That many people believe they are pro choice but are not

[winterstail]

My understanding of pro choice is that you support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

Many people claim to be pro choice but then express shock at the reason a woman chooses to terminate.

This isn't pro choice then, is it?

How so? As I said, its a simple question of whether you think women should decide for themselves. Yes or no? No complexity to be found.

How so? As I said, its a simple question of whether you think women should decide for themselves. Yes or no? No complexity to be found

Clearly it's a complex issue or we wouldn't have laws around when it can be carried out and under what criteria.

I'm pro choice for any reason... however I don't believe the law should be changed to allow the termination of full term/viable pregnancies for non medical reasons, which some posters do believe should be allowed.

Clearly it's a complex issue or we wouldn't have laws around when it can be carried out and under what criteria

That may be a complex issue, but whether you are pro choice is not at all. It could not be simpler. Are you PRO people having the CHOICE,or are you not?
Really, it isn't possible for it to be any less complex.

How so? As I said, its a simple question of whether you think women should decide for themselves. Yes or no? No complexity to be found.

This is childishly simplistic... It’s only simple if you agree with your premise that a foetus is merely, until birth, a collection of cells deserving of no more consideration than an appendix.

Your perspective is as facile as someone saying “it’s a simple question of life or death. You either believe in the sanctity of life or you don’t”.

The issue is whether a foetus should be accorded any rights... that’s where the issue lies and why people disagree. If you believe a foetus is deserving of some consideration, the “my body, my choice” are insufficient as all our rights and choices are tempered by the extent to which they impacts onto others.

I’m not professing to have an answer... but the attempt to make this a simple ethical matter conveniently glosses over the actual issues.

Are you PRO people having the CHOICE,or are you not?

Yes. Do I think a woman at 40 weeks pregnant should be allowed to terminate for a non medical reason? No.

Now, can you see the complexity?

Now, can you see the complexity?

I don’t think it’s actually that complex. Either you’re pro-choice with caveats, in which case you’re not fully pro-choice or you’re totally pro-choice which means as early as possible as late as necessary.

As early as possible and as late as necessary. Sgree.

It is simple though. You either think women have bodily autonomy or you don’t.

It’s unequivocally the fact.

Has there ever ever been a case of a 37/39/ plus weeks pregnant woman just deciding to abort??? Ever ever?? No it’s a nonsense isn’t it snd bollocks spouted by the ‘pro choice but brigade.

Moving beyond the facile my body, my choice - it really is that simple brigade (whose position is intellectually on a par with all abortion is murder, full stop brigade at the opposite end of the spectrum, the more considered argument that unequivocal pro-choice supporters often use is that a foetus doesn’t have any rights before birth (even up to term) because it is entirely dependent on the mother, with the entirely dependent part being the basis of the argument.

I find this morally troubling as there are many situations in my life where another’s life has been entirely in my hands. For instance, if I’m pushing a buggy with a child in down a hill, and letting go would ensure the child careered into heavy traffic and probable death, that child is entirely dependent on me while that occurs.... but no one would seriously advocate that because the child was entirely dependent on me that I had the right to let go of the buggy!

I don’t have be answer and am similarly troubled by the thought of forcing a woman to give birth, but the level of debate and lack of any proper reasoning that some seemingly intelligent people apply to this issue frustrates me.

Has there ever ever been a case of a 37/39/ plus weeks pregnant woman just deciding to abort?

Well, seeing as that would be illegal in the UK, then no, there hasn't been a case!

Has there ever ever been a case of a 37/39/ plus weeks pregnant woman just deciding to abort??? Ever ever??

Given that’s the case why are pro-choice supporters so passionate about promoting the right!

Either you’re pro-choice with caveats, in which case you’re not fully pro-choice or you’re totally pro-choice which means as early as possible as late as necessary

I consider myself quite passionately pro choice but I just cannot understand the "late as necessary" argument for non medical reasons. I mean it's a theoretical argument. Firstly, it's illegal and secondly, even if it was legal, there'd be virtually no cases of such late term terminations for non medical reasons. However, it seems verging on infanticide as far as I'm concerned. A full term baby may be living inside the mother but as it could live independently from its mother and without medical intervention, how on earth could you ethically end it's existence?

It is simple though. You either think women have bodily autonomy or you don’t.

It’s only simple if you believe the foetus has no rights and is not an “person” until birth. Where there are conflicting rights things are rarely simple. If you believe a foetus has no rights then that’s where the focus of the pro-choice argument is needed, as that’s where the root cause of the disagreement! Where a woman’s choice does not affect another “person” the vast majority accept the woman’s right to choose unconditionally.

Yet, pro-choicers tend to shy away from this more tricky and revert to their simplistic “my body, my choice” mantra instead, hoping that if it’s repeated enough people will just recognise it as accepted wisdom.

