9 ms·

Did anyone notice how pro-life and pro-choice are arbitrary terms? E.g. I'm in favor of free abortions, because I value life and unplanned children willl have a

by dmos62 6y ago

Did anyone notice how pro-life and pro-choice are arbitrary terms? E.g. I'm in favor of free abortions, because I value life and unplanned children willl have a negative effect on it, so I'm pro-life; or, I'm in favor of outlawing abortions, because I think that we should concentrate on making the right choices in situations that lead up to pregnancy, so I'm pro-choice. I guess "life" and "choice" are just references to things that the respective partisans bring up when arguing. Which would imply that my argument above is wrong: it's not about accurately describing a social situation, but about giving an argument a short name. Which has a problem of its own. It's limiting. It implies that if you're against abortions, then that's because of the validity of some "life" argument, or the invalidity of some "choice" argument. Over time, it probably makes the debates stupider. Why give names to arguments (pro-choice, pro-life)? Why not just say pro-abortion, anti-abortion? Because you want to appeal to peoples' preexisting biases? If that's the case, it's a bad attitude towards debate.

s1t5 6y ago
The terms aren't arbitrary, they're used and propagated deliberately to turn as social issue into a political one. Using a term like "pro-life" creates a false dichotomy which leads to the false and simplistic conclusion that if you oppose pro-life then you must be anti-life. > Why not just say pro-abortion, anti-abortion? Because almost no one is "pro-abortion". It's a horrible and traumatic experience to go through and no one is happy to have one. That doesn't mean that women shouldn't have the option to do it. That's why pro-choice works better - it's just more descriptive of the actual issue.
- tarsinge 6y ago
  The term "pro-life" may creates a false dichotomy when put in that way, but if you think at it as the crux of the argument not so much. Case in point you kind of miss it in your last sentence and have it in the opposite: if a foetus is a life (i.e. a person) from day one, then it follows women shouldn't have a choice (because it's not their body anymore, in that context, like a weirdness of nature that a different person with normal rights inhabits a mother's body). They are not saying it will lead to a happy experience either to raise that child, but that's an unfortunate consequence of the "life" argument, hence "life vs choice". Edit: But I agree it's not a good way to frame the debate, "Person at conception vs Person at X weeks/months" would be more relevant to each side position IMO.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    The counter-argument I've heard to that is even if a fetus is a life (debatable), "pro-lifers" are requisitioning a person's body against their will to sustain that life. Which is inconsistent with what we as a society would do in any other similar situation. For example, organ donation. We don't even assume consent to use the organs of dead bodies, let alone force live donors to surrender their spare kidneys.
    - rightbyte 6y ago
      You could argue landlords should not be able to evict tenants willy nilly if they change their mind about the lease.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - triceratops 6y ago
        Isn't that already the case? You can't evict tenants in the middle of a lease if they have honored all the terms of the lease. It's a contract.
    - int_19h 6y ago
      To be more specific, this argument was popularized by Judith Jarvis Thomson in her essay "A Defense of Abortion". https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.h...
      - triceratops 6y ago
        Cool, I didn't know where this argument originated from. Thanks for the source.
    - gbrown 6y ago
      That’s why I like “anti-forced-birthing” more than “pro-choice”.
- asjw 6y ago
  I am pro legal abortion I am also pro euthanasia Being in favour of something it doesn't mean you hope things will go south You support their existence exactly because if things go south it's better to have them I am not pro choice, I am anti anti abortists
  - BrandoElFollito 6y ago
    This is exactly the comment I wanted to make. I am also pro education, education, education. So that there are no difficult decisions to make. I am happy to see that in my country (France) children having sex ed at school knew more or less everything already. When I asked my son how it went he said that there was one guy who was sniggering and girls jumped on him shaming him to death - telling that he will be a virgin his all life if he does not grow up etc.
- dmos62 6y ago
  > Because almost no one is "pro-abortion". It's a horrible and traumatic experience to go through and no one is happy to have one. That doesn't mean that women shouldn't have the option to do it. I am pro-abortion, because I understand that it's a traumatic experience, which nonetheless can be very desirable given some circumstances. If you're trying to side-step the fact that no-one ideally would have an abortion, you're just opening yourself up to counter-arguments attacking exactly that, and that's dumb, because you've detracted the debate from the true point (from a pro-abortion viewpoint) – sometimes it's a necessary sacrifice.
- theelous3 6y ago
  If you believe women should be able to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term, or not, you are pro-abortion. Lots of people are pro-abortion. Futhermore, lots of people recognise they are pro-abortion and are perfectly willing, if not encourage, the label. Maybe this is taboo in your upbringing and social circle but to make the claim that "almost no one" is pro-abortion is beyond wrong. Your local puritanical propaganda is winning, it would seem. I'm european. I see the conversation as explicitly pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Now and then the anti-abortionists try to americanize and call themselves pro-life but few buy it.
bzb3 6y ago
I don't like that only the woman has a choice. If they choose to continue the pregnancy against the father's wishes, the father will be forced to pay child support. If they choose to stop the pregnancy against the father's wishes, the child is killed and the father is left without it.
- gbrown 6y ago
  Whoa, this is about bodily autonomy, not economic inconvenience. You would subjugate women’s bodies for the economic concerns of males? That’s a completely nonsensical and abhorrent view.
  - wolco 6y ago
    Why does it have to be only one thing. If it is a bodily autonomy issue shouldn't those choices be responsible for the economical realities of those choices? It's a clear case of taxation without representation.
  - antepodius 6y ago
    The "Economic inconvenience" is forced labour. We only feel morally okay with it because men are disposable, and women are a protected class. I understand the argument that it's wrong to force a woman to carry and bear a child. It seems, though, that the lesser evil of forcing a man to give money to that woman shouldn't be allowed under similar ethical reasoning. (I.e. if it's okay to kill a foetus, it's okay to economically disavow it.) But this argument would be very unpopular.
    - ficklepickle 6y ago
      It's a matter of being responsible for your own actions. Don't want to be responsible for a human life? Don't impregnate a female.
      - antepodius 6y ago
        Yes, as I said: men are disposable, and women are cherished. Assuming no rape/nonconsent in either scenario: Male impregnates a female and regrets it: too bad, you're held responsible and have to help take care of the offspring. Female gets impregnated and regrets it: you're not held responsible, you're allowed to kill the offspring and don't have to help take care of it if you don't want to. Chivalry never died, in a strange sort of way. I'm not complaining about this; I just find it interesting to point it out.
noble_pleb 6y ago
I think one reason why pro abortion is "pro choice" is because it actually involves making a choice. Not aborting and giving "life" to a newborn is the default selection and doesn't involve making choice.
- triyambakam 6y ago
  Not action is still a choice. There is always choice in everything
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
This post is about phrases and their connotations. It adds nothing to this discussion. It seems to be deliberately posted merely to provoke argument, or to distract from the main article (which it will do if people let it).
ChainOfFools 6y ago
> but about giving an argument a short name. compression is the mother of persuasion
kazinator 6y ago
> Why not just say pro-abortion This term exists: it's yet another loaded, biased term: one that has been historically used by pro-life advocates to label pro-choice advocates.
dennisgorelik 6y ago
> making the right choices ... does NOT mean pro-choice. It means "limit the ability to choose in favor of the right choices". I, personally, like both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" names. These names represent underlying positions well. These names also have a good balance [between brevity, clarity, and highlighting key differences].

