Memories]

"pro-choice" = "pro-self" ≈ self-ish

Does that not mean the real crux of the issue is more fetal personhood vs. lack thereof than "choice?"

That Is the point, but the whole discourse is often carried on so dishonestly that that's gets easily overlooked.

[Petrolheadia]

"pro-choice" = "pro-self" ≈ self-ish

Take it easy, you're gonna pull something reaching so far.

[Quantipapa]

yes, it's a misleading term. It should be called what it is, pro-abortion.

[Ifreann]

yes, it's a misleading term. It should be called what it is, pro-abortion.

No one's going to call themselves that, though.

[The New California Republic]

"pro-choice" = "pro-self" ≈ self-ish

About as much as "aeroplane" = "UFO" ≈ "Aliens from Alpha Centauri"...

[Quantipapa]

yes, it's a misleading term. It should be called what it is, pro-abortion.

No one's going to call themselves that, though.

Question is why?

[Estanglia]

yes, it's a misleading term. It should be called what it is, pro-abortion.

No one's going to call themselves that, though.

You've also got the people who don't agree with abortion but consider it a necessary evil that should be legal. Calling them pro-abortion would be incorrect.

[Godular]

If only there was some sort of abortion related mega thread to quarantine this kind of thinking.

Indeed, if only such a thread existed... oh wait.

[Godular]

No one's going to call themselves that, though.

Question is why?

Just because we support the woman's right to choose does not inherently mean we are all smiles and hugs when it comes to the idea of abortion.

[Quantipapa]

No one's going to call themselves that, though.

You've also got the people who don't agree with abortion but consider it a necessary evil that should be legal. Calling them pro-abortion would be incorrect.

Then should the people who agree with abortion and consider it necessary be called pro-abortion?

[Ifreann]

No one's going to call themselves that, though.

Question is why?

Because nobody thinks of themselves as being pro-abortion.

It's not a conspiracy or anything.

[The New California Republic]

You've also got the people who don't agree with abortion but consider it a necessary evil that should be legal. Calling them pro-abortion would be incorrect.

Then should the people who agree with abortion and consider it necessary be called pro-abortion?

...why should we arbitrarily create a separate category when they are already covered under "pro-choice"? Nonsense.