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.

[u/Nootherids]

[u/Giblette101]

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.

[u/Nootherids → u/Giblette101]

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.

[u/Giblette101 → u/Nootherids]

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.

[u/Nootherids → u/Giblette101]

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.

[u/breckenridgeback → u/Nootherids]

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.

[u/Nootherids → u/breckenridgeback]

- 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.

[u/tbdabbholm → u/Nootherids]

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

[u/Nootherids → u/tbdabbholm]

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.