I think it works perfectly fine to call different groups by the names they choose for themselves. We don’t call the political parties “Democrats and Republikkkans” or “Republicans and Defeatocrats.” We call them “Democrats and Republicans.”
“Pro-choice” and “pro-life” are good labels. Everyone knows what they mean when folks use these terms.
One might make the distinction that to be “pro-” something means you want an active change in your direction; pro is short for promote, after all, not “prefer to keep things as they are”. Thus we could safely categorise any group that is “pro-gay” as wanting active changes in law and socially in order to promote gay issues. Pro-lifers would want changes in the law to save more life, and pro-choicers would want changes to mean more choice.
That would leave us with pro-abortionists wanting changes to mean there are more abortions; on the surface it seems like it would be reasonable to say “That’s just the same as the pro-choicers”, but no, it’s not. Promoting abortions suggests you want a change in the law to make abortions more prevalent; since the law (in the U.S.) allows abortions at the moment, it suggests that such people want something beyond simply legalising abortion; mandatory abortions, for example. In addition, pro-choicers (in general) would prefer there to be no abortions, either, in the sense that it would be preferable if you could choose when to get pregnant and when not with 100% accuracy. Abortions are still a big biological and psychological issue; to say that someone is “pro-abortion” does have connotations of saying “Abortions for all! Good ol’ abortions!”. I think you could certainly derive a sense of wanting mandatory abortions from “pro-abortion” labels - and do it consistently, too.
If the “pro-lifers” are true to that label, shouldn’t they also be decrying the war in Iraq?
Does it concern them that about 25,000 children (age 5 and under) die per day mostly due to starvation?
To me, their sentiments aren’t really as much about “pro-life” as they are “anti-abortion”. Before they can be so sanctimoniously smug, they should look at their own “pro-life” view and see how limited it really is.
I’m pro-choice by the way but you might have guessed that from my “fair” and “impartial” posting. 
That’s what has always confused me…most “pro-lifers” don’t seem to give a damn about the baby once it’s born. And some of them seem to be more anti-women’s rights than just anti-abortion.
How does this matter, or justify intentionally killing a preborn human being?
Just like many pro choice people are against the choice of a citizen to carry a firearm, or against the choice provided by school vouchers.
No, unless you insist that pro-choicers lobby for school vouchers, and every other political issue that involves a choice.
True pro-lifers are against War–at least, against starting wars. And they are against capital punishment. They also believe in social justice, since starvation kills, too.
Those who are glad to kill “legally” unless the one killed is a fetus are anti-choice.
I call them “pro-birth”, not pro-life.
Well, thank goodness we have descriptive labels that contribute to respect, understanding and constructive engagement. :dubious:
Exactly. It’s silly to criticize how the various sides self-describe, as that avoids the real meat of the argument.
How about if we frame the debate as idealists vs. realists. IMHO most if not all Pro-Lifers think abortion is a bad thing. However as realists they can see that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. Banning all abortions would be about as effective as banning alcohol. It would create a black market and would likely cause as many deaths as it prevents. In a perfect world abortion would be illegal, of course in a perfect world there would be no need for abortions. If the pro-life movement was really interested in saving the unborn, they would stop wasting time trying to change laws, picketing hospitals and setting up web sites. They would spend their time and money to provide housing, medical, financial care to women who need them. They would insure that all have access to sex education and birth control. So I guess my point is there are plenty of people who are pro-life and pro-choice. If we have to have labels why not realists and idealists.
Pro abortion rights.
Anti abortion rights.
I wish these terms would come into vogue because it would stop the silly bickering about names.
As long as you’re up, I could use a pony…
Speaking of the real meat of the argument, Mighty Girl was railing mightily at the Catholic Church for its crazy positions on sex, procreation, and abortion. According to a story on NPR’s All Things Considered, the US’s bishops just finished their big meeting, and they came out with their current position statement. They had discussed ministering to gay church members. The spokesbishop made clear, though, they are not accepting the idea of gay sex. The reason? There’s no chance of procreation in gay sex, so it’s sinful. Sex should be all about making Catholic babies.
That ignores nearly all of Catholic couples, of course, but that doesn’t matter. Only 4% of those couples use the Vatican-approved rhythm method of family planning. It also ignores infertile couples; I guess they aren’t supposed to have sex because there’s no baby-making. Why do the bishops pound on the gays and the aborters and ignore all those other sexual sinners? Why do adulterers get off the hook with a handful of Hail Marys, but the gays become a public issue? Why are the couples using the pill, the diaphram, the sponge, and the condom entitled to their privacy, but the women for whom those method didn’t work are publicly excoriated?
The bishops’ sexual reasoning is so twisted, you could put a propeller on it, and the Church would fly.
I know you think you’re framing it as neutral, however, let me point out to you that the term “rights” is value laden as well. If something is a “Right” it simply is, and no one should oppose it, right? 
I prefer “anti-choice.”
Exactly wrong. It’s silly to rely on labels that are imprecise, deceptive, and that antagonize and/or libel the other side, preventing consensus or at least civil dialogue (so far as that is possible on this issue).
“Pro-life” is a poor label insofar as it overlooks issues surrounding the prospective mother’s life and health, as well as demonizing the other side as anti-life.
“Pro-choice” is unsatisfactory mostly because it attempts to avoid the issue of ending human life (regardless of whether that life is felt to represent a human being).
As to the example someone brought up of major parties being free to call themselves Democrats and Republicans - if they had names after the fashion of abortion advocacy, we’d have something like:
“Pro-American Low-Taxicans”
and
“Pro-Low And Middle Class High Wage-O-Crats”
So far we have my and jsgoddess’s votes for “pro-abortion rights” and “anti-abortion rights”. I’d like to see this terminology used more, at least on these boards for starters.
And noting wring’s point - if the anti-abortion rights side were to counter that describing them as “anti…rights” puts them at a disadvantage, then a reasonable compromise would be using the term “anti-abortion” for them, and “pro-abortion rights” for the opposition.
Accurate and non-pejorative by any reasonable analysis.
It gets crazier than that.
I was raised a Catholic. I went to a Catholic school since second grade (home-schooled before that). Sex-ed consisted of a two-day seminar the last week of high school, in which we were (mis)informed on a number of subjects, were presented with photos and videos purported to be from actual abortions and informed that the only approved method was not the rhythm method, but the Billings Method (check for mucosity once a month).
How many people, Catholics even, know that? Here I am sure very few people do, most women that I know rely on the pill or IUD until they have the number of children they want and then proceed to get a permanent sterilization. All of which is not approved by the church. Permanent sterilization is also not doctor’s favorite method, they say women rush into having as many children as they can support so they can “get over with it”, which means having too many children too often.
The Catholic church ultimate goal is to ban all abortions. Even when the mother is in grave danger. They already got El Salvador (Chile also has a total ban, IIRC). Can you imagine, having to chose between your life or a jail sentence, and that is if you find a doctor willing to go to jail for up to 30 years for saving a woman’s life? How is *that *pro-life?
Exactly wrong. Arguing about labels does nothing to advance the argument of either side. Nothing.