This thread has been sidetracked by terms used by me to describe the two sides of the abortion debate. Apparently anti-abortion people don’t like being called “anti.”
So what terms do you prefer?
I went for choice #2.
I like “pro-choice” and “anti-choice” myself.
I think she was just going with the most common terms used.
Agreed, but that wasn’t an option.
That’s actually the two I use.
I know people who prefer to call themselves both pro-choice and anti-abortion, in that they feel the choice should be legal and easily available to women, but that they themselves are very much against having abortions and feel it’s not a moral thing to do. That’s why I tend toward “pro-choice” vs. “anti-choice.”
I used to say pro-choice and pro-life, but looking at the options, I realized that the actual debate is pro-choice and anti-abortion. I’d say most people who don’t want anyone to get abortions aren’t pro-life; they’re just anti-abortion (and anti-choice too, frankly).
I go with pro-choice and pro-life, mainly because that seems to be what they call themselves. My opinion of whether the tag they have chosen fits them notwithstanding.
None of those are good terms. It does not serve a rational debate to use any of them. You may as well use the terms baby killers and women en-slavers instead. The terms people should use are pro abortion rights and anti abortion rights.
Pro choice is a vaguely positive term that doesn’t really mean anything. Anti-choice is just as ludicrous only it also serves to demonize the other side of the debate directly. Pro life doesn’t work because it assumes that everyone agrees that a fetus is life. It’s also way too vague. Pro abortion and anti abortion don’t work because anyone with a moral compass should think that abortions are negative events; therefore who would be for them and who wouldn’t be against them.
The debate is whether women should have the right to have an abortion and how extensive that right should be. People should not use loaded terms and the terms used should be as specific to the debate as possible.
I prefer “anti-life” and “pro-female-slavery”.
(in point of fact, I think pro-life and pro-choice are the names the movements have chosen and ought to be used, even though especially “pro-life” seems to me disingenuous).
At the moment, pro-choice and pro-life. Because I am trying to be civil about it. Unfortunately the civility doesn’t seem to run both ways, and I am close to the more accurate pro-choice and medieval.
I am both pro-choice and anti-abortion, so I am not sure that I like the choices offered./
I think abortion should be readily available, but not “easy” per se. But what defines “easy”? IF its akin to having a mole removed - too easy, if the woman has to face a veritable gauntlet - too hard.
At the end of the day, its a woman’s decision to make, and that takes primacy, no matter how much I would prefer that babies not be aborted.
I’m asking genuinely here… *why *should it be any harder than having a mole removed? Is it only okay to have an abortion if you have to suffer for it a little?
Personally I use pro-choice and anti-choice, because they are the most accurate. “Anti-abortion” is, however, far more accurate than “pro-life”.
“Pro-abortion rights” and “anti-abortion rights” work for me.
“Baby killers” and “Coercive fundamentalist swine” seem a bit…polarizing.
Do you people honestly believe that pro choice is an accurate term? In my opinion it is a meaningless term. You may as well use the term Pro Good.
I dunno, quite frankly I don’t want to put myself into the camp of “life is sacred and begins the day of conception” but I do think there is something special going on, and once a pregnancy reaches the stage of needing “an abortion” (as opposed to morning after pill) I think there should be a little more going on than removing an annoyance.
Part of this might come from the fact that it took us four years to get pregnant, part might be that my wife had a miscarriage and had to go to hospital to have the “baby scraped out”.
Part might also come from the fact that I think in this day and age I feel people get too wound up with the “right time” and “planning life” as though something can be planned - sometimes you just need to do things, whether the moment is perfect or not.
Part may also be that I myself would have been aborted if such things were around and easy when I was born, and then what of me?
Not sniping, but just FYI, the “morning after pill” is, quite literally, a morning (or up to 3ish mornings) after pill. It’s what you take if you had unprotected sex. Lots of pregnancies result from protected sex, and you don’t *know *about them until it’s far too late for the morning after pill.
No offense dude, but maybe YOU “have to” do it. I’ll choose for myself.
Me too. And then, nothing of me, which, as it happens, is of no consequence to me at all. 
Thises.
Not to worry, and yeah - I know (I understand the pill is effective for up to 72 hours).
See my personal position is that there should ideally be a pretty strong reason for an abortion. I don’t want to put myself into the position of judging just what is valid and invalid in the individual case, as every case will be different.
I do think though that “its inconvenient” or “I want to get settled in the new house first” or " I am close to a promotion at work" don’t quite cut it as valid reasons - unless there are pretty extreme riders to those cases (as in - our old house is infested with dengue mosquitos making it positively dangerous to live there ourselves, let alone take a baby there)
Maybe there’s a bit of logical inconsistency there - its just that it is, and should always be the ladies choice - so long as its a carefully considered and thought through choice.
I don’t feel that a doctors visit, plus a visit to an appropriate (neutral) psychologist is too unreasonable?