We must also include a new term that is being proposed by legislation, women being prosecuted for “reckless acts” they may commit while pregnant.
Speaking of another aspect of this topic, criminalization of miscarriages sometimes comes up in conversations on the board and discounted by many pro-life people claiming it will not happen. The state of Utah is about to enact a law that would do just that.
It’s really close, but it’s not quite making all miscarriages illegal, just those that are considered the mother’s fault. In other words, if it happened for, say, a medical reason, it wouldn’t count.
But you are right that it would likely be used for such. A term like “reckless acts” is way, way, way too broad. (I say would because I can’t see it not being struck down.)
My opinion on the OP: yes, pro-choice is different from pro-abortion, and it really describes the views quite well, even if that choice is, in this case, specifically for pregnant women. That said, pro-abortion is exactly what many pro-lifers call you.
I say you should call people what they call themselves. You may not agree that it is accurate, but calling them anything else will come across as insulting. The last thing you want to do to convince the undecided is to insult your opponents.
The problem is in cases like this, you are ceding ground to the opposition by calling them what they want to be called. And arguably insulting yourself; if they are “pro-life”, and you oppose them what does that make you?
“Call people what they want to be called” is a rule to follow when they use neutral or accurate terms to refer to themselves. Not when they use inaccurate terms designed to manipulate. Especially when they aren’t prone to return the favor.
I think “pro-choice” is a fine term…and does the job of communicating the position of the people using it to describe themselves in the “right to have a legal abortion” debate.
I think the “pro-life” term sucks…but it does the job of communicating the position of the people using it to describe themselves in the “right to have a legal abortion” debate.
Anybody having difficulties with either of these terms being used the way they are used…is probably just debating the issue itself by protesting the words.
The correct terms would be pro-legal-abortion and anti-legal-abortion, but the latter side doesn’t want to be considered “anti” anything.
An anti-abortion person once told me that “pro-abortion” is correct because “pro-choice people vote the same as pro-abortion people.” I asked him is there was a bill forcing certain women to have abortions would most pro-choice people vote for it.
He didn’t answer me.
I do use pro-choice and anti-abortion because they are the clearest terms.
I advocate abortions for some, miniature american flags for others.
That would be “pro-abortion.”
The ONLY way, and I do mean this, for there to be less abortions in the world is to:
I consider myself firmly pro-abortion - not mandatory abortions, yeesh. 
Just abortion available on demand with no questions asked.
When you can show me the above things have happened then I may back down a little. But right now, abortions on demand, to anyone who wants them. And don’t even bring in third trimester abortions, please. There are TWO doctors right now who do them. And I really don’t know any women who would go that far and then want an abortion for personal reasons (i.e, non-health related).
That’s my two cents on abortion.
I don’t consider the fetus a person either (actually, it doesn’t really matter to my views if it is a person or not), but I wish there were fewer abortions. I also wish there were fewer plastic surgeries. And fewer chemotherapy treatments. And fewer appendectomies.
I wish there was a need for fewer medical procedures of all types because they all have a risk, and prevention is a wonderful thing.
Seconded! Plus, get rid of the option for pharmacists to not supply BC pills because they are “abortificants” (a product that “causes” abortion). It has not been in the news lately, but I recall a few years ago there was a big hoo-ha because pharmacists did not want to have to issue prescriptions for products that were against their moral code.
Well you know how the right to swing my fist ends right before your face? Well, that also means that your moral code needs to end right before it impacts my body and my options.
Pro-choice is the perfect description, because it is about allowing the person to make the best choice for them (carry & keep, carry & give up, or abort). I think anti-abortion is probably the best term for the others.
Perhaps the opposing side should be called “pro-fetus” instead. So many of them don’t seem to care much what happens to it once it’s born anyway.
While I’m pro-choice myself, an abortion is a surgical procedure that costs money, is not without its risks, and an unwanted pregnancy may be the cause of emotional stress. Ideally there would be no abortions. As to your second point, I find that even pro-choice people can have strong attachments to their fetus. I have yet to meet a woman with a wanted pregnancy that was not extremely bummed out by her miscarriage. To a lot of people a fetus is more than just a lump of flesh even if they’re pro-choice.
