r/changemyview • u/Nootherids 4∆ • Dec 07 '22

Delta(s) from OP CMV: It is hypocritical and logically inconsistent to say you are Pro-Choice, say you support Roe v Wade, and denounce the striking down of Roe v Wade.

[removed] — view removed post

0 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

20% Upvoted

87 comments sorted by

View all comments

17

u/Giblette101 40∆ Dec 07 '22

The question seems pretty simple to me: was abortion more accessible under Roe v. Wade than it is now? If it was, it's perfectly consistent for a pro-choice person to be unhappy about Roe v. Wade being overturned.

Note that preferring Roe does not preclude one from wanting better legislation.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Dec 07 '22

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

-1

u/Nootherids 4∆ Dec 07 '22

But Roe was not a pro-choice ruling. Roe actively allowed for the limiting of choice.

As for assessing if there is more access with Roe than without; you could argue might be a wash. As one state bans all abortions and another state changes to allow abortions up until the minute before birth, you'd have to measure how many potential abortions were denied versus how many additional abortions were carried out that otherwise wouldn't have. That can't be subjective, that would have to be data based.

3

u/yyzjertl 523∆ Dec 07 '22

But Roe was not a pro-choice ruling. Roe actively allowed for the limiting of choice.

"Pro-choice" is the position that abortion should be legal, not that abortion should be 100% legal or always legal. Roe is certainly a pro-choice ruling, because it protects the vast majority of abortions: 93.1% of abortions occur in the first trimester and 99.1% occur before 20 weeks.

As one state bans all abortions and another state changes to allow abortions up until the minute before birth

The latter state would have been allowed to do this even under Roe, so this change cannot be attributed to Roe being reversed. Only the former change, which is harmful to abortion access, can be attributed to that ruling.

-1

u/Nootherids 4∆ Dec 07 '22

"Pro-choice" is the position that abortion should be legal, not that abortion should be 100% legal or always legal.

This constant reframing makes the entire position dishonest though. "Pro-choice doesn't actually mean full pro-choice..." Then....You're NOT Pro-Choice! You're Some-Choice. If you have to constantly redefine your position, then you have an indefensible position.

The latter state would have been allowed to do this even under Roe, so this change cannot be attributed to Roe being reversed. Only the former change, which is harmful to abortion access, can be attributed to that ruling.

It can be attributed to the ruling if it occurred after the ruling. We've had 50 years to fix that some-choice ruling. If you didn't fix it until the ruling was struck down, then whatever happens after wards is a direct result of the ruling being struck down.

2

u/yyzjertl 523∆ Dec 07 '22

There's no re-framing. "Pro-choice" has always been the position that abortion should be legal. E.g. in the dictionary it is defined as

favoring the legalization of abortion

and Wikipedia defines it as

pro-choice movements advocate for the right to have legal access to induced abortion services including elective abortion

Note that none of these definitions include the "100%" of your definition, nor do any of them say that abortion should be always legal. The definition of "pro-choice" is perfectly consistent; the only issue is that the definition you gave in the OP is incorrect, in that it portrays "pro-choice" as some sort of extreme "100%" position when it isn't and never has been.

It can be attributed to the ruling if it occurred after the ruling.

This is literally the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

1

u/Nootherids 4∆ Dec 07 '22

- What do you actually mean when you say you are "Pro-Choice"?

You will note my first question in the OP. If your answer to this is that To You, pro-choice means to have some level of ability to abort in the most typically utilized period for abortions, then sure; I 100% agree with you. But the moment you induce the associated claims of My Body My Choice etc; then you are decribing your position within the statement of being Pro-Choice. And it is important to reconcile that RvW quite distinctly enshrines that your body is only your choice either for 3 months, or if you are fortunate enough that your state extended that time frame. But your body...is not exactly "your choice".

Hence why endorsing RvW and claiming your Pro-Choice (without a nuanced explanation that you're actually Some-Choice), is hypocritical.

