I prefer the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice", because they are direct opposites of one another.
Pro-choice means you're for the pregnant woman having a choice of what she does with her unborn baby.
Anti-choice means you don't think she should have a choice - you think she should give birth to that child.
Anti-abortion is also correct, because they oppose abortion.
Pro-life can be correct, or it cannot be. Some pro-lifers are for ALL life, which to me is pro-life, they think everything should have a chance to live (human and non-human). Many "pro-lifers" however do not care about other species, or they support the death penalty or war or other things that take life. So they are not truly "pro-life".
Pro-abortion is usually incorrect, because a pro-choicer is about choice, not forcing all women to have abortions.
Anti-life isn't correct either - pretty much for the reason stated above. A truly anti-life person would want everything to be dead.
Agree with all of the above. I'm very unhappy about not being allowed to use the term 'anti choice' in this community, and have refrained from posting (on anything other than this very issue!) since I found this out.
Do you use anti-choice to discuss those who think a woman should be forced into abortions when they aren't going to be able to care for the child? Because that's exactly what anti-choice means, right? Not having the choice of an abortion?
But I'm not pro-abortion, in the sense that I'm all BORSHUNS FOR ALL!! I want the women who want abortions to be able to get them and the women who don't to be able to do whatever it is they want to do.
anti-abortion and anti-choice are synonymous IMO because they don't want women to have the choice of abortion. they ONLY want the woman to carry to term. as another poster above me said, pro-life should be pro-ALL life. not just fetal life
( ... )
Even the choice to rob someone? Or the choice to kill your partner for cheating?
In my mind, pro-choice can just as easily define someone who supports any and all choices, no matter how repugnant, AS easily as pro-abortion can be misconstrued as someone who supports compulsory abortion. i.e., the only people who will make that 'mistake' are willing to make it whatever you call yourself, so it's pointless to define your terms based on them.
In my mind, it is pretty obvious that what is meant by "pro-choice" is pro-reproductive-choice. It is not at all clear what is meant by "pro-life", especially as it implies, quite falsely, that the opposing group is anti-life, something that pro-choice people cannot correctly be called by any stretch of the imagination. People who are pro-life, on the other hand, can quite accurately be called anti-reproductive-choice.
Better terms are terms that describe accurately what they represent without implied sub-words that do not actually appear in the terms. Could I call you pro-rights since I could mean pro-reproductive-rights? Or pro-reproduction since I could mean pro-choices-for-your-reproductive-options?
Pro-choice simply implies "for choices occurring" which does not accurately describe the stance of that political group. Similarly, anti-choice implies "against choices occurring" which is purposefully misconstruing as well as being negatively charged.
"Anti-abortion" makes much more sense than anything else, since the majority of these "pro life" groups also oppose practical sex education and access to birth control. These policies lead to the increase of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions ... hardly a position that promotes "life", only ignorance and control. (Planned parenthood, OTOH, supports sex ed, BC, and other real pro-life practices
( ... )
(I've already heard the argument of, "Well, I advocate sex ed, and I'm pro-life!!" Great. Then you have a lot of work to do to change the minds of people who supposedly speak for your side in the political arena.)
I speak for myself, you speak for yourself. More importantly, I don't tell you who actually speaks for you, as that would be greatly strawmanning people.
These pro-health pro-lifers would have a much easier time if the de-facto categorization from people who say things like you do is that they were under the crazy-umbrella. You make it just as hard as Pat Robertson for sex-ed pro-life advocates by not acknowledging the schism in the movement.
While we're on the topic of strawmen and "speaking for yourself", I never said pro-lifers were crazy, nor am I putting them under one umbrella; I only said that opposing abortion, sex ed, and BC was not a true "pro life" position.
As I said before ... many (not all ... many) of the politically influential and self-proclaimed "pro life" groups out there (or just evangelical christian groups) either actively oppose or simply say nothing about either birth control or sex education. There are obviously those that don't, but they don't get much attention nor do they appear to have the same resources as their more extreme counterparts.
That's why I talked about the majority of pro life groups, and that they supposedly speak for you. I'm sure they don't ... so that's why I think you need to work harder to get your voices heard by a politically influential organization.
One term that is sometimes applied to pro-choicers is "pro-death." I accept the term "pro-choice" (and agree with previous posters that "pro-life" should not be a catch-all, but only applied to those who support all post-birth life as well), but I also consider myself very pro-death, and I embrace the term. Unlike many pro-deathers, I do not support the death penalty because I don't think that's a right we have, but I do feel that death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person (in any stage of life), and we should stop treating it like it is.
That, however, is a debate for another time and another place. My point was supposed to be that there's a way to twist many terms so that it reflects positively on the people it's applied to.
Just an aside, at least in the context of ethics, the reason death is considered the worst thing to happen is because the discussion of rights is null and void at the point of death; for those we allow to die, it's pointless to talk about their rights.
Comments 78
Pro-choice means you're for the pregnant woman having a choice of what she does with her unborn baby.
Anti-choice means you don't think she should have a choice - you think she should give birth to that child.
Anti-abortion is also correct, because they oppose abortion.
Pro-life can be correct, or it cannot be. Some pro-lifers are for ALL life, which to me is pro-life, they think everything should have a chance to live (human and non-human). Many "pro-lifers" however do not care about other species, or they support the death penalty or war or other things that take life. So they are not truly "pro-life".
Pro-abortion is usually incorrect, because a pro-choicer is about choice, not forcing all women to have abortions.
Anti-life isn't correct either - pretty much for the reason stated above. A truly anti-life person would want everything to be dead.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Even the choice to rob someone? Or the choice to kill your partner for cheating?
In my mind, pro-choice can just as easily define someone who supports any and all choices, no matter how repugnant, AS easily as pro-abortion can be misconstrued as someone who supports compulsory abortion. i.e., the only people who will make that 'mistake' are willing to make it whatever you call yourself, so it's pointless to define your terms based on them.
Reply
Reply
Pro-choice simply implies "for choices occurring" which does not accurately describe the stance of that political group. Similarly, anti-choice implies "against choices occurring" which is purposefully misconstruing as well as being negatively charged.
Reply
Reply
I speak for myself, you speak for yourself. More importantly, I don't tell you who actually speaks for you, as that would be greatly strawmanning people.
These pro-health pro-lifers would have a much easier time if the de-facto categorization from people who say things like you do is that they were under the crazy-umbrella. You make it just as hard as Pat Robertson for sex-ed pro-life advocates by not acknowledging the schism in the movement.
Reply
Reply
As I said before ... many (not all ... many) of the politically influential and self-proclaimed "pro life" groups out there (or just evangelical christian groups) either actively oppose or simply say nothing about either birth control or sex education. There are obviously those that don't, but they don't get much attention nor do they appear to have the same resources as their more extreme counterparts.
That's why I talked about the majority of pro life groups, and that they supposedly speak for you. I'm sure they don't ... so that's why I think you need to work harder to get your voices heard by a politically influential organization.
Reply
That, however, is a debate for another time and another place. My point was supposed to be that there's a way to twist many terms so that it reflects positively on the people it's applied to.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment