The Abortion Debate
Okay, I have commonly used two terms "pro-life" & "anti-choice" to denote two similiar (yet different) views on abortion. Mostly that many people call themselves pro-life when they are in fact anti-choice in their views. I can't claim credit for these terms since I heard them alot when I lived up north, but I've had several people online ask about the difference & how I used them. So, I got to thinking and decided to write up something on it. The whole abortion stance issue is really a spectrum & I've certainly met people who were right between two catagories or embodied two catagories with relative ease. Since any catagory is rather artifical and b&w, this is perfectly cool and makes perfect sense. So, here's my definitions pertaining to abortion opinions:
There are basically five catagories in the debate. Each has several flavors and can easily disagree within the same group. The first "label" in each is what I usually use, followed by other terms I've heard used or are related it.
1. pro-abortion, anti-life, pro-eugenics (**these are not derogatory terms, but meant to denote the core argument that an individual has for abortion**)
2. pro-choice, mod-eugenics
3. undecided, mod-choice
4. pro-life, light-choice, light-eugenics
5. anti-choice, anti-abortion, anti-eugenics (**these are not derogatory terms, but meant to denote the core argument that an individual has against abortion**)
First to define eugenics (just in case): This is the basic idea that we can improve our gene pool and should use the means we have to do so. In theory, it's a great idea to work on improving our gene pool to make us better as a species at living in our environment, combating diseases, being healthier, and giving our children a better chance at happy lives. It is often discribed as taking criteria for natural selection on humans (which some believe to be lost, others note SARS and think otherwise) that "should" be occurring and applying it to a form of artifical selection; so since we told Mother Nature not to select who has the highest reproductive success, we do it ourselves. It makes a bit of sense, but eugenics has been historically a bad political idea--namely in that it can never realistically be applied beyond the small things (such as having a health care system). There is always someone or many someones out there who abuse this to push their own idea of who should live/die or reproduce to an extreme. This extreme is genocide, forced sterilization, extreme discrimination, etc. and the histories of many nations are filled with it (even the U.S.). It is good to note that a low-level of eugenics is always going to occur. There are social and other constraints that influence who has better survival and/or reproductive success.
1. Pro-abortion, anti-life, pro-eugenics:
At this end of the spectrum are basically the people who believe that abortion and other forms of controlling reproductive success are a very good tools and see the use of such in society as more of a necessity than a choice. The common factor is the encouragement of abortions in a majority of situations, regardless of the mother's views.
Some examples across this end of the spectrum:
*An over-populated country offering tax incentives or other nice bonuses to individuals who fit certain "negative" catagories and volunteer to get sterilized or are married without children and/or giving similiar bonuses to people in "positive" catagories who have children while also encouraging abortion for those who don't get those incentives.
*The view that one should be licensed in order to have children.
*The argument that anyone with a low income or was a victim of rape should have a madatory abortion based on inability to financially or emotionally care for the child.
*The favoring of war, abortion, etc. to decrease the current human over-population problem.
*The view that humans are "evil"/destructive/etc. and shouldn't be the dominant species on the planet.
*Sterilizing inmates of prisons or mental patients as part of their rehibilitation.
2. Pro-choice, mod-eugenics:
Commonly seen...These are people who believe that safe, medically-proven abortions should be offered as a choice for an individual to make. There's a range, but the common factor is that these individuals support Roe v. Wade and would vote against any law that limits the right to choice.
Some examples across this portion of the spectrum:
*The view that some cases warrant abortion, but the mother has a right to make her medical decisions.
*People who just don't think the government should have a say in matters of medical decisions or reproduction and/or think that specific reproductive decisions should be made within a family unit only.
*The belief that eugenics is only practical at the microlevel (each person deciding whether to contribute their genes to the gene pool).
*The justification that offering abortion as a reproductive choice is no different that offering birth control pills, condoms, sterilization surgery, etc.
*The view that offering legal, safe, effective abortions is more benefitial to society than the occurance of illegal abortions that put the mother's life at risk or homeopathic methods of "natural" abortions/miscarriages.
3. Undecided, mod-choice:
This seems the most straight-forward, but can actually be a very complex catagory since it is sorta a catch-all for those who don't fall into the other catagories. Common factors: moderate to non-existant opinions on abortion, either ability to see all sides of the debate or inability to agree completely with anyone on the issue, and wouldn't feel comfortable voting on Roe v Wade.
Some examples within the middle of the spectrum:
*The jury is still out on the legality or morality of abortion and/or denying abortions.
*Agreeing with pro-abortion/pro-choice and pro-life/anti-choice depending on the exact situation.