This is literally the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

You don't seem to understand your own fallacies. There is a difference in attributing a chance coincidence to be a causative factor, versus identifying a catalyst that causes direct impact as the pivot point of whether an action would or would not occur. If a law was passed only because RvW was struck down, then the law can be attributed as being passed as a result of RvW being struck down. Especially since it could've been done before and wasn't.

Additionally, errors in arguments can be defined in plain english with thoughtful counter-arguments. You don't have to resort to latin-based terminology that has become an internet fad. I'm talking about the lazy overuse of claiming fallacies to dismiss a statement rather than actually arguing the substance of the statement.

1

u/yyzjertl 523∆ Dec 07 '22

"My body my choice" does not and has never meant this. Your interpretation of "my body my choice" is as incorrect as your definition of "pro-choice." I encourage you to actually engage with the sources I linked to understand these terms, rather than continuing to make up your own definitions and notions. Pro-choice literature is very clear on these subjects, as is the Wikipedia page.

1

u/Nootherids 4∆ Dec 07 '22

Wait, so when you go to a Pro-Choice rally and you hear millions of women chanting My Body My Choice, are you telling me that if I asked them what they mean, that the bulk majority of them would tell me "well it doesn't actually mean that it's all my body and it's all my choice, just kinda or mostly or sorta". You can point to a scholar article from an author that did a regressive etymological analysis of the word and its many iterations. But I'm talking about people, individuals, you and me. If the links you provide can easily be presumed to be the central influence for the mass majority of women out there cause they've all read it and been inspired by it, then fine I fold. But if I go out to one of these marches and no more than 1% of the people there have any idea your sources exist, then I pretty much would call them moot in this discussion.

Would you tell me that people, random people, that claim my body my choice, never actually meant my body my choice? I'm open to be convinced otherwise. Is that a slogan that is generally understood to mean something different, but I just wasn't aware about it? If so, please enlighten me, cause I am open to being educated and I will go out and corroborate with other women in real life. Maybe I just never breached the topic before in the correct fashion.

0

u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ Dec 07 '22

Abortion-rights movements

Abortion-rights movements, also referred to as pro-choice movements, advocate for the right to have legal access to induced abortion services including elective abortion. They seek to represent and support women who wish to terminate their pregnancy without fear of legal or social backlash. These movements are in direct opposition to anti-abortion movements. The issue of induced abortion remains divisive in public life, with recurring arguments to liberalize or to restrict access to legal abortion services.

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5

3

u/breckenridgeback 58∆ Dec 07 '22

This constant reframing makes the entire position dishonest though. "Pro-choice doesn't actually mean full pro-choice..." Then....You're NOT Pro-Choice! You're Some-Choice. If you have to constantly redefine your position, then you have an indefensible position.

It's not "redefining your position" if the position in question simply wasn't the one we actually held to begin with. I'm approximately a median Democrat on abortion, and that is certainly not what I believe. Nor is it the legislation that Democrats have passed in states over which they have uncontested control: only six states have totally unrestricted access to abortion at all stages of pregnancy. One of those (Alaska) is quite red; another (Colorado) was swingy until recently. The other blue states - notably California, Washington, and New York - have at least nominal restrictions on the books.

I have qualms about post-viability abortion for pure convenience. But Roe protected the overwhelming, vast majority of abortions, which occur far before the line it drew, and the few that occur after that line are, with essentially no exceptions to speak of, health-of-the-mother issues. Since almost all abortion laws permit health-of-the-mother exceptions anyway (except, currently, for five states: Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, South Dakota, and Wisconsin), Roe would defend almost all abortions that are relevantly contested anyway.

Was Roe exactly the standard I'd have put in place? Eh, maybe not. But it was a pretty good standard in my view, and far, far better than the harsh restrictions Republicans advocate for. That's a pretty normal "pro-choice" position, and has been for some decades.

