Opinion

So this is choice?

Words matter. The words we choose have meaning and consequences. There is, of course, a reason why abortion supporters prefer the terms “abortion” and “termination” to “baby-killing.”

Now, I’m not advocating for pro-lifers to go around and yell “baby-killing” at everyone they meet. What I’m saying is that abortion, by definition, is baby-killing, but abortion supporters hate that term.

They know that the average person does not want to think that she supports baby killing. But abortion? Or even better, termination? Well, yeah, when something is terminated, it’s ended. What’s so bad about “ending” something you never planned on doing in the first place? See what I mean? There are reasons why each side chooses the particular words it uses.

If we really wanted to get into it, there’s a whole lot that could be said about pro-abortion vs. pro-choice vs. anti-life and anti-abortion vs. anti-choice vs. pro-life. Personally, I think I would be fine with each side framing its own title, as long as it was honest, and as long as each side wouldn’t get all bent out of shape by someone on the opposing side using a different term that was also honest. (Oh, yes…and as long as the media agreed to use the terms we each choose for ourselves. Fat chance, I know.)

We all make choices every day. The issue isn’t the right to choose, but instead what it is we’re choosing.

For instance, most abortion supporters (you can tell my preferred term, I’m sure) like being called “pro-choice.” Fine. It’s honest that you think a woman should have the choice to kill her baby, as long as the baby isn’t born and seen by the outside world yet. I doubt that many of you would like that part of the “choice” to be fully explained, but whatever. You support that choice.

It’s equally honest, though, for me to call you “abortion supporters.” That’s different from “pro-abortion.” Pro-abortion, as some of you point out, indicates that you like abortion. Right? I mean, typically, if you are “pro”-something, you like it. And you argue that you don’t really like abortion; you just think it should be legal. Hence why I prefer the term “abortion supporters.” Try to argue against it if you like, but if you support a woman’s ability to choose abortion, you support abortion. You want to keep it legal. You want to keep it available. That’s pretty much what support is.

That said (and there’s much more that could be said), I have a few major reasons why I disagree with the term “pro-choice.” I’ll say up front that my analysis can’t be applied to every single abortion supporter out there. But it applies to plenty.

  1. Choice is somewhat irrelevant to the debate. Or rather, it could be relevant to any debate under the sun, so it’s a candy-coated term that tries to avoid the real issue. The real issue is abortion. The real issue is life vs. death. It’s not “choice.” We make choices every day – in almost every moment of our day. We’re all “pro-choice.” We realize that human beings can and do make choices. But what would all the abortion supporters start saying if rapists wanted to call themselves “pro-choice”? I mean, come on. They obviously believe in their right to choose which women they can have sex with, whether the women want it or not. They want to enforce their choice on an innocent human being. They want to silence her voice. They don’t care how she feels or how she wants to live her life. They believe in their own right to choose. Yeah, I’m not really liking that classification. But sorry – abortion supporters are no more “pro-choice” than rapists are. Just admit it: you support the right to choose abortion. You’re abortion supporters. Yes, I know that many of you also support the right to choose adoption or birth, but those aren’t contested issues in our society, so it would be pretty pointless to call yourselves “adoption supporters” or “birth supporters.”   think we’d all fit into those categories.
  2. Abortion supporters, it turns out, often don’t truly support choice. Have you ever heard a “pro-choice” person criticizing the Duggars for having twenty children? Uh-huh. I thought so. What about the Duggars’ choice? So what if you wouldn’t have twenty kids? They did, and by all accounts, they’re doing a pretty good job. What about “pro-choice” people who criticize Bristol Palin for her choice to keep her baby and speak out for abstinence? Why is she banned from choice? If you truly support choice, why can’t you be just as vocal about standing up for large families or abstinence supporters (who are criticized commonly) as you are for women who choose abortion? If it’s really all about choice, where are you for the Duggars, Bristol Palin, Octomom, and the like? Oh right, you’re not there for them at all – because it’s not about choice. It’s about abortion.
  3. No one – and I repeat, no one – should have the “right to choose” to kill someone else. This would be like the killers in the Rwandan genocide claiming they were “pro-machete” or jihadists claiming they are “pro-explosives in airplanes” or other such nonsense. Let’s just get to the point. You support the right to choose to kill a baby.
  4. Many abortion supporters try to silence those who speak out against abortion. Again, if it’s all about choice, what ever happened to my choice to tell America what abortion really is? What about my choice to stand in front of abortion clinics and hand out literature to pregnant women (if I were to do that)? What about my choice to help my fellow Colorado citizens exercise their choice on whether or not to define every unborn child as a person? Oh, I guess when my choices conflict with the choice (read, abortion) that you support, my choices no longer matter.

While I could come up with many serious examples of cruel, violent, and extremely rude things that have been said to pro-lifers I know, I’ll close with this somewhat amusing true story instead.

When my brother was 11 or 12 years old, he was helping me collect signatures for a petition to Congress to ban partial-birth abortion and to stop infanticide (the killing of babies who survive an abortion attempt). He was a cute kid with freckles and sandy hair, so an old, grandmotherly lady came up to him outside the store where we were standing. She saw he was collecting signatures and asked, “What do you have here, Honey?” My brother figured this would be an easy signature. After all, sweet grandmotherly ladies would want to help babies, right? Wrong. Dead wrong. When he explained to her what we were collecting signatures for, her face instantly changed and she growled, “You go to hell” and stomped off.

