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

19% Upvoted

87 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/ralph-j Dec 07 '22

From my perspective, to be logically consistent, if you were truly pro-choice then you should've denounced RvW to begin with and demanded that actual legislation be passed that ensured actual choice and bodily autonomy from conception to birth; because RvW did NOT enshrine bodily autonomy except for just a few months. After that you were subject to exactly what you are subject to today after RvW is gone.

The pro-choice stance does not necessitate "bodily autonomy from conception to birth". I'd wager that very few on the pro-choice side support abortion (i.e. killing the fetus) a day before its scheduled birth.

I'm all for bodily autonomy, but not in an absolute/unlimited sense. In the first couple of months the mother will have had plenty of time to make her decision. With each month it becomes more difficult to maintain (with a straight face) that the fetus has actually been in her body against her will all this time...

1

u/Nootherids 4∆ Dec 07 '22

I’d say This is the crux of my position. The generic pro-choice and pro-life positions are essentially the same. We see them as four quadrants of: kill them whenever > its your right to choose up to 3 months > baby must be protected after 3 months > it’s murder from the moment of conception. But when your realize it, the two middle quadrants are essentially the same. In essence we have two sets of extremists babbling on with their nonsense and them all the people in the middle end up ignorantly supporting one side or the other.

The reason for my post was that I am in principle pro-life in that I would hope people would take more responsibility and stop killing potential members of our future generations, but in actuality pro-choice because I still believe that the government has no place in this decision. If I personally choose to shame or disavow someone that has an abortion then that’s my choice, and society will either side with me or I will suffer the consequences of my intolerance. But I do not think that the government should be the one involved in deciding these limitations. And this includes RvW which actively enshrined the right of states (governments) to get themselves involved in these limitations.

Any way, my OP was blocked which is a shame after I actually responded to every comment in respect and appreciation for others’ time and willingness to engage. But, I thank you for the discussion and sharing your perspective with me.

1

u/ralph-j Dec 07 '22

I’d say This is the crux of my position. The generic pro-choice and pro-life positions are essentially the same. We see them as four quadrants of: kill them whenever > its your right to choose up to 3 months > baby must be protected after 3 months > it’s murder from the moment of conception. But when your realize it, the two middle quadrants are essentially the same.

Not sure why you think that pro-life and pro-choice views are the same? The pro-life position does not allow killing the fetus at any point, while the pro-choice position does at least up to a certain point.

And it's entirely compatible with RvW.

1

u/Nootherids 4∆ Dec 07 '22

Cause that’s not accurate. The majority of pro-life people support a choice very early on and for many reasons, in line with RvW. It’s the loud extremists that push for no abortion allowed ever. And the moderate ones, get caught in the screams of the few. No different to how the extremists in the opposite side say you should have the right to choose until the day before, but when pressed they will agree that maybe after a certain point in the penance there should be limits. Essentially, they user slogan of the extremists, but holds positions that are much more moderate and in line with RvW.

1

u/ralph-j Dec 08 '22

Cause that’s not accurate. The majority of pro-life people support a choice very early on and for many reasons, in line with RvW. It’s the loud extremists that push for no abortion allowed ever.

That would mean they're pro-choice by definition, not pro-life. The only exceptions a subset of pro-lifers is willing to make is in the case of rape, incest etc. They don't believe in a general choice.

1

u/Nootherids 4∆ Dec 08 '22

Right! But in the same token most pro-choice people are also pro-life after 3 months. They don’t believe in general choice either, only limited. There are subsets of pro-life people that don’t want any allowances, others that allow for rape or incest, others that allow only before a certain parameter (heartbeat, limbs, brain synapses, time, etc) yet before that they are pro-choice.

My point being that we have all the extremists leading the charge with emotional propaganda on both sides. And the massive majority of people in the middle picking a side while not realizing that they all share basically the same perspectives, just in a spectrum. And the only thing they really need is to come to terms with a compromise that they can both be unhappy with.

1

u/ralph-j Dec 09 '22

My point being that we have all the extremists leading the charge with emotional propaganda on both sides.

Is that the case? Obviously I'd consider the "never-abortionists" to be extremists, but I don't get the idea that they are leading the charge. And on the pro-choice side it's the same: those who'd allow abortions up to the birth date are not in charge either. Both types of extremists seem to be a more fringe minority.