Pro-choice or Pro-life?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I wish that the nomenclature would change to be Anti-Abortion / Pro-Choice.

That is actually the terminology prescribed by the BBC (and I presume others) in its style guide.

There are people who would consider themselves "pro-life" as in "I support life", but don't like that the expression gets used almost exclusively to refer to abortion, yes.
But I also think there are people who consider themselves "anti-abortion" as in "I'm not for abortion", but also consider themselves pro-choice, who would probably object to that change.
In my opinion the very idea of trying to divide everyone into two camps using simple labels doesn't make much sense on a topic like this. Although I understand it is a useful shorthand in various situations.

[Kingpoleon]

That is actually the terminology prescribed by the BBC (and I presume others) in its style guide.

This is not neutral terminology, though. It accepts one ideologically driven term and rejects the other for no apparent reason. If we want to label one side as in favor of abortion and the other against, then we should do so. Nobody really rejects the term pro gun, pro gay marriage, etc., as shorthand for what they want to be legal except for the pro abortion advocates.

[Alcibiades]

That is actually the terminology prescribed by the BBC (and I presume others) in its style guide.

This is not neutral terminology, though. It accepts one ideologically driven term and rejects the other for no apparent reason. If we want to label one side as in favor of abortion and the other against, then we should do so. Nobody really rejects the term pro gun, pro gay marriage, etc., as shorthand for what they want to be legal except for the pro abortion advocates.

I can very much see where you’re coming from, but I think the authors of the style guide would argue that pro-life represents an editorialisation of that side’s position (as whether foetuses are “life” in the same sense as people who have been born is a controversial subject) and anti-abortion is a perfectly fair description which the pro-lifers would have not deny applies to them, whereas “pro-choice” is the only accurate descriptor of the other sides, as they are not actually “pro-abortion” as in seeking the most abortions possible, but their guiding principle is a woman’s right to choose.

[Kingpoleon]

I can very much see where you’re coming from, but I think the authors of the style guide would argue that pro-life represents an editorialisation of that side’s position (as whether foetuses are “life” in the same sense as people who have been born is a controversial subject) and anti-abortion is a perfectly fair description which the pro-lifers would have not deny applies to them, whereas “pro-choice” is the only accurate descriptor of the other sides, as they are not actually “pro-abortion” as in seeking the most abortions possible, but their guiding principle is a woman’s right to choose.

On the contrary. You will not find a significant number of biologists who argue that life begins at a time other than conception. As for pro abortion meaning that you seek the most possible, that’s not accurate. Being pro marijuana doesn’t mean that you advocate maximal marijuana use. Pro choice people can and do argue that they don’t really support abortions. But if I advocate for something being legal, I believe that it is moral, or at least not so immoral/harmful that it ought to be banned. I don’t say that I’m not for gay marriage when I advocate that it be illegal. Why? Because being “for” something means I want it to be legal.

The charge of implicit bias against a group which is almost certainly majority pro abortion is not that unreasonable a charge, is it?

[DC Al Fine]

The terminology issue is an interesting one.

In a perfect world, we would have developed neutral sounding descriptors on both sides like "pro/anti fetal personhood" or "pro/anti legal elective first trimester abortion" but alas people don't work that way. As things currently stand, we've developed two highly editorialized terms to describe the debate. Who among us wants to be "anti-life" or "anti-choice"? I'm fine with this. The terms widely known and reasonably equal, so I see no reason to try to force a change. Alcibiades argument is interesting though I'm not quite convinced for the reasons Kingpoleon outlined.

What I really don't have time for though, is the disingenuous posters who, despite participating in an ostensibly high info forum, throw out everything they ever knew about commonly held meanings of words, to say things like "If you're pro-life how can you support the death penalty/oppose single payer healthcare etc"*, acting like the world's worst, most woodenly literal translators in the process.

Every pro-lifer supports something that doesn't promote maximum life, just as every pro-choicer some restriction on personal choice. Let's not pretend like this is some unique insight to pretend that words can't have meanings other than the most bare literal one.