True story.

Apparently, when a pro-life kid wants to exercise his choice and spend a few hours standing outside collecting signatures, he’s condemned to hell by those who claim to believe in choice. And this is choice?

Live Action on Facebook
  • https://www.facebook.com/ProLifePagans Pro Life Pagans

    China’s not exactly pro-choice, either.

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      Uh, yeah. Not by a long shot.

  • peach

    “But what would all the abortion supporters start saying if rapists
    wanted to call themselves “pro-choice”? I mean, come on. They obviously
    believe in their right to choose which women they can have sex with,
    whether the women want it or not.” Seriously??? What if the rapists wanted to call themselves pro-life because they’re making more babies? What an outrageous and offensive metaphor to make, especially considering you’d take the side of the rapist should the woman become pregnant.

    Choice is a completely relevant term because when someone says “pro-choice” we know exactly what they’re talking about. We know it’s in the context of the abortion debate. Just as we know when you say you’re “pro-life” it actually means you’re pro-fetus and doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re also against war, the death penalty and carnivores. Telling your brother to go to hell was not anti-choice unless he was a fetus when it was said to him.

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      First, no, I would never take the “side of the rapist.” I believe society and our legal system should have much more serious punishments for rapists. Rape is an outrageous, horrible, and violent crime that should never be tolerated, period. An incredibly small percentage of rapes end in pregnancy, and the purpose of rape is clearly not to create a child. C’mon. No one believes that. However, the purpose of rape is indeed to force one person’s “choice” on another innocent person who is silenced.

      I’m willing to be bold and make the relation between rape and abortion. I realize they are different acts, but both completely violate the intrinsic rights of another human being. Both force one person’s will on another person’s. In one case, a woman is violently damaged, violated, and humiliated. In another case, a baby is forcibly and violently killed. Both are 100% wrong and violations of equal rights.

      I realize that our society uses the term “pro-choice” to describe abortion supporters. My point in this article isn’t to dispute that the term is used, but instead, to make an argument for why “pro-choice” isn’t an intellectually honest term, when you really think about it. I’m also making the case for how many abortion supporters aren’t consistent in their application of “choice” for everyone.

      • peach

        So you’re saying a rapist takes away a woman’s choice? Yeah that’s kind of the opposite of what pro-choice people want (and kind of exactly what you want?). And c’mon yourself, no one is going to argue in favour of giving rapists the right to choose rape.

        You say yourself that you know the term “pro-choice” is used in the abortion debate and so the application of “choice” doesn’t apply to everyone. You’re being facetious. It’s not inconsistent to say I want women to have the choice to abort their pregnancy but I don’t want rapists to rape people. When I really think about it, I want women to have the choice of what to do with their bodies and their pregnancies and so “pro-choice” is honest for me. Maybe the more accurate term would be “pro-pregnant woman’s choice.” Do you like that better?

        Also, do you support the death penalty? Are you a pacifist? Are you a vegetarian? Because I could make the same argument that you’re inconsistent with your application of “life.” But I wouldn’t do that because I know we’re talking about abortion.

        “Just admit it: you support the right to choose abortion.” I admit that. I support the right to choose abortion. I don’t see where the inconsistencies are with that.
        “I know that many of you also support the right to choose adoption or
        birth, but those aren’t contested issues in our society, so it would be
        pretty pointless to call yourselves “adoption supporters” or “birth
        supporters.””
        Hence why we call ourselves pro-choice. It encapsulates all those options.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000201092466 Steven Fletcher

          Both the terms pro-choice and pro-life are stupid, but they reflect the differences between the two groups. The pro-choice group cares about the choice of the mother but ignores the life of the baby. The pro-life group cares about the baby but only as a statistic – they aren’t going to actually raise any of these children or provide the funding necessary to do so.

          Oddly, the “pro-choice” group only cares about the freedom of the mother, not the baby. The “pro-life” group only cares about not killing people, not about making sure they have what they need to live.

          While it’s a nice idea to let women do what they want with their own bodies, it’s also a nice idea to let babies live. Obviously, the best solution would be to invent some sort of tank that fetuses can be put in to gestate outside the human body. Then, both sides would be happy.

          Personally, I support executing rapists and murderers, but I’m opposed to abortion. I see no conflict here, and I don’t understand why other people do. Anyone who has proven themselves to be a threat to others should potentially be executed (unless there’s some kind of extenuating circumstance). Anyone else should be allowed to choose the time and manner of their own deaths so much as is possible – obviously, everyone dies eventually no matter how much they want to live.

          I’m not a pacifist. I’m mostly a pescovegan, but not for ethical reasons.

          There is no conflict in supporting death in some circumstances by not in others.

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            Yes, I think both sides would be happy with your solution lol, as a compromise anyway. It’s just too bad that our society has gone so far to the side of personal convenience that it is exalted so high above life. It’s too bad that mothers don’t see their role as important, valuable, and necessary anymore – at least not before the baby is born.

            I would like to make the point that I don’t think you characterize the “pro-life” group correctly. You say you’re pro-life, and it doesn’t sound like you fit your own description =). The whole purpose of pregnancy resource centers – a major part of the pro-life movement – is to not only help women choose life for their children, but to give them the resources, help, and support they need to raise their child. Many pro-life groups teach parenting classes, connect pregnant women with medical help, etc. And almost every pro-lifer I know has volunteered to adopt a baby that was about to be aborted. I have personally volunteered to adopt several. And I don’t say this to prove anything other than that I believe the majority of pro-lifers do indeed care about the quality of life outside the womb, too. We just want each person to have a chance to live first.

