According to the latest Washington Post/NBC poll which found most Americans favor lowering the legal limit for abortions from 24 to 20 weeks, “overall support for legal abortion remains stable, with 55 percent saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 41 percent say it should be illegal in most or all cases. That finding is similar to a 2012 Post-ABC poll and surveys in recent years.”
So there remains a solid edge for the pro-abortion rights position, despite the Gosnell case and scaremongering by the antis. A majority of Americans also reject attempts to place new restrictions on clinics aimed at shutting them down. As a doctor, I hope you firmly reject bogus medical claims about abortion - for instance, that it increases the risk of breast cancer, an assertion debunked by extensive medical research.
And for the sake of your credibility, you should cease using idiotic inflammatory language concerning the “abortion industry”. Terms like “born people” (and for that matter, “pre-born”) may rock the house at anti-abortion rallies, but they sound silly elsewhere.
Maybe most Americans find abortion disturbing but, pragmatically, want to keep it safe and available.
One one hand, I can give the average person credit for seeing the validity of both sides of a complex issue, and admitting to their own conflicted consciences.
Or, cynically, perhaps their public face is pro-life, but in private they want the abortion option. They’ll go to church, because people who don’t are outliers, and of course churches oppose abortion. But when they need to have an abortion, they don’t want to run a gauntlet of screaming extremists at the clinic door.
I’ve noticed the trend on older people, including my parents, to shift from pro-choice to pro-life as they put their child-bearing years behind them. They stop identifying with the situation of being burdened with kids and become judgemental. As the Baby Boomers enter this demographic I see trouble.
I think the term “anti-choice” is the legitimate antonym of “pro-choice”.
The crux of the debate, as defined by those terms, is NOT whether abortion is right or wrong (that is a separate aspect of the debate) but whether or not it should be prohibited by law. There are at least 2 legitimate debates involved; the personal and the political.
Such is a distinct and legitimate debate, given the constitution’s prohibition on the passage of laws respecting religious beliefs and exercise, as well as the inherent right to privacy found by Roe V. Wade.
Those who believe abortion is wrong/a sin/murder/something they would never do are not necessarily “anti-choice”, in that they may be of the position that others have the right to make their own choice in the matter and not favor legislation imposing THEIR beliefs and choice on everyone else.
But more often than not, those who call themselves “pro-life” and/or “anti-abortion” are also “anti-choice”; they want Roe V. Wade overturned and actively work to pass restrictive laws at the state level towards this goal.
They seek to eliminate the right to choose established by that ruling and pass laws banning (or severely restricting) the procedure. it is not enough for them to try and sway their fellow citizens to their way of thinking and convince them not to have abortions; they want to make the option illegal.
It is quite possible for someone to be personally opposed to abortion (for religious or other reasons) and still be “pro-choice”. I only ever use the term “anti-choice” to describe the position of those who DO favor “anti-abortion” legislation…if they have not made it clear that this is their position, I use the term “anti-abortion”.
That’s hardly the same as the other side labeling those who are “pro-choice” (i.e. in favor of allowing individuals to make their own personal descisions re’ abortion) as “pro-abortion” or “anti-life”. Neither of those terms is an accurate descriptor of the “pro-choice” position.
On the other hand, “anti-choice” is an accurate descriptor of the position it denotes.
This despite recent studies and reviews finding that the age of viability has not increased significantly in the past few decades and that the current limit of 24 weeks is still appropriate. Abortion opponents regularly suggest otherwise, however, citing much earlier ages of viability than is borne out by science.
My preference is for “pro-abortion rights” and “anti-abortion rights”. It’s dead accurate and relatively neutral, except that those who are anti-something fear that the public views the label “anti” as pejorative, which maybe true in some cases (for instance, antivaxers hate hate hate being called that or “antivaccine”, despite the accuracy of such labels. Oddly enough, some of them have latched on to the “pro-choice” appelation).
In the end, groups will label themselves as they choose, and it’s part of the job of an informed citizenry to see through deceptive labeling.
It’s hard not to get emotional when it comes to the issue of abortion. It is fair to say that most (or even all) people prefer that abortion never be necessary. But that isn’t going to happen so for the sake of all women of child-bearing age abortion needs to be safe and legal. I’ve read interesting studies on why women seek abortion after the legal 20 or 24 week limit. Amazingly, the principle reason given is that they didn’t know they were pregnant. Additionally, failed contraception is also an often stated reason.
All that said, one problem I personally have with legislators (particularly male ones) is that the same ones who want to make it more difficult to have an abortion also vote against SCHIP, Food Stamps, WIC and other programs to help poor women and their children. So I can understand why there are those who use the the term “Pro-Birth”.
I am under the assumption that all scientists are human and all humans are capable of lying. So it is not unthinkable that a scientist might lie - perhaps for personal acclaim or because they are paid by a certain group to provide the results they want. Google something like breast cancer and abortion. It is curious that almost no one is claiming a link except folks associated with anti-abortion.
Oh, fertheluvaMike, antecedents, people! I’m sure that miss elizabeth is of the opinion that the liars are not the scientists, but the abortion opponents who claim that 20 weeks is where viability is now considered to be likely. I’m equally sure that curlcoat in the event of a failure of her contraception, would have welcomed any politician blocking her access to an abortion clinic; nor do I believe she would support such interference in the lives of other women.
I still don’t quite get the OP.
Is the fetus innacurately portayed? Is it the rush of saying “anti choice”? Is it the opportunity to deny people doing absolutely harmless things?
Only to kick him in the nuts. Not that it’s an issue any more.