by dmos62 6y ago

s1t5 6y ago

The terms aren't arbitrary, they're used and propagated deliberately to turn as social issue into a political one. Using a term like "pro-life" creates a false dichotomy which leads to the false and simplistic conclusion that if you oppose pro-life then you must be anti-life. > Why not just say pro-abortion, anti-abortion? Because almost no one is "pro-abortion". It's a horrible and traumatic experience to go through and no one is happy to have one. That doesn't mean that women shouldn't have the option to do it. That's why pro-choice works better - it's just more descriptive of the actual issue.

tarsinge 6y ago
The term "pro-life" may creates a false dichotomy when put in that way, but if you think at it as the crux of the argument not so much. Case in point you kind of miss it in your last sentence and have it in the opposite: if a foetus is a life (i.e. a person) from day one, then it follows women shouldn't have a choice (because it's not their body anymore, in that context, like a weirdness of nature that a different person with normal rights inhabits a mother's body). They are not saying it will lead to a happy experience either to raise that child, but that's an unfortunate consequence of the "life" argument, hence "life vs choice". Edit: But I agree it's not a good way to frame the debate, "Person at conception vs Person at X weeks/months" would be more relevant to each side position IMO.
- triceratops 6y ago
  The counter-argument I've heard to that is even if a fetus is a life (debatable), "pro-lifers" are requisitioning a person's body against their will to sustain that life. Which is inconsistent with what we as a society would do in any other similar situation. For example, organ donation. We don't even assume consent to use the organs of dead bodies, let alone force live donors to surrender their spare kidneys.
  - rightbyte 6y ago
    You could argue landlords should not be able to evict tenants willy nilly if they change their mind about the lease.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - triceratops 6y ago
      Isn't that already the case? You can't evict tenants in the middle of a lease if they have honored all the terms of the lease. It's a contract.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    To be more specific, this argument was popularized by Judith Jarvis Thomson in her essay "A Defense of Abortion". https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.h...
    - triceratops 6y ago
      Cool, I didn't know where this argument originated from. Thanks for the source.
  - gbrown 6y ago
    That’s why I like “anti-forced-birthing” more than “pro-choice”.
asjw 6y ago
I am pro legal abortion I am also pro euthanasia Being in favour of something it doesn't mean you hope things will go south You support their existence exactly because if things go south it's better to have them I am not pro choice, I am anti anti abortists
- BrandoElFollito 6y ago
  This is exactly the comment I wanted to make. I am also pro education, education, education. So that there are no difficult decisions to make. I am happy to see that in my country (France) children having sex ed at school knew more or less everything already. When I asked my son how it went he said that there was one guy who was sniggering and girls jumped on him shaming him to death - telling that he will be a virgin his all life if he does not grow up etc.
dmos62 6y ago
> Because almost no one is "pro-abortion". It's a horrible and traumatic experience to go through and no one is happy to have one. That doesn't mean that women shouldn't have the option to do it. I am pro-abortion, because I understand that it's a traumatic experience, which nonetheless can be very desirable given some circumstances. If you're trying to side-step the fact that no-one ideally would have an abortion, you're just opening yourself up to counter-arguments attacking exactly that, and that's dumb, because you've detracted the debate from the true point (from a pro-abortion viewpoint) – sometimes it's a necessary sacrifice.
theelous3 6y ago
If you believe women should be able to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term, or not, you are pro-abortion. Lots of people are pro-abortion. Futhermore, lots of people recognise they are pro-abortion and are perfectly willing, if not encourage, the label. Maybe this is taboo in your upbringing and social circle but to make the claim that "almost no one" is pro-abortion is beyond wrong. Your local puritanical propaganda is winning, it would seem. I'm european. I see the conversation as explicitly pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Now and then the anti-abortionists try to americanize and call themselves pro-life but few buy it.

bzb3 6y ago

I don't like that only the woman has a choice. If they choose to continue the pregnancy against the father's wishes, the father will be forced to pay child support. If they choose to stop the pregnancy against the father's wishes, the child is killed and the father is left without it.

gbrown 6y ago
Whoa, this is about bodily autonomy, not economic inconvenience. You would subjugate women’s bodies for the economic concerns of males? That’s a completely nonsensical and abhorrent view.
- wolco 6y ago
  Why does it have to be only one thing. If it is a bodily autonomy issue shouldn't those choices be responsible for the economical realities of those choices? It's a clear case of taxation without representation.
- antepodius 6y ago
  The "Economic inconvenience" is forced labour. We only feel morally okay with it because men are disposable, and women are a protected class. I understand the argument that it's wrong to force a woman to carry and bear a child. It seems, though, that the lesser evil of forcing a man to give money to that woman shouldn't be allowed under similar ethical reasoning. (I.e. if it's okay to kill a foetus, it's okay to economically disavow it.) But this argument would be very unpopular.
  - ficklepickle 6y ago
    It's a matter of being responsible for your own actions. Don't want to be responsible for a human life? Don't impregnate a female.
    - antepodius 6y ago
      Yes, as I said: men are disposable, and women are cherished. Assuming no rape/nonconsent in either scenario: Male impregnates a female and regrets it: too bad, you're held responsible and have to help take care of the offspring. Female gets impregnated and regrets it: you're not held responsible, you're allowed to kill the offspring and don't have to help take care of it if you don't want to. Chivalry never died, in a strange sort of way. I'm not complaining about this; I just find it interesting to point it out.

noble_pleb 6y ago

I think one reason why pro abortion is "pro choice" is because it actually involves making a choice. Not aborting and giving "life" to a newborn is the default selection and doesn't involve making choice.

triyambakam 6y ago
Not action is still a choice. There is always choice in everything

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

This post is about phrases and their connotations. It adds nothing to this discussion. It seems to be deliberately posted merely to provoke argument, or to distract from the main article (which it will do if people let it).

ChainOfFools 6y ago

> but about giving an argument a short name. compression is the mother of persuasion

kazinator 6y ago

> Why not just say pro-abortion This term exists: it's yet another loaded, biased term: one that has been historically used by pro-life advocates to label pro-choice advocates.

dennisgorelik 6y ago

> making the right choices ... does NOT mean pro-choice. It means "limit the ability to choose in favor of the right choices". I, personally, like both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" names. These names represent underlying positions well. These names also have a good balance [between brevity, clarity, and highlighting key differences].