          • Stoneybrooke

            Actually, ectogenesis (external gestation) may not be that far off now (some scientists seem to think maybe within the next 50 years or so); I just came across this article recently:
            http://newsbeyondnews.com/an-artificial-womb-an-end-to-maternity-as-we-know-it/

            That would bring into play a whole new set of ethical issues, of course, but it’s certainly interesting to think about.

          • http://www.facebook.com/ShastaMcLaughlin Shasta McLaughlin

            I know that I to would adopt any/every baby being considered for abortion if any or all of the mothers considering abortion would be so kind as to offer.

            At that point I and my family would figure out a way to care for each and every one. Unfortunately no one ever considered us an option (a choice).

            I already have one child under 10 with severe physical and neurological disorders and yet I would have loved to have the 10 year old who was locked in a closet because she wet herself.

            It is totally inaccurate to say that Pro-lifers don’t care to take care of the born already and struggling children. Most of us just believe that people and churches do a so much better job than the government who take 50% of the costs of your healthcare, take it straight from your paycheck and then deny your coverage (I know it happened to us twice this year already).

          • http://www.facebook.com/audrey.schmidt.520 Audrey Schmidt

            @facebook-100000201092466:disqus Actually, I know a few (and I know of MANY) “pro-life” or anti-abortion folks who DO help clothe, feed, raise, and love those kids that are spared from abortion. They’re not statistics to me, or my friends. :) Many are kids we’ll never knowingly meet, but some are our cousins’ kids, our neighbors’ kids, our friends’ kids, and our own nieces and nephews… unplanned, but fiercely loved. It’s not about statistics; it’s about love. I cannot speak for the majority, of course, but I can say that my friends and I DO invest our money, and not just our words, into the lives of these valuable little people.

            I agree that “pro-life” rhetoric without generosity, grace, and LOVE – consistent, compassionate, self-sacrificing love – is somewhat empty and false.

            ALL: We need to GIVE more than words, more than convincing arguments. Give diapers. Give blankets and clothes. Give bottles and formula or nursing supplies. Give a few hours of your time to a single, new, expectant, or otherwise frazzled mom who may be struggling to balance work, sleep, housework, childcare, and grocery shopping. Life is hard. Especially when unplanned things happen, right? We need to “put our money where our mouth is,” as they say. We all have a couple extra bucks and a few spare hours in the week. We all probably indulge in a few pointless purchases and activities that we could fairly painless cut out of our week. We can all sacrifice a little of our “me-time” and not buy a few bags of Skittles or whatever, and re-direct that money and effort into ACTIVELY LOVING those little kids we are fighting for… speaking for. Speaking is not enough. What say you? What can YOU DO, today? If you want to be in the fight, what can you do to bring TANGIBLE LOVE to the front lines? :)

        • Kristiburtonbrown

          Yes, of course I’m saying a rapist takes away a woman’s choice. And I’m saying that a woman who has an abortion takes away her baby’s choice. That’s the relation here.

          This whole debate really comes down to whether or not you view an unborn child as a separate, unique, individual. If you do (as a U.S. federal court recently has), then both rape and abortion violate the intrinsic rights of a unique, separate human being.

          I think we all know that many “pro-choice” people try to encapsulate all the options – certainly not all of you, but many, I realize. However, the reason it doesn’t matter is because the only thing we’re debating is abortion. So abortion is the issue, not choice. After all, pro-lifers believe women should have a choice between adoption and keeping their baby. But you’d never call us “pro-choice”, even though we are. So, since abortion is the issue, we really should speak in that context if we’re going to be intellectually honest.

          • peach

            I don’t entirely agree that abortion is the only issue in this whole debate. I’ve been thinking about this and most (all?) pro-choice people feel that this is a women’s issue as well. If the debate was solely whether or not a fetus is considered a person with rights and all that, then maybe pro-life and pro-abortion could be accurate terms. But the term pro-choice reflects that it’s also a women’s rights issue. As I said in another comment, it implies giving power and control to women and puts the focus on the woman in the situation (and that’s not because we’re trying to take the focus away from the fetus because it makes us feel bad, it’s because we genuinely believe this is a woman’s issue). You’re fighting for the fetus’s rights so you’re pro-life. I support a woman’s right to to choose, so I’m pro-choice. I know you probably disagree that this is a woman’s issue, but you don’t get to decide how others view it and how others label it. I mean, it’s all just semantics but I hope you see why we say pro-choice. I see why you say pro-life even if I don’t entirely agree with the accuracy of that.

            I hope I didn’t sound too snippy in my comments. Calvin brings out a nasty side in me (seriously, you guys should do something about him) so I apologize if my other comment was rude to you.

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            No worries =) I appreciate you taking the time to discuss these issues (and I know Calvin does too). People just debate differently, you know? I personally wish I could think as fast as he can lol!

            Anyway, I do understand why your side claims to be pro-choice. And I do understand that you frame it as a women’s issue – and really believe it is. As a woman, lawyer, and mother, I’m all for women’s rights! I just don’t believe that women or any other people should have the right to kill another innocent person just because that person depends on him or her. That’s not human dignity. That’s not equal rights. And it’s sure not unselfishness. It’s the opposite of all those, and I don’t think women or anyone else should have the right to be selfish. (I’m obviously not talking about situations where a woman would actually die…those are different.)

