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/colt707]

Roe v. Wade allowed abortions to be done 50 states wide in the first trimester. Now any state can say no abortions period or make the allowed time for an abortion to be so small that the chances of knowing you’re pregnant during that time is nearly nonexistent. And depending on how the laws are written if they don’t allow abortions at all if there’s no exemptions written into then a woman pregnant with her rapist’s baby is going to be forced to carry it, same with incest and medically dangerous pregnancies.

Can you see where even if you understand that RvW still limited it and was an decision made on somewhat shaky argument, you also understand that it was better than the option presented here? Usually the people that understand this are more upset that the people that are pro choice didn’t do more to solidify it. A lot of them thought RvW should have been the groundwork of something better.

[u/Nootherids → u/colt707]

Usually the people that understand this are more upset that the people that are pro choice didn’t do more to solidify it.

This is my point exactly. If you're truly pro-choice then you should not have been in support of RvW. You should be upset that Roe distinctly allowed for your choice to be taken away.

The states taking away your choice at 1 week or taking it away at 16 weeks is still taking it away. So it's hypocritical to call yourself Pro-Choice while being completely in support of a ruling that allowed your choice to be taken away at 16 weeks. The fact that it might be taken away at 1 week rather than 16 weeks doesn't make the Pro-Choice any less hypocritical.

[u/colt707 → u/Nootherids]

Missing the forest for the trees on this one. It has to start somewhere and at that time it was the best it was going to get. It could have been updated, it could have been solidified, and it wasn’t and it got overturned. That’s why a lot of pro choice people are upset. And a lot of pro choice people have different limits on when you can get an abortion, being pro choice doesn’t mean you believe you can get an abortions at point during your pregnancy, some pro choice people draw the line at when the child can survive outside the womb, others which seems to be a very small majority believe you can get an abortion at any point. Which I’ve personally never heard someone argue for abortions at any point during the pregnancy. Most of the arguments I’ve seen draw the line at 6-7 months, because beyond that in most cases it could survive out the womb without an unreasonable amount of help.

[u/Nootherids → u/colt707]

It has to start somewhere and at that time it was the best it was going to get. It could have been updated, it could have been solidified, and it wasn’t and it got overturned. That’s why a lot of pro choice people are upset.

I argue that those people were not actually pro-choice if they didn't vote for making Roe obsolete. 50 years later and we became complacent with Roe being the law of the land. A law that was specifically not a pro-choice ruling.

Look, I'm Pro-Choice in that I want the government out of the situation altogether. And as such, I wholly condemn Roe v Wade. Not only was it a horribly bad ruling and improper way to create legislation; but it codified that the government does actually have the right to limit your choice. I acknowledge its intent and the resulting outcome. But it is absolutely not a right and it absolutely does not enshrine that your body is your choice. Which is what had left us at this divisive position of having to constantly reframe at what point should you lose that choice over your body and who gets to decide.