*Being apathetic to reproductive decisions (possibly because this is not an issue to the person at their point in life).
*A male-specific: the belief that it's not one's business and the decision to uphold or overturn Roe v. Wade should only be made by women.
4. Pro-life, light-choice, light-eugenics:
This label is commonly used, but also commonly misused. These inidividuals believe that abortion isn't a good tool for society to offer and would limit or discourage its use in making reproductive choices. Common factors are a negative view on abortions for most situations, supporting the limiting of abortions in the medical practice, but not a clear support for the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Some examples across this portion of the spectrum:
*Personally being against the use of abortion in one's reproductive decisions, but not believing in a right to limit the reproductive decisions of others.
*The support of other options (ie. adoption services, readily available birth control, etc.) instead of abortion.
*The view that abortions should legally be limited to extreme cases only (ie. rape victims, those incapable of raising children due to mental retardation, where the mother's health is in danger, during the first trimester only, genetic diseases, etc.)
*Being mostly anti-abortion, but leaving the possibility open for others to have abortions due to moral concerns of consequences of not having an abortion in some cases.
5. Anti-choice, anti-abortion, anti-eugenics:
This is the grouping that most of the people who can be seen out protesting abortion fall into and this the complete disagreement with abortion being a reproductive choice. Common factors: belief that everyone should have children & every fetus/child should live (no exceptions) and would support the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
*The belief that life starts at the moment of conception and abortion is the same as murdering a child.
*The view that abortion is a completely negative thing based on the belief that it does irrepairable damage to the mother (physiologically, mentally, emotionally).
*The view that if a man impregnants a woman, then the child is the property of the man (who obviously wants the child) and the woman is only carrying it for him.
*Religious belief that only a god or gods can make major reproductive decisions.
Okay so here's the disclaimer: One, this is my interpretation of the spectrum of opinions on this issue and reflects the set of definitions that I think are the most correct. Two, people commonly mis-use the labels pro-life and anti-choice, so if you do don't get po'ed, but please share any helpful comments you have. Three, the examples list is not meant to be exhaustive, only a list of examples that I thought covered the spread of that catagory; feel free to suggest more examples or argue that one example belongs in another catagory as long as you have a leg to stand on...not just to be a jerk. Four, people commonly don't fit one catagory or have different views for themselves & for legal/voting purposes, so it's completely cool to be in multiple catagories. Five, I'm still figuring it all out and welcome debate on these work-in-progress definitions--also, although I don't agree with some views, I do make an effort to try to understand them (so if you do understand it & can explain it in a logical way, please do!). Six, Para hates disclaimers, so just feel free to share your views and which catagory(s) you fall into.
There are basically five catagories in the debate. Each has several flavors and can easily disagree within the same group. The first "label" in each is what I usually use, followed by other terms I've heard used or are related it.
1. pro-abortion, anti-life, pro-eugenics (**these are not derogatory terms, but meant to denote the core argument that an individual has for abortion**)
2. pro-choice, mod-eugenics
3. undecided, mod-choice
4. pro-life, light-choice, light-eugenics
5. anti-choice, anti-abortion, anti-eugenics (**these are not derogatory terms, but meant to denote the core argument that an individual has against abortion**)
First to define eugenics (just in case): This is the basic idea that we can improve our gene pool and should use the means we have to do so. In theory, it's a great idea to work on improving our gene pool to make us better as a species at living in our environment, combating diseases, being healthier, and giving our children a better chance at happy lives. It is often discribed as taking criteria for natural selection on humans (which some believe to be lost, others note SARS and think otherwise) that "should" be occurring and applying it to a form of artifical selection; so since we told Mother Nature not to select who has the highest reproductive success, we do it ourselves. It makes a bit of sense, but eugenics has been historically a bad political idea--namely in that it can never realistically be applied beyond the small things (such as having a health care system). There is always someone or many someones out there who abuse this to push their own idea of who should live/die or reproduce to an extreme. This extreme is genocide, forced sterilization, extreme discrimination, etc. and the histories of many nations are filled with it (even the U.S.). It is good to note that a low-level of eugenics is always going to occur. There are social and other constraints that influence who has better survival and/or reproductive success.
1. Pro-abortion, anti-life, pro-eugenics:
At this end of the spectrum are basically the people who believe that abortion and other forms of controlling reproductive success are a very good tools and see the use of such in society as more of a necessity than a choice. The common factor is the encouragement of abortions in a majority of situations, regardless of the mother's views.
Some examples across this end of the spectrum:
*An over-populated country offering tax incentives or other nice bonuses to individuals who fit certain "negative" catagories and volunteer to get sterilized or are married without children and/or giving similiar bonuses to people in "positive" catagories who have children while also encouraging abortion for those who don't get those incentives.