            I do not think that women should have the power to kill. If killing an innocent child empowers us as women, what does that say? Women are strong – they do not need to right to kill their children to accomplish their full potential. I’ll never buy that. I’ll never believe that we need the right to kill to make the most of ourselves. And I’ll also never believe that it’s all about us. We’re each called to look out for the helpless among us – to support and care for them, not to destroy their lives when they’ve only just begun.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=659505440 Marie Green

    Your commentary has little meaning since you have chosen to attack women for their choices in life but you say nothing about walking in her shoes. Your argument is invalid since you do not mention how to feed, cloth or take care of every unwanted child born. No one has the right to judge or tell another person about their life, not you or so-called “right to lifers.” For these same people will support cutting pre-school programs, cutting Scholarship funding for college, cutting food programs for the poor, cutting aid to the poor with children, cutting healthcare to children and women with children and more. Your comments do not represent life but death to many who can not live high off the hog like you do. Many children go to bed hungry and cold in winter in America but it’s not you so why care about that. Jesus Christ spoke out many times to help children, imprisoned & poor but I guess you just skipped those parts. These parts do cost money in this American Society which this society has decided 90% of American wealth should all go to the rich. Does not sound Christian to me, does it to you? I bet it does.

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      Hmmm…I find it rather interesting that you assume you know exactly what I believe about all of the issues you mentioned. For your information, I do not side hook, line, and sinker with the Republican party on all those platforms. (They don’t even take all the positions you mentioned.) I actually do believe in aid – some from government and some from community (and Christians, since you mentioned them) – to the poor and the born who need help. Please don’t assume that you know what other activities I or other pro-lifers are involved in or exactly what we believe. And, you also have no idea how I live or what kind of financial situation I was raised in.

      This article is focused on how to allow people to actually have a life first of all, before we decide how to make their life better. It doesn’t mean that I oppose all efforts to make poor people’s lives better. In fact, there are many efforts to do that which I fully support. Your comment is, unfortunately, a complete mischaracterization of my views and beliefs.

    • Anonymous

      Exactly.

    • bakakurisu

      Try walking in the shoes of the children that you’re fighting to have killed. Tell me… Do you have the heart to go to any foster home, orphanage, or children’s hospital, and explain to those children that they’d be better off if their mothers had the slaughtered?

      I, and many of my fellow advocates of life FULLY SUPPORT helping children in need.

      Knock of the rhetoric and the strawman arguments, please.

  • Meredith

    The dictionary definition of “pro-” is “supporting” or “in favor of.” When you support the right to choose abortion, you give your blessing to a cause that serves overwhelmingly to accommodate abortion – you support abortion. That is, you are pro-abortion. It doesn’t matter that you don’t support *forced* abortion. Since it’s the pro-choice position that has provided for at least 50 million legally sanctioned abortions in the U.S. alone since the passage of Roe v. Wade in 1973, what difference does it make, really, that the pro-choice position does not require every woman to have an abortion?

    Why do abortion rights supporters so emphatically point out that they are pro-CHOOOOOOICE and not pro-abortion? Gay rights supporters call themselves “pro-GLBT” (pro-gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/transexual), and it’s a given that they support the rights of heterosexuals too. Those who advocate the legalization of marijuana call themselves “pro-marijuana,” and it’s a given that they’re okay with one’s choice to refrain from smoking pot. Gun control opponents call themselves “pro-gun,” and it goes without saying that they’re not out to force anyone to own a gun. Meat industry lobbyists probably don’t have a problem with being referred to as “pro-meat,” and it’s understood they’re not out to ban tofu. But abortion rights supporters take issue with being called “pro-abortion”; they are pro-choice and not – oh, absolutely not! – pro-abortion! Please.
    While those who support abortion rights also support adoption or keeping the child, those who are anti-abortion support adoption or keeping the child too. The overwhelming difference between the two sides is abortion. The abortion rights cause is the only cause I know of where, in identifying or labeling themselves, the proponents are reluctant to name the very thing that distinguishes them from their opposition. Unlike supporters of other causes, abortion rights supporters refuse to identify themselves with the very thing they support. They try to distance themselves from the very thing they support by asserting that they are pro-choice and not pro-abortion. I think that’s kind of weird. Do gay rights advocates say, “I am pro-people, not pro-GLBT”? Do meat industry lobbyists object to the term “pro-meat” and insist on being called “pro-food”?
    I mean, there are many sorts of choices in this world. There’s the choice to marry or enter a civil union with someone of the same sex, there’s the choice to smoke a joint, there’s the choice to own a gun, there’s the choice to have one’s steak medium-rare, there’s school choice, there’s the choice to prostitute oneself, etc. Everyone makes all manner of choices every day, but when someone declares himself or herself to be “pro-choice,” what’s the first thing you think of? Abortion, right? So why the reluctance to identify as pro-abortion?
    After all, the term “anti-choice” is widely accepted as a reference to those who are anti-abortion. You could be in favor of the choice to marry someone of the same sex, the choice to smoke a joint, the choice to own a gun, the choice to have a steak, school choice for parents, AND the choice to prostitute oneself – but if you are against abortion, you are instantly fashionably criticized for being “anti-choice.” Well, “anti-abortion” wouldn’t mean “anti-choice” if “pro-choice” didn’t mean “pro-abortion,” would it? And “pro-choice” does mean “pro-abortion” when it all comes down to it.
    So, if you’re pro-abortion, then own it – don’t be ashamed. Everyone else owns up to exactly what it is they’re supporting when it comes to every other cause. Why hide behind the euphemism of “choice”? Be proud of being pro-abortion because that is what you are. You’d proudly be identified with a label that indicates exactly what you support when it comes to every other cause, so why make an exception when it comes to the abortion rights cause? Don’t be ashamed: Own your pro-abortion stance.
    “Choice,” tragically, has become a euphemism for one thing and one thing only: Abortion.

