I could get behind this if “pro/anti-abortion-rights” wasn’t so blasted clumsy coming off the tongue.
We need something snappy and accurate, dangit!
How does believing that fetal rights outweigh the choice of the mother make “anti-abortion” inaccurate?
I agree that pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights are the most accurate (if annoyingly wordy) descriptors.
That’s due to your post-fetal-centric point of view. Otherwise, you’d see it as pro-fetal-rights vs anti-fetal-rights. 
Pro Fetal Rights doesn’t simply explain that side of the argument to me. I think the terms should be opposites of each other. The debate is less confusing if people either fall into one camp or another. I see room for overlap using the terms Pro Abortion Rights and Pro Fetal Rights. If a person can be logically correct answering the question “Are you “Term A” or “Term B”?” with the answer, “Both.”, then we haven’t defined the terms correctly.
The problem is that there aren’t just 2 sides. There is a continuum of beliefs about what should and should not be allowed.
When it comes to whether abortion should be banned or not, there are just two sides. And ambivalence.
Sure there are different motives (I mentioned three distinct ones for pro-abortion-rights upthread), but when it comes to sides, there are only two ways to go.
ETA: Admittedly there are other discussions about what lines could be drawn, birth or third trimester or whatnot, but they largely seem to be just that: separate discussions.
I disagree. There is a side that believes that there should be some abortion rights. There is another side that believes there should not be any abortion rights. Now, the Pro Abortion Rights side may be a continuum of beliefs, but the simple fact is that all of them believe that there should be some rights. A person that is on the pro abortion rights side must then state how limited they believe those rights should be. The fact is that most people would fall into a position of believing in fairly limited abortion rights. There are very few people that believe that any abortion up to the second of delivery should be legal. Without looking anything up, I would guess that most people on the Pro side believe that women should be allowed to have an abortion up until the fetus / baby is viable outside of the mother.
They should just make entirely new words to refer to both sides.
This thread is trying to address the use of the term “pro-choice” as useful in defining the debate. You would lump together Gloria Steinem and those who think abortion can be permitted only in the case of rape or incest. That doesn’t help define the debate.
Persons who think abortion can be permitted only in the case of rape or incest would be considered anti-abortion-rights by most people. Exceptions in rare limited special cases aren’t the same as legalizing it for the rank and file - otherwise murder is legal.
Why don’t you exactly explain what abortion rights that the term Pro Choice infers that a person believes in then?
I think this is more a function of your bias…than what I actually said.
I am saying that no matter what the fetus is (it is a fetus, which is why it is called a fetus)…the woman bearing the pregnancy should not give up any rights over her body because of it.
If she chooses to end a pregnancy occurring in her own body…that is her right.
Now, if you want to consider the fetus to be something other than a fetus…and give it a designation of full human…and then want to complain that I am creating two different classes of people…you are all wet.
You are certainly free to do so…but you are the one creating two people…and two different classes of people…not I.
Obviously, in the situation YOU invented…one of the “persons” will have to give up a right. Either the woman will have to give up the right to free dominion over her own body…or the fetus will have to give up the right to remain in her body.
Since we know the woman is a person…and are only speculating the fetus is a person…my vote goes with the entity that is a person for sure…rather than on speculation.
If you want to say that is a “term of art”…so be it.
There are at least six identifiable sides that I can think of, plus all kinds of gradations and blurrings between those sides. The six basic categories could be described as pro-life, anti-life, pro-choice, anti-choice, pro-abortion, and anti-abortion.
The pro-life position views abortion as but one aspect of a greater issue. Someone who’s genuinely pro-life will, indeed, also be opposed to the death penalty, war, and euthanasia. An example of a pro-life individual would be Pope John Paul II, who put forth the doctrine of the “seamless garment”, that respect for life is a single issue, and that any of those things are an affront against respect for life.
The anti-life position is not one that many folks will self-identify with, since it’s sociopathic. Such an individual would support killing for the sake of killing. An example might be the doomsday cult Aum Shinryko, the group which made the sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway.
The pro-choice position is essentially that it should be the pregnant woman, not a government or other agency, that should be making the decision about whether or not to have an abortion. Examples abound, and many people in this thread could probably be accurately described as pro-choice.
The anti-choice position, like the anti-life position, is not one many folks will self-identify with, since it’s despotic. Basically, it’s the position that the person holding that belief ought to be the one making the decision for others (which becomes especially dangerous when the person holding this view is highly placed in government). Based on the policies he pushed as both governor of Texas and as President, I suspect that this was the position of George W. Bush.
The pro-abortion position looks at abortion as an isolated issue, and seeks to promote it, regardless of the decisions of others. China’s policy requiring abortions in second pregnancies would be an example of this.
Finally, of course, the anti-abortion position also looks at abortion as an isolated issue, and seeks to oppose it, regardless of what other life issues might be present. An abortion-clinic bomber would fall into this category, as do an unfortunately large number of other folks (to a lesser extreme, of course).
In the US, pro-life and pro-choice are the most common self-applied labels, since as the debate runs in this country, those two views are approximately opposed, and they put better appearances on the debate than the other terms. But they’re not necessarily always opposed: For instance, China’s policy mandating abortions is abhorrent to both the genuine pro-lifers and to the genuine pro-choicers.
What a silly post. Are you seriously saying that people that call themselves Pro Life are also anti-war? Also, what exact positions did George W. Bush make that put him under the Anti Choice label instead of the Anti Abortion label?
If there are six positions, they’re:
It’s no baby kill it if you like
It’s no baby at first kill it until third trimester or sometime like that
Don’t care if it’s a baby it’s the mom’s uterus
I think it’s a baby but I’m not gonna tell other people what to do
It’s a baby but if you’re raped you can kill it otherwise no
It’s a baby and you can’t kill it dammit
ETA: most people would consider the first four positions “pro-choice”, and the others not.
ETA2: I’m position 2. Since you all care.
My “bias” is an understanding of how the law works and what the legal definition of a “person” is. If that’s a problem, then there isn’t much point continuing this debate.
A broad anti-abortion group, including some who are anti-sex-education, anti-contraception, anti-reproductive-self-determination-of-all-kinds;
a broad pro-reproductive-self-determination, pro-contraception group, including those who are pro-abortion.
Note that they overlap. I have learned that “pro-life” & “pro-choice” as used actually overlap, as shocking as I first found that.
I think what Chronos is saying that these 6 definitions are what we should use, and that current pro-choice/pro-life people confuse what they call themselves with one of these labels.
C’mon, fella.
You charged that I created a term of art.
I am saying that the only reason you charged me with that is because of a bias you have.
Go back to my original post and tell me what I said that has your feathers up.
Otherwise maybe we should agree to drop it, because in my opinion, you are not making any sense.
As a matter of interest, by the way…is it your understanding of the law that a fetus is defined as a “person?”
I mean, like…can you take a fetus as a dependant deduction on your income tax return?