Can it be false dichotomy?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
As you all have heard of the Roe v. Wade decision (I presume), the classic debate spreads like wildfire everywhere in social media. However, I saw one very interesting take on this debate amongst all the chaos, surprisingly on twitter from all places.
It went like this: "Most "pro-choice" adults are opposed to late-term abortions (3rd trimester); however, their argument that entails "my body, my choice" doesn't hold up. You are either full pro-choice or not, the phrase my body my choice still applies to late-term abortions, the baby is still in the woman's body, hence she can do whatever she wants with her body, isn't it so? But then why most are opposed to late-term abortions? it's because they agree with "pro-life" that in the 3rd trimester, the baby is to be considered human, and therefore it would be murder if she chooses to abort. Most "pro-choice" hold 2 contradicting beliefs, you're either pro-choice all the way, supporting the woman's complete freedom over her body, or you are not, because that's what "my body, my choice" means . The fact that they believe women should have complete control over their body then oppose that by saying they can't abort in the 3rd trimester is logically inconsistent"
He went on to say that how both pro's beliefs are grounded on the same basis, that both value the human life, it's just that pro-lifers don't think a fetus is a human in the 1st and 2nd trimester but do so in the 3rd.
Comments on Question
Answers
3I think this is a False Dichotomy. I think it’s also a case of Accident—applying a universal without exception.
Does a woman have a right to ingest something radioactive and endanger herself and others? Does she have a right not to be vaccinated because it’s her body?
These questions don’t have black and white solutions
As one of my economist heros said: “There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.” Thomas Sowell.
There are many value judgments, not to mention definitional judgments, involved here. The discussion participants must first agree on the terms and then proceed with a logical discussion.
"it's just that pro-lifers don't think a fetus is a human in the 1st and 2nd trimester but do so in the 3rd."......I've never seen any pro-life advocate say at any time there isn't a human being in the womb during any trimester
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
I have to say, as a pro-choice advocate I don't use the "my body, my choice" argument, I simply use the argument that women fall pregnant far more often than they want to and if they didn't have abortions and all the women who weren't able to look after their unwanted children gave them up for adoption, society would be in a fix. The older the foetus, the closer it is to a fully-formed human being and the line needs to be drawn before actual birth - babies born very premature survive after all outside their mother. Women don't like having abortions but the nature of life is that women fall pregnant far more often than they wish to have children. Other species of animals practice birth control to suit conditions in quite brutal ways and we are, after all, animals, we cannot forget our biology.
https://www.science.org/content/article/do-big-carnivores-practice-birth-control
My question to pro-lifers is: "Where is your pro-lifeness when it comes to those starving in other countries?" "Where is your pro-lifeness when it comes to animals slaughtered for meat?" assuming the pro-lifer is an omnivore. It's impossible to be "pro-life" in every possible way so why place so much value on a human foetus? Why is the value of a human foetus worth more than the life of a person without medical aid and nutritious food in Africa? Why is the value of a human foetus worth more than that of a cow?