    • peach

      Your comment makes a lot more sense than Kristi’s article. You should write for this site! (or not, cuz it’s terrible). I don’t really know the history of the term “pro-choice” but I like it more than pro-abortion because it implies giving women power and control, which is what pro-choice people want.

      • Kristiburtonbrown

        Right. Power and control over the life of an innocent human being who cannot speak up for themself. That’s just sad.

      • bakakurisu

        What you’ve just said, Peach, is EXACTLY what this article was talking about; you’re sugar-coating the slaughter of an innocent child with words that are easier for you to digest so you can sleep better at night. You can call rape “happy-fun-loving-time”, but it’s NOT going to change what it is. Isn’t “power and control” what rape is all about? Having “power and control” over an innocent human being to satisfy your own selfish desires?

        Instead of regurgitating things you’ve read from bumper stickers, why don’t you learn about the holocaust that you’re fighting for? Why don’t you THINK about it?

        By the way:
        pro-a·bor·tion (pr-bôrshn)
        adj. Favoring or supporting legalized abortion.
        proa·bortion·ist n.
        The
        American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
        copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published
        by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

    • Stoneybrooke

      To be fair, I also think that we call ourselves “pro-choice” because we support all of women’s reproductive choices; it’s not all about abortion. We support a woman’s right to choose to have sex, for example, and to choose to use birth control when so doing–something that many so-called “pro-lifers” are against as well.

      Also, I’ll go ahead and call myself “pro-abortion” when the anti-abortion people call themselves “pro-forced pregnancy” or maybe “anti-female bodily autonomy”. Outside the context of the abortion debate, neither “pro-choice” nor “pro-life” really means anything since generally speaking, someone who is “pro-life” (when taken out of context) would be someone who is a strict pacifist (as in, won’t even fight to defend him-/herself), someone who won’t step on bugs or weed the garden, someone who eats only plant-based foods that can be obtained without harming the plant, and someone who refuses to use antibiotics of any kind in order to preserve the life of bacteria. Sounds just as ridiculous as implying that “pro-choice” includes supporting the right to rape, doesn’t it?

      • Kristiburtonbrown

        First, I’m completely fine with being called anti-abortion instead of pro-life if you really think that makes the debate clearer. I am absolutely against abortion, and I’m not afraid to say that straight up.

        The problem is that people on the other side of the debate are simply not willing to be called “pro-abortion,” “abortion supporters” or the like. Why? Because they know that abortion is a horrific, ugly, and tragic killing of a human being. And who really wants to be associated with that?

        The problem with saying that the “choices” you’re talking about justify your side being called “pro-choice” is that they are not the issue. We are debating abortion, not true reproductive choices. Sure, most pro-lifers support abstinence before marriage – but we don’t think it should be the law. Sure, pro-lifers disagree with birth control that actually causes a chemical abortion – but, hey, that’s just abortion by another name, so it’s the same issue. There are pro-lifers on both sides of the rest of birth control (the kind that prevents pregnancy). I support that kind of birth control. And the pro-lifers who disagree with me, again, don’t think their views should be law.

        So the only thing we are truly debating is whether or not abortion should be allowed/legal in our nation. Hence, why I think both sides should be willing to have “abortion” in their title.

        • Stoneybrooke

          The thing is though, there are lots of degrees in the pro-life movement (and pro-choice, for that matter), which you did acknowledge already, I know. But there aren’t too many people outside the core of the movement who think that abortion should be outlawed in cases of rape or incest, even though that is “anti-abortion/pro-life” in the strictest sense. It’s also important to clarify what you mean about birth control causing a chemical abortion–if you’re talking about RU-486, no one (that I’ve heard anyway) denies that that causes an abortion. If you’re talking about emergency contraception or hormonal contraception, well, the vast majority of people would not want to see those outlawed even if they do think abortion should be outlawed. Even if those methods cause changes in the endometrium that prevent implantation, is that really an abortion? Traditionally, a woman isn’t pregnant until implantation occurs, but nowadays many people (especially anti-abortion/pro-life people) say pregnancy begins with fertilization. It’s also worth noting that for the average person who may strongly value the life of, say, a 10-week-old fetus, it’s more difficult for to value the life of a zygote or blastocyst, which is pretty much invisible to the naked eye and even when magnified looks nothing like a human yet.

          Whew, that was a longer paragraph than I intended…but my point is that even the definition of “abortion” can be disputed (at the very earliest stages after fertilization), and the absolutism of anti-abortion beliefs varies among people who consider themselves anti-abortion/pro-life. So, it isn’t always strictly about abortion if abortion doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone, and with that I think it makes sense to say “pro-choice” because it signifies that I believe the woman’s choice is the most important aspect in any of the above situations.