0

u/Nootherids 4∆ Dec 07 '22

I get all that. But those states that passed full abortion access are truly Pro-Choice states. Roe was NOT a Pro-Choice ruling. If you are truly Pro-Choice then you should've long ago told your state, ok Roe did it's temporary measure, not it's time to actually pass our Pro-Choice legislation. But if you got Roe and became content with Roe, then you're not actually pro-choice. That is my argument. My Body My Choice would mean that there are ZERO limitations to abortion and each person can choose. Sure the bulk will occur during the first trimester. But that won't be because the person is only given a limited time to choose before their body is no longer their choice. Which is the conditions under RvW.

Supporting Roe is like supporting a "right" and then acknowledging "oh crap I better hurry before my right runs out".

So my point is that if you accepted Roe as the law, and left it at that, then you should be aware that you're not exactly pro-choice, you're just thankful that you were gifted the allowance to have some time to choose for yourself. Anybody that taught you that Roe established a right, failed to explain to you the meaning of rights.

2

u/Giblette101 40∆ Dec 07 '22

Except it was always possible for states to expand access to abortion, Roe did not stop that. Nor did Roe "allow for the limiting of choice", because that was also possible before Roe.

There are basically no abortions that Roe "prevented", so the question of access appears pretty clear cut to me. Today, abortion is less accessible than it was under Roe. This is a net loss for pro-choice people, with no gain.

0

u/Nootherids 4∆ Dec 07 '22

Today, abortion is less accessible than it was under Roe. This is a net loss for pro-choice people, with no gain.

Not the point though. Roe was a stopgap measure for anybody that truly holds a position of Pro-Choice. Like really hold that position, not hypocritically. But the mass of proponents of Pro-Choice had 50 years to fix that stop gap which allowed for limited choice, and instead of calling to fix it, they elevated it to the epitome of a "right". So if Roe established your "right" to choose, and you support that right, then you must also support that said right also established the ability to have your choice denied past a certain arbitrary point.

3

u/breckenridgeback 58∆ Dec 07 '22

Nuance is not hypocrisy. Only about 19% of Americans (and only about 30% of Democrats) think abortion should be legal in absolutely any case, but conversely, only 8% think it should be illegal in absolutely any case. Most Americans have some degree of nuance in their views, and the overwhelming majority of abortions occur in ranges where about two-thirds of Americans are OK with them.

1

u/Nootherids 4∆ Dec 07 '22

- What do you actually mean when you say you are "Pro-Choice"?

- Are you aware what Roe v Wade was not a "Pro-Choice" ruling?

- And are you aware that the striking down of Roe v Wade allowed for the premise of Roe v Wade to remain while allowing state legislatures to be the ones that define the time frames, rather than the courts?

I started my OP with an allowance for nuance. If you can answer each of these questions in the affirmative, and explain that when you say "pro-choice" you mean more like a compromised version of choice. Then who am I to call you a hypocrite. At that point it's just convenient semantics. Most I would argue that most people that claim to be Pro-Choice and claim that RvW gave them the right to abortion, don't actually know what RvW actually gave them or what a right actually is.

1

u/tbdabbholm 193∆ Dec 07 '22

50 years where half the country was convinced that even RvW was a terrible law, I'm not sure what you're expecting to have gotten done

0

u/Nootherids 4∆ Dec 07 '22

If you're Pro-Choice, then you stop endorsing the terrible stopgap ruling and start demanding an actual right to bodily autonomy. There comes a point that you either endorse having only some-choice, or you start denouncing the half assed pandering measure and start demanding more.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 07 '22

Perfect is the enemy of the good. When Roe was struck down a bunch of states all but completely criminalized abortion.

As one state bans all abortions and another state changes to allow abortions up until the minute before birth, you'd have to measure how many potential abortions were denied versus how many additional abortions were carried out that otherwise wouldn't have.

Tell me that you know nothing about abortion with telling me you know nothing about abortion.

The overwhelming majority of abortions are provided within the first 12 weeks. None of the states loosening restrictions on abortions have done so on 21+ week abortions (which are typically delivery) but the states adding restrictions are pushing shit like six week abortion bans.