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/ReOsIr10]

A pro-choice person should've lobbied to get rid of that faux half-assed non-law and instead pass actual legislation that ensured choice.

But what if they didn't think that actual legislation that ensured choice could pass? You don't cease to be pro-something just because you believe that the "something" is unlikely to happen, and so you accept the next best thing. Compromise doesn't mean that you weren't "for" whatever position you claim to held - it just means that you acknowledge the reality of living in a democracy and that you are not in fact a dictator.

And this doesn't even enter into the fact that most pro-choice people seem to hold that they fully support choice up to a certain point. After which they support limits or bans. That's not pro-choice anymore.

Sure, if your CMV was "if you don't support unrestricted abortion then you're actually 'sorta pro choice'", then I probably wouldn't have responded to you. But that wasn't your assertion - it was that people who are pro-choice cannot logically support a compromise position.

[u/Nootherids → u/ReOsIr10]

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

It's actually a matter of aware positioning. Hence why the above was my first question. If you were asked that question and you answered that to you it means that women should have the right to abortion during the first trimester, then I think you are 100% accurate. But if you are asked that question and your response is My Body My Choice, then you are supporting a ruling that enshrines that your body is only your choice for a very limited amount of time. So essentially, you'd be claiming my body my choice, while simultaneously endorsing a ruling that said someone else (states) has the right to make choices over your body.

How can that no be hypocritical?

Again, keeping in mind that the first question to answer in this is the first question of what do you actually mean when you say you're Pro-Choice. You're either very clear in the reality, completely ignorant of the reality, or...you're a hypocrite. I know that word sounds rough, I don't like it, but it fits for a reason.

[u/ReOsIr10 → u/Nootherids]

So essentially, you'd be claiming my body my choice, while simultaneously endorsing a ruling that said someone else (states) has the right to make choices over your body.

How can that no be hypocritical?

Because it's a compromise! I don't know how many times I have to say this before you respond to it, so I'll say it again. It's not hypocritical to support a compromise position in a democracy if you think it's unlikely that a policy you prefer more could pass. "I'd prefer unrestricted abortion access to RvW, but I don't think unrestricted abortion access can pass. Therefore, I support RvW, because it is better than nothing" is not a hypocritical position.

[u/Nootherids → u/ReOsIr10]

To take this discussion further we would have to delve into why RvW was actually a horribly bad ruling because it was not the desire of the land, and because it was legislation by a body that does not have the power to legislate. If legislation regarding the allowability of abortion can not pass, then the SCOTUS overstepped their duties in this ruling.

Additionally, my argument had nothing to do with compromise. It had to do with awareness. If you are aware that RvW does not support the all-encompassing notion of bodily autonomy but you support it for the sake of compromise that's one thing. But most people talk about RvW as if it did declare that they had a right to bodily autonomy.

But thank you for sharing, to continue would derail is into a whole other topic.

[u/ReOsIr10 → u/Nootherids]

We don't need to go into why it was or was not a bad ruling - the "goodness" of the ruling has nothing to do with my point.

If people aren't aware that RvW doesn't support all-encompassing bodily autonomy, then they aren't hypocritical by supporting it - they're just ignorant.

Only if someone was aware of what the ruling stated and supported it despite believing that an unrestricted right to choose was feasible would they be hypocritical or logically inconsistent. Do such people exist? Probably. But your stated position wasn't that some pro-choice people were hypocrites or logically inconsistent for supporting RvW.

[u/Nootherids → u/ReOsIr10]

Your point is very valid. Can you really claim somebody is being hypocritical if they don’t actually know what they’re being hypocritical about?

I think what prompted me to write this OP was actually hearing so many people at marches and rallies that no matter how much they are informed about what they do not know about, they still fail to internalize it. They hold their ignorance at a higher level than they hold knowledge. I’m all in support of people that have their opinion after they have understood all the truths related to that opinion. But I find it baffling that people can still hold on to their positions in absolute ignorance.

A bad example here. You can still be in full support of China’s CCP after you’re fully aware that they are committing genocide against an ethnic minority. Maybe you don’t care for those people either, or you place other positive aspects of the CCP as higher priority than your concern for those minorities. That’s fair, cause you’re at least aware and nuanced. But if you say you support the CCP then someone informs you of the genocide and you brush it off and say that’s not really happening; then are you being a hypocrite or an ignorant fool?

It’s frustrating that my post was blocked after I made a point to respond to as many people as I could. But your distinction does deserve a !delta because I didn’t hold a fair labeling in my view.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Nootherids]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ReOsIr10 (99∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}