          Also, I think my problem with being called “pro-abortion” is that it implies I think it’s always (or almost always) the best choice, which I don’t. I’m sure there are people who do, and if they want to be “pro-abortion” that’s fine. I wouldn’t mind being called “pro-abortion rights” or a supporter of abortion rights, but they’re rather cumbersome and, I admit, less “catchy” than “pro-choice”. Both sides want to be pro-something, because they want to be seen as advocating /for/ rather than /against/ something. And when you get down to it, who’s against either “choice” or “life” in the abstract? What it comes down to is that both sides have chosen their names to give their respective positions a positive spin and a short, catchy name in order to increase their appeal to the average person.

          Sorry if that was a little convoluted, but it’s getting late, haha.

          • Elise77

            I disagree with you, but I appreciate your thoughtful, polite responses. Just wanted to say that. I can see that at least you’re not caught up in the “anti-woman” rhetoric, and I *think* you understand that those of us who identify as pro-life are truly concerned with the well-being of unborn children, not intent on “setting back women’s rights” or “marginalizing women” or “enslaving” them into “forced pregnancy.” We believe that every living human being, born or unborn, deserves to be treated with humanity.

            You’re right that there is a lot of absolutism on both sides- On our side, there are those who oppose hormonal birth control, not just for personal use, but in general, because it could theoretically trigger a miscarriage. On your side, there are people who believe that the vagina is a magical passage that mystically confers life on the fetus just as she is passing from the womb into the wide world beyond, and that before that, the fetus is a non-entity without any inherent rights whatsoever. I think that both views are kind of “fringe” views, in that most pro-life people still believe in the right to use birth control and don’t see that as being inconsistent with their pro-life convictions, and most pro-choice people don’t believe that the right to an abortion should extend through viability and beyond. But the most vocal members of each movement believe just those things.

            Here’s the problem I have, and why I have a much easier time identifying with even the “fringe” pro-life sentiment than I do identifying with even a very moderate pro-choice person: The people you allow to speak for you- the captains of the pro-choice movement- advocate nothing less than cruel, barbaric butchery. In supporting a woman’s “choice” throughout all nine months of pregnancy, they advocate allowing a living, kicking child to be partially born and then stabbed in the brain. They advocate grabbing a helpless human being with forceps by the most prominent body part, whatever that may be, and twisting it off, repeating this process until all parts have been removed one by one. They advocate stabbing a needle into a human child’s chest and injecting poison to stop its heart. These are the realities of abortion, particularly in the second and third trimesters. Abortion rights advocates (at least the outspoken ones) VIGOROUSLY defend these procedures. They unapologetically consent to this kind of barbarism and cruelty because they believe that the woman’s choice is paramount, no matter how unspeakably brutal that choice may be.

            So I’ll tell the truth: Even if I didn’t think that a zygote or a blastocyst qualified as a human being, even if I personally felt that abortions up to eight weeks (or whatever) were acceptable- even IF I could support abortion as a valid choice in certain circumstances, I could NEVER identify myself as pro-choice, because from what I’ve seen of the pro-choice movement, it is selfish, barbaric, and inhuman. Unapologetically so.

            To put it another way: At her most extreme, a pro-life person wishes to err on the side of caution and ensure the right to life of even the tiniest member of the species. The motivation of a pro-lifer is compassion for the helpless. On the other hand, an extreme pro-choice person says (and I’ve HEARD this, over and over again) “I don’t care if it IS a person. It’s in MY body, so I’ll do with it what I want. It’s nothing more than a parasite.” The motivation of a pro-choicer is self. The pro-choice movement, as represented by its spokespersons, shows a deliberate LACK of compassion for the helpless.

          • Stoneybrooke

            First of all, I’d also like to thank you for /your/ thoughtful and polite response! I must say though that I do think that some people are opposed to abortion because they want to punish women for daring to have sex for reasons other than strict reproduction (and to be fair, I’m sure some pro-choicers have rather unpleasant motives too such as reducing the “undesirable” populations, whatever those may be) but I also think that they’re in the minority and that there is an important discussion to be had about weighing the interests of a woman versus those of a fetus.

            Personally, I like the system in place in many European countries, wherein abortion is legal for any reason up to 12 weeks, and after that two doctors must certify that there is an important medical reason for an abortion (such as permanent harm to the mother or a severe and incurable fetal abnormality). That seems reasonable to me, although I know that many people here would disagree.

            Next, I think that there are two main reasons why a pro-choicer would defend the legality of late-term abortion: the first is the old “slippery slope” argument, i.e. if we agree to limit abortion after a certain point, that point will be pushed earlier and earlier until abortion is outlawed completely. The second is that late-term abortions are rare (I believe about 10% of US abortions happen between the 12th and 20th weeks, and then 1% after the 20th week) because they’re more complicated, painful, and risky for the woman. Most women who have late-term abortions do so for medical reasons like the ones cited above. Maybe the woman is experiencing dangerous complications, or she’s just been diagnosed with cancer and cannot undergo treatment while pregnant. Or the fetus has been diagnosed with a genetic condition that means it will either be stillborn or live a very short, pain-filled life. Or maybe a young girl was sexually abused and because of her youth, she didn’t realize she was pregnant until late in the pregnancy and carrying to term and giving birth could cause lasting damage to a body that’s still growing and developing. In cases such as those, even late-term abortions are justifiable (to me).

