Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
What position? These are just hypotheticals, so how can they be a stated position? I thought that's the fun game we were playing? I don't really find you telling me what my positions are and what I would or would not support today based on your summary very compelling. It makes you come off as even less serious.
Again, it's not uncomfortable. It's not about people making themselves feel better. Pro-choice is just another term for the abortion-rights movement, it is not meant to convey the concept of "unlimited choice" since that defies basic logic as choice will always be limited by the medical field and all associated understanding, technology, ethics, and oaths. It's never been unlimited, that's not what the movement is about. Even you're suggesting certain limitations, so you're not really pro-choice I guess? Some within the movement may believe it should be legally unlimited up until birth, some believe that "choice" should have some limits. Some in the movement morally disagree with abortion in general but still believe women should have safe, legal access to it. That last part is what unites everyone in the movement.
You're basically just playing out a no true scotsman fallacy and pretending it's relevant. It's boring, man. We're talking about real life here. Abortions are going to happen. Women should have safe, legal access to them. That's it. Any poking around the edges of judgement on which positions in the abortion-rights movement are the most morally pure or "truly" pro-choice is completely missing the point.
|
If you want robust and permanent protection of rights to choose then any time restriction is problematic. It’s basically saying your body is the property of the fetus and the state after a certain time period.
It effectively creates a sunset clause on abortion.