Why is the abortion debate framed as pro-choice vs pro-life?

[Queen of Hamsters]

But you do assume a position of moral high ground, and I'm willing to bet that your "let strangers choose", while it sounds good, doesn't actually translate into reality once the baby has been born and is someone's responsibility other than on the same level that most normal humans value the lives of strangers.

If you're going to turn an argument, at least have it make sense

... Again, you're just spouting mumbo at this point as you try to be "clever" by turning my arguments made from my standpoint. Where's my "moral high ground"? I'm equally for women choice no matter what they choose.
I'm also very positive towards any and all investment that goes into helping parents, caring for their children, education and safety, child care in the adoption system etc etc.

Just shows how much value there was to the few "original" points you were able to make. As I said, your stance is set in emotion, not facts and reality.

[Antiganon]

Then why have the option and not have adoption be a thing?

1. Bringing a baby to term and then giving it away, never to be seen again, is a horrifying, heart-wrenching experience. Imagine you are a pregnant woman. You have a steady job, and are excited about bringing new life into the world. Then your job lays off half the staff, and you have no job, and no way to support a child. Are you really prepared to give the baby up for adoption?

2. Adoption is a thing. It is a choice, just like abortion is a choice, just like raising the baby is a choice. Hence, pro-choice.

[Symphonic]

If we use the "coherent brain activity" marker, which is the medical definition of "death", it comfortably excludes all living persons, and coma patients, and also comfortably excludes early-term fetuses (prior to about week 20).

It's exactly the same measure we use to determine that someone is not "in a coma" but is in fact "brain-dead", which means they're no longer a "person" but a "corpse". And which doesn't see any reasonable contention.

One is continually progressing (developing into a fully-formed baby) and one is degenerating and not improving. I can see why you might pull life support from someone who is literally taking up space, but I can't see why you'd pull the plug on someone who is doing a fantastic job of growing, developing, and becoming more and more ready to leave the womb.

[Allybeboba]

One theory is there was a downturn in crime in the late 80’s and 90’s because of Roe vs Wade.

[Queen of Hamsters]

1. Bringing a baby to term and then giving it away, never to be seen again, is a horrifying, heart-wrenching experience. Imagine you are a pregnant woman. You have a steady job, and are excited about bringing new life into the world. Then your job lays off half the staff, and you have no job, and no way to support a child. Are you really prepared to give the baby up for adoption?

2. Adoption is a thing. It is a choice, just like abortion is a choice, just like raising the baby is a choice. Hence, pro-choice.

Exactly.

It's not as if though pro-choice people stand around outside Adoption centers, screaming about how the mothers should've had abortions instead...

[Endus]

One is continually progressing (developing into a fully-formed baby) and one is degenerating and not improving.

A distinction that doesn't matter.

If a corpse isn't a human being, because it lacks coherent brain activity, then an early-term fetus, by the same measure, cannot possibly be considered a human being.

A hypothetical possible future that only potentially exists if you get your way and prevent the abortion is not a justification for anything. It's a fantasy that does not exist in reality, and has no bearing on anything.

I can see why you might pull life support from someone who is literally taking up space, but I can't see why you'd pull the plug on someone who is doing a fantastic job of growing, developing, and becoming more and more ready to leave the womb.

Simple.

It's not a "someone", in either case. In the former, it's a corpse you're keeping warm. In the latter, it's a fetus, and a fetus is not a person.

If a fetus were a person, then every single miscarriage would necessarily have to be investigated as a possibly homicide, to be sure the host didn't do anything that contributed to that miscarriage. And any such risk, whether they knew they were pregnant or not, would be sufficient to charge the woman with some variation on negligent manslaughter.

Somehow, nobody ever thinks that's reasonable. Because it isn't. Because the idea that a fetus is a person is a ludicrous idea that basically nobody really believes; it's a fiction that's brought up falsely in defense of pro-life restrictions on women's basic human rights.

[Tijuana]

Genuine question. Neither side is anti-choice or anti-life, so how are the terms of the discussion framed in this manner? Shouldn't we be discussing pro-abortion against anti-abortion points in a real discussion?

Because being pro baby killing doesn't make for a very good bumper sticker, and would negate the feminist angle. Understanding Liberal issue framing is very easy, imo. If what you want sounds bad, say it's something else, or call the other guy a bigot =Leftist 101.

[Drusin]

Read this and it sounded so much like something from https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/

[Selah]

If we're taking an honest look at why the argument takes place and is framed the way it is, the argument is about the right of the unborn child to not be murdered and the right of the woman carrying the child to make choices for her own body. What's really interesting about this is that this, from what I can tell anyways, is one of the very few cases in the real world where two people's personal freedoms actually conflict with each other.

[Queen of Hamsters]

... Again, you're just spouting mumbo at this point as you try to be "clever". Where's my "moral high ground"? I'm equally for life.
I'm also very positive towards any and all investment that goes into helping parents, caring for their children, education and safety, child care in the adoption system etc etc.

Just shows how much value there was to the few "original" points you were able to make. As I said, your stance is set in emotion, not facts and reality.

Reported for trolling.

Like I said, your arguments had no value, which is why you have to copy the arguments of a pro-choice person and pretend they're your own.

[Deleted]

1. Bringing a baby to term and then giving it away, never to be seen again, is a horrifying, heart-wrenching experience. Imagine you are a pregnant woman. You have a steady job, and are excited about bringing new life into the world. Then your job lays off half the staff, and you have no job, and no way to support a child. Are you really prepared to give the baby up for adoption?

2. Adoption is a thing. It is a choice, just like abortion is a choice, just like raising the baby is a choice. Hence, pro-choice.