            Because of those reasons, I don’t think that pro-choicers are overly selfish or lacking in compassion. I think they’re defending the rights of a pregnant woman to determine her future and what goes on in her own body. And do you happen to have examples of the kind of nasty statements you referenced, like videos or articles? If you don’t have specific ones in mind and it’s just an overall tone or impression, I understand that too, but I’m curious. Also, are you talking more about pro-choice politicians or about leaders of groups like NOW, NARAL, etc?

          • Kristiburtonbrown

            Thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts…I thought you made sense even if it was late lol =) A couple thoughts:

            First, I do think pro-abortion rights is more honest than pro-choice. I don’t have a problem with that at all. (And yes, I do realize that these terms aren’t going to change just because I or anyone else thinks they should, but I still think it’s worth discussing.) I agree that both sides want to be for something rather than against.

            Interestingly enough, as far as “conception” goes – this term meant fertilization long before it referred to implantation. So, pro-lifers are merely arguing that we should return to the original and true meaning instead of making up a new one because it’s convenient. Here’s some interesting history on the change in definition of conception:

            In 1959, Dr. Bent Boving suggested that the word “conception” should be associated with the process of implantation instead of fertilization. Some thought was given to possible societal consequences, as evidenced by Boving’s statement that “the social advantage of being considered to prevent conception rather than to destroy an established pregnancy could depend on something so simple as a prudent habit of speech.” In 1965, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) adopted Boving’s definition: “conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”

            Obviously, pro-lifers would rather focus on what is actually biologically true concerning when life begins rather than on social advantages. Hence, why we assert that a pregnancy and a new life begins at fertilization: this is what our embryology, genetics, biology, etc. textbooks teach.

            Finally, to end my own possible convoluted explanation, you’re right that people within each side of the debate differ on some positions. However, I still think the debate centers around abortion, no matter how you tweak it.

      • Stormyblueseas

        Pro-forced pregnancy? Um, last time I checked, having sex can lead to pregnancy. That sounds like someone is forcing someone to become pregnant. Since fewer than 2% of abortions are carried out in instances of rape, incest . . . it is safe to say that in a majority of those other pregnancies that are being ended were not the result of someone forcing someone to have sex . . .

  • ProTruth2

    Try to argue against it if you like, but if you support a woman’s ability to choose abortion, you support abortion. You want to keep it legal. You want to keep it available. That’s pretty much what support is.

    Okay, I’ll have a go.

    As you know, Kristi, Christians hate Satan. They renounce Satan and all his works, and they look forward to his final defeat at the end of days. There are, however, people in this country who worship Satan, in private with like-minded people and without breaking any laws or harming anyone (unless you believe televangelists who say that they cause hurricanes and earthquakes). You live in America in the twenty-first century. Kristi. Whether you know it or not, someone in your acquaintance–perhaps even someone in your own church or family–thinks that the worship of Satan should be legal and unobstructed by government authorities, not because they like Satan but because they genuinely support the right to religious freedom.* If you found out about this belief, it would be dishonest of you to tell others that the individual in question supported Satan. In the same vein, it is inaccurate to call someone who supports abortion rights an “abortion supporter” without further information.

    I’m assuming that you are now tempted to blog or tweet that an abortion-rights supporter just equated abortion and Satanism. Please understand that if you were to do so, you would be lying. I did not equate the two. I merely thought that there is an outside chance that you could grasp the difference between “support for a right” and “support for an act” if it was put in terms that you could relate to.

    *Within the same constraints about engaging in illegal activities that are placed on all individuals and institutions.

    • pro-not-killing-people

      Only problem with your comparision ProTruth is Satanism generally doesn’t result in the death of another human being. The individual who supports abortion, whether simply as an act or as a right, they are supporting the right of another individual to kill yet another individual, an innocent individual.

      • ProTruth2

        No analogy is perfect, sweet pea.

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      Actually, I think you have put some good thought into your argument, and I appreciate this. Both sides of the abortion debate should be willing to engage in actual debate =). So no worries about a blog post saying that you are equating Satanism and abortion…I don’t think you are.

      Here’s what I think the difference is: I don’t know of anyone – and I’m going to guess you don’t either – who specifically believes in the rights of only Satanists to practice their religion, yet speaks out against or mocks those who make other religious choices. I do know of plenty of people who believe in the freedom of any religion, including Satanism, to practice in the U.S. (Of course, many of those people, including myself, would support laws against any religious practices that kill people, since no religion should have that right).

      So, it really wouldn’t be fair to characterize these people as “Satanist supporters” when they believe in the right of all religions to practice equally. Of course, I realize that many abortion supporters claim to believe equally in all “reproductive rights” and they would prefer to be called a “reproductive rights” supporter instead of an abortion supporter. The problem is that 1) many people who support abortion (at least those who are vocal about it) believe that it is the best choice and advocate for more legal protection for that specific reproductive choice, 2) since when is killing another person a “reproductive choice”? (I know, since Roe v. Wade, but I digress…)

      I suppose, after all, it may come down to whether or not you view abortion as an actual reproductive right. For those who do, I see how they would not like to be called abortion supporters because they view abortion as a greater right. However, when abortion is viewed in its true context – not as a way to control reproduction, but a way to kill a child who already exists – it breaks out of the “reproductive right” realm, and can only be judged as an act that someone either supports or doesn’t.

