But not from all perspectives. For those who think that fetuses should be treated as persons, the fetuses’ life is the issue (there are many other issues of morality that, to people who think they are victimless actions, have positions that are also “obviously” characterized as pro-choice and anti-choice).
The terms pro-life, pro-choice, and anti-abortion all carry political baggage, insinuating that their opponents are less moral than they are. If you insist that people use one over another you are trying to shape the discussion in a way that favors your side rather than simply “telling it like it is.”
But the political baggage associated with pro-life is specifically intended to portray the opposite side as something they are not. Plus for many “pro-lifers” the life of the mother is of no concern making it hypocritical. I agree all terms are politically loaded, pro-life is the most divisive and propagandized of the group.
I didn’t want to make this analogy explicit, but if you were against murder you would be more fairly characterized as “pro-life” rather than “anti-choice”. So if you believe that abortion is murder, in your own eyes you are pro-life.
While I certainly do not support all the restrictions that anti-abortionists want to create, and indeed think it’s obvious that in the first trimester the fetus is not a person, and increasing restrictions on later abortions are not necessary, I will grant them that if abortion is murder, they should be more properly characterized as “pro-life”. Any attempt to recharacterize them as “anti-choice” is making a comment about your opinion on the personhood of the lifeform inside the mother.
Or, alternatively, they could call themselves “anti-murder”. I wonder why they don’t.
Malacandra noted earlier that “pro-choice” only refers to the choice of abortion. I’d say the same for “pro-life”, in most cases. After all, if you just can’t get as worked up about the millions of people who’ve died unnecessarily for any number of reasons as you get about the idea that someone, somewhere, is having an abortion, well…
That’s definitely true for many in the movement, especially the ones in the anti-abortion movement who are politically active in America, who seem to support needless killing in a foreign land as long as it’s done by a Republican.
But someone does not have to demonstrate that they care more about every other worse evil in the world before they can opine on the one they’re opining on. So just because someone characterized themselves as “pro-life” with regards to abortion does not mean they are not also anti-stupid-wars, or anti-lifesaving medical research, or anti-questionable death penalties, it just happens to work out that way most of the time in America
Sort of affirmative action in adoption, I’m guessing - an attempt to reduce the social stigma I assume the children of same-sex couples currently face, by making it less of a novel idea.
I don’t believe gays and lesbians are any worse than straight parents, thus it would be better for everyone to see how well their kids grow up by letting them have first crack at it.
My great-aunt’s six latest children were born after the midwife told her “there are methods to avoid getting pregnant, I’ve explained them to you, you’re not using them and, by calling me to perform abortions on you as off-handedly as if an abortion was a wart removal, you’re putting me and my other patients at risk. Don’t call me again unless you’re dilating.”
She was no hypotetical, my great-aunt. But she did be an idjit.
Less than one half of one percent of abortions in the US are performed in the third trimester. Presumably, none of those occurred because the women in question just didn’t get around to it until then, since there are laws in most states requiring that abortions after the 20th - 24th weeks be “medically necessary”.
* This is a lie.
My opinion the anti-abortion, pro-life issue is this: it is anti-choice. They want to remove the decision of what to do or not do about a pregnancy from the woman who is pregnant. They are saying that women in general are simply not smart/competent/ spiritual/whatever enough to make that decision about their own lives and their own bodies by themselves. And that is insulting beyond belief to every woman who ever lived.
No one is making women get abortions. And women do not need to be told, “no, you can’t get an abortion unless you’ve got some traumatic reason.” It’s the woman’s decision. Not yours, not the government’s, and certainly not somebody speaking on behalf of a religion or philosophy the woman may not even believe in.
If you are anti-abortion or pro-life or whatever, that’s great! Don’t get an abortion. No one’s going to make you get an abortion if you don’t want to. But do NOT try to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body. You are not my doctor or my husband (both of whom can have input, but the decision is mine!).
I have never had an abortion and will never have an abortion, that is my choice. But who the heck am I to tell some other women that she cannot have one because of what*** I*** believe in? That is the height of arrogance.
But since I do believe it is indeed killing, you could also say I’m Pro-death. See how that works? Any of us can play with words to come out looking better than the other guy.
Like I said, I don’t dig the “Pro-life” title as a descriptive either but I will accept that with more willingness than Pro-choice as it is currently used. But that’s just me.