True but in my country they went big on making mothers deliver the child and then giving it up to the couple they selected for the child.

Since they done that, the abortion rate went from 12/1000 to 9/1000 and it's still dropping.

They also spoke with some of the mothers afterwards and no matter how hard it was for them, they also said the pain was worth it and they are still in touch with those that adopted the children and are living a healthy and happy life. Then when they spoke to mothers that carried out the abortion, a lot of them still have issues with it and whether or not they made the right choice.

It really depends on the parents, it seems like whichever decision you make, it's going to be hard decision and there's a big chance you'll regret it, regardless if you went for the abortion or the adoption. Personally I'm as Pro-abortion as I'm Pro-adoption.

[Stormdash]

Genuine question. Neither side is anti-choice or anti-life, so how are the terms of the discussion framed in this manner? Shouldn't we be discussing pro-abortion against anti-abortion points in a real discussion?

I think it's meant as a way to give each side the dignity of their own framing of the decisive issue at stake. For the former, a matter of choice over reproductive follow-through/bodily sovereignty; the the latter, the safety/dignity of a distinct human life separate from that of her mother.

[Queen of Hamsters]

True but in my country they went big on making mothers deliver the child and then giving it up to the couple they selected for the child.

Since they done that, the abortion rate went from 12/1000 to 9/1000 and it's still dropping.

They also spoke with some of the mothers afterwards and no matter how hard it was for them, they also said the pain was worth it and they are still in touch with those that adopted the children and are living a healthy and happy life. Then when they spoke to mothers that carried out the abortion, a lot of them still have issues with it and whether or not they made the right choice.

It really depends on the parents, it seems like whichever decision you make, it's going to be hard decision and there's a big chance you'll regret it, regardless if you went for the abortion or the adoption.

Yeah.

One reason for why I could never have an abortion if I got pregnant against my wish, is that I've seen how it affected women around me. Even a woman PRETENDING that she didn't care, actually broke down and cried in front of me years later.

[Heladys]

So if you go into a coma, from which you may or may not awake, does that mean you are no longer alive?

We've already established that spewing stupidity isn't going to win you points.

[Theodarzna]

If we're taking an honest look at why the argument takes place and is framed the way it is, the argument is about the right of the unborn child to not be murdered and the right of the woman carrying the child to make choices for her own body. What's really interesting about this is that this, from what I can tell anyways, is one of the very few cases in the real world where two people's personal freedoms actually conflict with each other.

Pretty much. This is also why its an intractably difficult issue. You either get into complex issues of what gets to count as human, because obviously none of the liberals want to proclaim "I'm for baby murder!"

Likewise very few on the Right want to seriously argue that sex should come with possible consequences.

[Antiganon]

It really depends on the parents, it seems like whichever decision you make, it's going to be hard decision and there's a big chance you'll regret it, regardless if you went for the abortion or the adoption. Personally I'm as Pro-abortion as I'm Pro-adoption.

And that's my entire point. Nobody has any business making those types of decisions for anyone other than themselves.

[Vyuvarax]

I think it's meant as a way to give each side the dignity of their own framing of the decisive issue at stake. For the former, a matter of choice over reproductive follow-through/bodily sovereignty; the the latter, the safety/dignity of a distinct human life separate from that of her mother.

Probably the most measured response I've gotten.

[Antiganon]

Pretty sure going through an abortion is also a horrifying venture as well. Go watch one. Now imagine that happening to your own child, while it's in you.

Running over someone on the side walk with your car is also a choice.

Read my posts, I've been there, done that. It was horrifying.

The other option would be to go through 10 months of pregnancy and assume all the associated medical costs, give up the baby at the end, never to be seen again, then file for bankruptcy due to medical bills far in excess of what my wife and I could have paid.

You really need to check yourself, you are crossing some really terrible lines here.

[Antiganon]

Perhaps, but least the line I'm not crossing is the murdering of an innocent baby.

Nice appeal to emotion. Great way to have a substantive debate.

There was no baby at the time. There was a clump of cells, with no heartbeat, no defined structure, nothing resembling a tiny human. The fetus at the time of abortion was about the size and shape of a bean. This was at less than 12 weeks.

[Yvaelle]

Funny, is that why mostly low income people (the ones who usually vote democrate)

"97 of the 100 poorest counties in the US vote Republican" (Politifact Ruling: Mostly True, depends on year used). The lowest income people in the country, by and large, are Republicans.

are the ones who generally are getting said abortions?

Abortion per capita by US state is skewed toward Blue states because Red states try their absolute hardest to make it as difficult as possible to obtain legally. As a result, the Legal abortion rate per capita is higher in blue states, but the Illegal (backroom, coat hanger, etc) abortion rate is undoubtedly higher in red states: because that is often their only accessible solution.

Is that why most abortion clinics are found in low income areas?

No, it's because low income areas are where the overwhelming number of abortions occur, because they lack the financial stability to support them. Businesses go where their customers are, the same is true for doctors. Doctors Without Borders would not be a particularly respected organization if all the Doctors involved took that org name to mean, "Doctors jetsetting between vacation resorts to go sunbathing / skiing". Doctors go where their patients are - for doctors without borders - that's often the aftermath of warzones. For abortion doctors, that's poor areas.

Yeah, must be the conservative boogeyman, right?

The co-opting of the term "pro-life" is well documented political history. So I assume you are referring to my accusation that it's motivated by cheap labour - and it's fair to call my accusation out because nobody can prove the unspoken and unwritten motivations of the Republican party. With that said, I doubt you'll convince even many moderate Republicans that maximizing cheap labour isn't the primary motivation of virtually all Republican party positions.