Seriously people stop calling yourself pro life if you support choice, all you are doing is making the social conservatives think they have more support than they actually do. It’s too late in the game to change the definitions, all it does is confuse the issue.
That doesn’t help!
You oppose having an abortion for yourself. But you don’t oppose anyone else having one. So calling yourself “anti-abortion” isn’t any more clear.
There needs to be a distinction made between what you would choose and whether you’d impose it on others.
Why?
Part of being “pro-choice” is the right to choose NOT to have an abortion. People seem to forget that part.
It’s stronger than that. I am opposed to other people having them, and if I had a friend or family member considering one I would respectfully try to talk her out of it. But I don’t have the right to make that decision for other people, and outlawing abortion would cause more harm than good anyway. But I reject “pro-choice” because I’m not going to applaud when a woman exercises her choice to abort.
Perhaps there does, but pro-life/pro-choice isn’t very good at making that distinction. I can call myself anti-abortion but that doesn’t make it clearer. Maybe “pro-legalization?” The problem is I don’t want to be identified as someone who has no problem with abortion; I have a big problem with it.
As I said, it’s a religious issue for me which I why I don’t seek to impose it on others. I believe humans are “fearfully and wonderfully made” and knitted together (no not literally) by a God who knows and loves them while they are yet in the womb. Once a human life is created I don’t believe we have the right to destroy it as a matter of convenience or fear. And I also acknowledge that maybe I’m wrong about that, but I prefer to err on the side of caution.
I didn’t forget it, having done just that (my wife, that is). I’m just talking about the labels.
Okay. The problem is that all of these labels have already been used quite extensively to refer to the legal issue, not the moral one. Like I said, you can use whatever label you want, just be prepared to have to explain it.
The next question is what makes you think abortion is wrong, yet not wrong enough to be illegal? What’s your specific thinking?
(BTW, sometimes I ask very direct questions, but it’s not because I’m challenging or disagreeing, just getting straight to the point. Please don’t mistake my tone, I’m not trying to be confrontational).
Don’t worry, I didn’t think you meant literally!
Okay, but what if I claimed the right to murder someone based on my religious beliefs about killing being different from yours? (Again, just exploring your thinking).
I have two answers for the first question:
- I can’t with any intellectual honesty come up with a compelling non-religious reason to prohibit abortion
- Many women have no other reasonable options to abortion today. So outlawing them would not stop abotions; it would just make them illegal. And then what do you do? Start jailing mothers because they were desparate and doctors because they helped? It doesn’t make sense.
Murder is different, because I (and most people) can come up with lots of non-religious objections to murder and point out all the societal benefits of making it illegal.
Its a dilemma because many people who are on the line, who say things like “sometimes abortion should be illegal” draw the line when people talk about criminalizing women for doing it. I think it is a winning wedge issue, because in all of the pro-life rants and marches I see, not one has ever had people shout that women should be in jail for it. Its a dividing line that I feel illustrates the extreme nature of what these people are proposing.
As opposed to me, who is pro-abortion. Everyone should get one! 
Okay.
Well, someone who is anti-abortion (in the legal sense) would probably say the same about abortion.
Yep.
Another good one is to ask them why they aren’t out bombing fertility clinics too, since embroyos are often destroyed there.
I’m not sure where you got the impression that people who are pro-choice would EVER applaud in this circumstance. Perhaps a very tiny minority, but the vast majority would be more like those pro-choice folks we’ve heard from here, who would like to see the number of abortions decrease, think that abortions are a more dangerous and unpleasant form of birth control, and agree that the CHOICE part includes the choice to remain pregnant.
Virtually nobody who is pro-choice is going “yay! Abortions! Let’s have more!”
Not many people applaud a woman for choosing abortion, that is a red herring. Promoting abortion is NOT the pro-choice position. It is not a pleasant experience for women nor a booming business for providers. Most people want abortion reduced by greater access to contraception and sex education. The rate of unintended pregnancy is quite high in the US compared to other OECD countries. Why is this? The greatest cause for abortions is unintended pregnancy, reducing that would help to reduce abortion. Restricting abortion does NOT result in lower abortion rates. In fact, it can be argued it does quite the opposite.
YES! This is the great hypocrisy. Somehow the location of an embryo - a woman’s uterus rather than a petri dish is more offensive. Which leads one to think that the anti-choice position is more about controlling women by reducing them to involuntary biological incubators than the sanctity of zygotes and embryos.
Um, yes, this is pretty much what I’ve been saying this whole thread.
I’ll admit that “applaud” was too strong a word, I realize that most pro-choice people don’t literally cheer for more abortions. But I think many see abortion as “no big deal” while I see them as much more tragic.
Anymore tragic than the embryos destroyed in IVF?
I would argue that a woman aborting her own embryo is perhaps more tragic *for her *because of the physical, emotional discomfort as well as cost. Which sort of conflicts with abortion ‘being no big’ deal for pro-choicers. I think many pro-choicers just want abortion to be a private decision not complicated by mandatory waiting periods (that imply women are not competent to make their own healthcare decisions) and invasive ultrasounds designed to compound a woman’s emotional discomfort and economic cost.
No, no more or less tragic. I’m uncomfortable with IVR for that reason. When my wife and I were struggling with infertility we considered IVR but planned limit the number of embryos created and use them all (not at once). But IVF ended up being too expensive to consider.
I don’t think you and I are disagreeing, except that (unfortunately) there certainly are people who don’t consider terminating a pregnancy any more problematic than removing a bad appendix.
But you applaud the fact that women have a choice. That’s what pro-choice means. it’s not pro-abortion.
I don’t applaud it; I see it as more of a necessary evil. It’s better than making abortions illegal, but not as good as making them unnecessary.
Okay, don’t applaud it. You still believe women should have a choice, so you are pro-choice.
Problematic in what way? Legally? Morally? I think many pro-choicers just want abortion (pre-viability) to be no more* legally* problematic than getting one’s appendix removed. How morally problematic it is for a woman is a private matter outside the purview of government. Full stop.
I think anti-choicers impose their morality on women by making abortion as legally problematic as possible by legislating waiting periods, mandatory ultrasounds, forcing providers to determine a woman’s intent under the guise of preventing sex selective abortions or tampering with evidence of rape or incest - all to ensure she is sufficiently (morally) shamed. What’s worse, is all this is paraded under the guise of “protecting women” :rolleyes:, which is really just infantilizing and insulting women.