And when pro-chiocers do enter into the ‘foetus rights’ issue, the ‘total dependency’ argument is often used, which I’ve outlined my ethical concerns with in my post above.

Thankfully, most people accept there are ethical complexities around the issue and are neither 100% pro-life or 100% pro-choice, and the law is set accordingly at 24 weeks (with some exceptions), which I personally believe is broadly reasonable.

A full term baby may be living inside the mother but as it could live independently from its mother and without medical intervention, how on earth could you ethically end it's existence?

Indeed... How this is “simple” ethically is beyond me. I think some people just don’t want to recognise the complexity.

On second thoughts, I suppose it is “simple”... in the same way “the moon is made from cheese” is a simple statement. Just because a concept is simple in its construction, doesn’t make it reasonable or correct!

Moving beyond the facile my body, my choice - it really is that simple brigade (whose position is intellectually on a par with all abortion is murder, full stop brigade at the opposite end of the spectrum

If you think that, you understand nothing about it.

It’s only simple if you believe the foetus has no rights and is not an “person” until birth

Of course I think that, which is why its simple. The law also agrees, its not a person until birth. This is very basic stuff.

Of course I think that, which is why its simple. The law also agrees, its not a person until birth. This is very basic stuff.

Fair enough... clearly a foetus is not a “person” in a legal sense, and there is obviously a fundamental distinction before and after birth. Yet equally the law does recognise that whereas a foetus is not a legal person, it is nonetheless crucially different from any other bodily appendage, and is required to be treated accordingly, not perhaps with the rights of a person, but nonetheless with more rights than a tooth or appendix.

The law recognises there is complexity in the situation.... something you do not. It is this lack of acceptance of even the possibility of nuance and complexity coupled with a dogmatic assertion of your position that makes you similar to ardent pro-lifers, even though you may be diametrically opposed in the substance of your beliefs!

I don't really care what you think of me or my position, as far as I can see its incredibly simple and people pretend complexity to excuse their hypocrisy and judgement.

It's not judgment on the woman.

If you believe abortion should be available at any stage of the pregnancy, then let me ask you about this hypothetical situation.

Let's say a woman is 41 weeks pregnant. She goes into hospital for an elective c section. As she's being prepped for theatre, she tells the doctor that she's changed her mind and can they terminate the baby before they carry out the section.

Are you honestly saying, you think the doctor should carry out her request?

Are you honestly saying, you think the doctor should carry out her request?

That's not the right question though. You changed tack halfway through the question.
Do I think, theoretically, that the women should have the choice of termination right up to birth? Yes, I do (no matter how I might personally feel about such a thing).
Do I think any dr should be required to do so? No. Do I think any would? Highly unlikely.
But then I don't think any woman would actually do such a thing, which is one reason why I can support the stance.

This is hypothetical stuff designed to confuse the real issues. I trust women to make their own decisions. If you do not, just say so.

I don't really care what you think of me or my position, as far as I can see its incredibly simple and people pretend complexity to excuse their hypocrisy and judgement.

That’s ok. I don’t really expect you to ‘care’, but by not attempting to engage in a proper discussion about the ethics but merely stating your position with no explanation other than: “This is what I believe. It’s incredibly simple. Full stop. End of” fits the definition of dogmatic belief not reasoned argument. If you’re ok with that then that’s up to you. It’s your choice!

My point is that your share your dogmatism with “abortion is murder” pro-lifers who similarly have a simple black and white, if completely opposing, position.

The previous post about the 41 week mother illustrates the point that it’s not incredibly simple. To refuse to even entertain anything otherwise is bordering on bigotry.

I take back my last paragraph as I see you did respond to the post rather than simply dismiss it out of hand.

It doesn't illustrate anything of the sort, other than people will make up ridiculous hypotheticals to "prove" that women can't be trusted and need other people to make decisions for them.

Its not a dogmatic belief at all, any more than the sky is blue is a dogmatic belief, its just (afaic) a simple and obvious fact.

surely most pro-choice people (myself included) are only acceptable of abortion up to a certain point, providing there's no medical reasons. Surely no-one things it's ok for a woman to have an abortion if the baby is developed enough to survive outside the womb for example (again, excluding medical reasons)? I fully consider myself to be pro-choice but I don't think it's ok for a woman to have an abortion much beyond 20 weeks as, as far as I'm aware, it's not long after that that the baby might be able to survive outside the womb. Clearly I'm not very knowledgeable about this.

Its not a dogmatic belief at all, any more than the sky is blue is a dogmatic belief, its just (afaic) a simple and obvious fact.

Very different... “the sky is blue” is an observation that involves no ethical or moral consideration. Any position on abortion is an opinion not an observation. To conflate the two illustrates how dogmatic you are on this.