*The view that one should be licensed in order to have children.
*The argument that anyone with a low income or was a victim of rape should have a madatory abortion based on inability to financially or emotionally care for the child.
*The favoring of war, abortion, etc. to decrease the current human over-population problem.
*The view that humans are "evil"/destructive/etc. and shouldn't be the dominant species on the planet.
*Sterilizing inmates of prisons or mental patients as part of their rehibilitation.
2. Pro-choice, mod-eugenics:
Commonly seen...These are people who believe that safe, medically-proven abortions should be offered as a choice for an individual to make. There's a range, but the common factor is that these individuals support Roe v. Wade and would vote against any law that limits the right to choice.
Some examples across this portion of the spectrum:
*The view that some cases warrant abortion, but the mother has a right to make her medical decisions.
*People who just don't think the government should have a say in matters of medical decisions or reproduction and/or think that specific reproductive decisions should be made within a family unit only.
*The belief that eugenics is only practical at the microlevel (each person deciding whether to contribute their genes to the gene pool).
*The justification that offering abortion as a reproductive choice is no different that offering birth control pills, condoms, sterilization surgery, etc.
*The view that offering legal, safe, effective abortions is more benefitial to society than the occurance of illegal abortions that put the mother's life at risk or homeopathic methods of "natural" abortions/miscarriages.
3. Undecided, mod-choice:
This seems the most straight-forward, but can actually be a very complex catagory since it is sorta a catch-all for those who don't fall into the other catagories. Common factors: moderate to non-existant opinions on abortion, either ability to see all sides of the debate or inability to agree completely with anyone on the issue, and wouldn't feel comfortable voting on Roe v Wade.
Some examples within the middle of the spectrum:
*The jury is still out on the legality or morality of abortion and/or denying abortions.
*Agreeing with pro-abortion/pro-choice and pro-life/anti-choice depending on the exact situation.
*Being apathetic to reproductive decisions (possibly because this is not an issue to the person at their point in life).
*A male-specific: the belief that it's not one's business and the decision to uphold or overturn Roe v. Wade should only be made by women.
4. Pro-life, light-choice, light-eugenics:
This label is commonly used, but also commonly misused. These inidividuals believe that abortion isn't a good tool for society to offer and would limit or discourage its use in making reproductive choices. Common factors are a negative view on abortions for most situations, supporting the limiting of abortions in the medical practice, but not a clear support for the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Some examples across this portion of the spectrum:
*Personally being against the use of abortion in one's reproductive decisions, but not believing in a right to limit the reproductive decisions of others.
*The support of other options (ie. adoption services, readily available birth control, etc.) instead of abortion.
*The view that abortions should legally be limited to extreme cases only (ie. rape victims, those incapable of raising children due to mental retardation, where the mother's health is in danger, during the first trimester only, genetic diseases, etc.)
*Being mostly anti-abortion, but leaving the possibility open for others to have abortions due to moral concerns of consequences of not having an abortion in some cases.
5. Anti-choice, anti-abortion, anti-eugenics:
This is the grouping that most of the people who can be seen out protesting abortion fall into and this the complete disagreement with abortion being a reproductive choice. Common factors: belief that everyone should have children & every fetus/child should live (no exceptions) and would support the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
*The belief that life starts at the moment of conception and abortion is the same as murdering a child.
*The view that abortion is a completely negative thing based on the belief that it does irrepairable damage to the mother (physiologically, mentally, emotionally).
*The view that if a man impregnants a woman, then the child is the property of the man (who obviously wants the child) and the woman is only carrying it for him.
*Religious belief that only a god or gods can make major reproductive decisions.
Okay so here's the disclaimer: One, this is my interpretation of the spectrum of opinions on this issue and reflects the set of definitions that I think are the most correct. Two, people commonly mis-use the labels pro-life and anti-choice, so if you do don't get po'ed, but please share any helpful comments you have. Three, the examples list is not meant to be exhaustive, only a list of examples that I thought covered the spread of that catagory; feel free to suggest more examples or argue that one example belongs in another catagory as long as you have a leg to stand on...not just to be a jerk. Four, people commonly don't fit one catagory or have different views for themselves & for legal/voting purposes, so it's completely cool to be in multiple catagories. Five, I'm still figuring it all out and welcome debate on these work-in-progress definitions--also, although I don't agree with some views, I do make an effort to try to understand them (so if you do understand it & can explain it in a logical way, please do!). Six, Para hates disclaimers, so just feel free to share your views and which catagory(s) you fall into.