  • oldmanbob

    It seem strange to me that none of the writers seem to understand the main message here. BBQ chicken and burned dead bird can describe the same thing. I for one will have some BBQ chicken this weekend and not think of it in any other way.
    Words have great power and the context in which they are used is very powerful. It is clear that the pro-choice movement does not really want anyone to choose life making the lable false.
    In a post script I wonder has anyone under 50 read 1984?

  • Pingback: So This is Choice? | Live Action News & Opinion | A mí, háblame en Cristiano

  • Michelle

    Pro-life? PSH, it’s Forced Birth Advocates. Let’s get real.

    • bakakurisu

      Oh? Who’s forcing women to conceive children?

      Grow up, Hon’. We’ve heard, and debunked your bumper sticker rhetoric hundreds of times. We’re not impressed.

      Even if we DID “force birth”, YOU are forcing the slaughter of innocent children.

      Pregnancy is temporary, death is permanent. Conceiving a child is elective, being conceived is not.

      THINK, Dear.

  • Katie

    The Rhetoric of Abortion is absolutely fascinating. We use words to instill meaning and cognitively shut off other meanings and associations. This mental technique is especially apparent when an individual is trying to insist that a wrong is right. I was so excited to find out that I was pregnant again, and the first thing I did was hop on a pregnancy forum to check out the latest advice and hear from other expecting moms.

    Unfortunately, women now view pregnancy forums as a place to ask whether or not they should abort. I read this woman’s story about how she had two children, medical issues, and felt the need to abort the up and coming child. Many made arguments that it’s her choice, and she needs to make that choice. I decided to brave it and pipe up and say that every child matters, and that she should focus on being strong, making the right decisions to welcome her latest addition, and rely on the strength she’s had already in raising two children. IMMEDIATELY comments poured in shutting down this viewpoint, and bashing anyone who did not encourage her to abort or to “make her choice.” Comments also included “it’s her CHOICE, back off with the pro-life talk.”

    Well, did anyone point out what “choice” they were encouraging? Did anyone think about that small beating heart on the other side of a monitor somewhere that they were encouraging to end? Did they think about the entire life of a child that may never be because they told this individual to end it? No… it’s just a choice. Choice is a beautiful word, it’s a choice. But the choice is to end a life, whether at four weeks, twelve weeks, twenty weeks, nine years of age, thirty, sixty. It’s a life. Rhetoric can’t change that fact.

  • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

    Words are imperfect. But sometimes you have to choose a string of them to describe yourself or your faction. I don’t know a way around that.

  • Delilah

    Pro-choice – Choose what? When I ask people that, they can’t answer. They say it doesn’t sound right to say choose killing a baby. Pregnancy is not a disease to be cured. Pax

  • Melissa

    I am pro life, however, I would like to make a point here. Perhaps the reason they prefer the word the term “abortion” and “termination” to “baby-killing” isn’t the conentation to the particular words, but the fact that they don’t believe they ARE killing a baby. You can argue all day with a pro-choicer (or “abortion supporter”) about when life truely starts. But the reason they don’t like the term baby killing is that they don’t believe that’s what’s happening. I don’t premote accepting abortion. I just think we should understand where they are coming from, so we are better able to talk with them, and possibly make them understand and accept our viewpoint.

    • bakakurisu

      Yes, but we’re not just talking about OPINIONS here. We’re talking about FACTS.
      ______________________
      Dr. Jerome Lejeune of Paris, France was a medical doctor, a Doctor of Science and a professor of Fundamental Genetics for over twenty years. Dr. Lejeune discovered the genetic cause of Down Syndrome, receiving the Kennedy Prize for the discovery and, in addition, received the Memorial Allen Award Medal, the world’s highest award for work in the field of Genetics. He is often called the “Father of Modern Genetics”. The following are some notable statements by him:

      “After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into existence. This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
      - 1989 court testimony in Tennessee, cf. also Louisiana Legislature’s House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice on June 7, 1990

      “The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.”
      - The Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, Report to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th
      Congress, First Session, 1981

      ====

      “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”
      - The official Senate report from Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981

      Background on the Committee testifiers:
      A group of internationally-known biologists and geneticists appeared to speak on behalf of the scientific community on the subject of when a human being begins. They all presented the same view and there was no opposing testimony. Among those testifying:

      Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School
      Dr. Jerome Lejeune (“Father of Modern Genetics”)
      Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee
      Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
      Dr. Richard V. Jaynes
      Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the “Father of In Vitro Fertilization”
      Professor Eugene Diamond
      Gordon, Hymie, M.D., F.R.C.P., Chairman of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester
      C. Christopher Hook, M.D. Oncologist, Mayo Clinic, Director of Ethics Education, Mayo Graduate School of Medicine
      ______________________________
      Now, this is only a truncated list; there are DOZENS more. I challenge ANYONE to support the pro-abortion viewpoint that life begins when baby mama’s darn good and ready for it to.

      The FACT of the matter is that abortion is homicide.

  • Babylover

    It’s also kind of funny how some people who hide under the term “pro-choice” support the one child policy in China. Those women are not given any choice.

  • Pingback: Pro-life blog buzz 7-10-12 | FavStocks

  • Amy

    Pro-infanticide is the term I use for those who are okay with killing babies. Layer it with lillies and lace all they want but the end result is that a baby was killed = infanticide!

  • Pingback: The latest word game played by “pro-choice” activists

  • Ashley

    I agree 120%. VEry thought provoking