I want to thank Diogenes and YogSothoth for their candor.
And the former side doesn’t want to be considered pro-abortion, even with the “legal” qualifier.
As has already been noted, the two sides simply start with 2 different assumptions-- personhood or non-personhood of the fetus. Those views are not reconcilable. Neither is “right” in objective sense, as attainment of “personhood” is a process, not an event. Where we draw the line is necessarily arbitrary, to some extent.
If we take a strictly scientific view (my preference), we still run into difficulties in coming up with an objective point of determining “personhood”. Conception? Heartbeat? Brainwaves? Birth? Self-recognition? Any of those could be good candidates. We have pretty much decided to use “viability” as the point where we confer “personhood”, and I think this is fine.
You don’t see it much here, but there are still people on the anti-abortion rights side of the debate who like to throw around terms like “Nazi” and “Hitler” to demonize their opponents.
There’s a nice response in the letters section of my local paper today to a previous writer, who attacked the motivations of prospective parents who get antenatal testing for birth defects.
I’m good with pro-abortion. So are several other people here. I consider abortion a good thing, in the exact same way I consider any other medical procedure a good thing. Sure, it’d be better if you never got pregnant. It would also be better if your tonsils never got infected, but once they are, isn’t being able to fix it a good thing?
The cost of an abortion or major surgery obviously eliminates some of the casual superficiality that I’d like people to have. Nevertheless, I wish it to be considered in the same emotional light.
As for attachment, that’s ingrained. We cannot but see the light at the end of the tunnel when we set on a particular path. Few travel a road aimlessly without a goal in mind. These women think they’ve lost a baby. They’re free to think that. But their decision to eliminate it is contradictory.
Babies are all pretty much the same to me. Why do people put name tags on them if they weren’t? There simply is no distinguishing one fetus from another, and I’m talking by normal senses, not ultrasound and DNA tests. I’ve asked a few women this question: If you picked a name out for a fetus but lost it, then got pregnant again, would you recycle the name? I would, because the first fetus never developed into a person. It’s irrelevent, non-existent in terms of being a human being.
Pro-choice is a good option, as opposed to something like pro-abortion, because some people cannot grasp the fact that the CHOICE is the thing we’re fighting for. If we were pro-abortion, we would want everyone to have one! That’s not true even of me, who thinks abortion is not taken lightly enough. We are pro-choice because we’re happy whether or not the abortion happens, we just want the woman to be able to make that choice. Pro-life is a stupid ass term. These are the same people who don’t give a shit about babies after they’re born, unless gays happen to adopt them.
Well, I’m sure there are plenty of “pro-life” individuals who will accept “anti-abortion”. But last I say, the leaders of the pro-choice movement eschew the use of “pro-abortion”.
Some pro-choice people do consider the fetus a person. However, they don’t consider it right for any person to use another person’s body with permission.
If a man uses a woman’s reproductive system without her permission, it’s called rape. If a fetus does the same thing, isome people considered it “pro-life.”
Given the fact that the pro-choice side is a big-tent group including people who think fetuses aren’t people, people who think fetuses are people but don’t care because of property rights issues, and people who think fetuses are people but don’t wish to legislate their beliefs onto others, I think the only correct term for them as a collective group is “pro-choice”. “Pro-abortion” simply isn’t accurate for describing all of them (or even in my opinion most of them), and “anti-life” is of course a heinous and untruthful pejorative in all senses.
I think that the term “pro-life” is a heinous and untruthful term - heinous because it rather explicitly implies the opposition as being anti-life, and untruthful because they’re not pro-all-life - only unborn fetuses. (Again, as a collective group. There may be complete pacifists amongst them, but they do not define the group, and aren’t even characteristic of it.) “Anti-abortion” is a better term, but it doesn’t actually decribe the group either - many people who are pro-choice are opposed to abortions in principle too. So, as may be anticipated, I think the only accurate term for describing the group is in relation to its actual defining property - those who oppose other people having the legal right to choose to get an abortion. Thus, “anti-choice”.