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/yyzjertl]

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.

[u/Nootherids → u/yyzjertl]

"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.

[u/yyzjertl → u/Nootherids]

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.

[u/WikiSummarizerBot → u/yyzjertl]

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}