*The pro-life version would be something about seatbelt laws I suppose, but I used pro-choice as that is by far the most common one I encounter on USGD.

[Kingpoleon]

The terminology issue is an interesting one.

In a perfect world, we would have developed neutral sounding descriptors on both sides like "pro/anti fetal personhood" or "pro/anti legal elective first trimester abortion" but alas people don't work that way. As things currently stand, we've developed two highly editorialized terms to describe the debate. Who among us wants to be "anti-life" or "anti-choice"? I'm fine with this. The terms widely known and reasonably equal, so I see no reason to try to force a change. Alcibiades argument is interesting though I'm not quite convinced for the reasons Kingpoleon outlined.

What I really don't have time for though, is the disingenuous posters who, despite participating in an ostensibly high info forum, throw out everything they ever knew about commonly held meanings of words, to say things like "If you're pro-life how can you support the death penalty/oppose single payer healthcare etc"*, acting like the world's worst, most woodenly literal translators in the process.

Every pro-lifer supports something that doesn't promote maximum life, just as every pro-choicer some restriction on personal choice. Let's not pretend like this is some unique insight to pretend that words can't have meanings other than the most bare literal one.

*The pro-life version would be something about seatbelt laws I suppose, but I used pro-choice as that is by far the most common one I encounter on USGD.

I think this debate is rather odd in that the “conservative” side is charging the media with implicit bias, rather than purposeful bias. The claim that pro choice is the most accurate term is an implicit acceptance of the pro choice argument*.

*I generally use the term pro choice in the presumption of good faith. Name calling is not conducive to reasonable discussion, and a fair agreement upon terms must be the basis of any discussion which begins in disagreement.

[Biden his time]

Option 2. Anyone who voted 4 is disgusting.

Lol I have a near-opposite opinion.

Option 3. Anyone who voted 1 is disgusting.

I think 4 is bad too but I find it less viscerally disgusting personally.

[TJ in Oregon]

The terminology issue is an interesting one.

In a perfect world, we would have developed neutral sounding descriptors on both sides like "pro/anti fetal personhood" or "pro/anti legal elective first trimester abortion" but alas people don't work that way. As things currently stand, we've developed two highly editorialized terms to describe the debate. Who among us wants to be "anti-life" or "anti-choice"? I'm fine with this. The terms widely known and reasonably equal, so I see no reason to try to force a change. Alcibiades argument is interesting though I'm not quite convinced for the reasons Kingpoleon outlined.

What I really don't have time for though, is the disingenuous posters who, despite participating in an ostensibly high info forum, throw out everything they ever knew about commonly held meanings of words, to say things like "If you're pro-life how can you support the death penalty/oppose single payer healthcare etc"*, acting like the world's worst, most woodenly literal translators in the process.

Every pro-lifer supports something that doesn't promote maximum life, just as every pro-choicer some restriction on personal choice. Let's not pretend like this is some unique insight to pretend that words can't have meanings other than the most bare literal one.

*The pro-life version would be something about seatbelt laws I suppose, but I used pro-choice as that is by far the most common one I encounter on USGD.

I think this debate is rather odd in that the “conservative” side is charging the media with implicit bias, rather than purposeful bias. The claim that pro choice is the most accurate term is an implicit acceptance of the pro choice argument*.

*I generally use the term pro choice in the presumption of good faith. Name calling is not conducive to reasonable discussion, and a fair agreement upon terms must be the basis of any discussion which begins in disagreement.

I think "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are fair in that they are equally bad terms. Both are designed to maximize appeal rather than to describe their position accurately. I accept that "anti-abortion" is a more accurate description than "pro-life" and I would generally accept it -- however, it is not fair to use "anti-abortion" alongside of "pro-choice" as the latter is vaguely appeal-maximizing. But the "pro-choice" side often objects to "pro-abortion". So the easiest fair thing to do is to just keep "pro-life" and "pro-choice".

[Schiff for Senate]

I'm not sure if either label accurately describes my views on the issue.

 First of all, I do support the Hyde Amendment (banning government funding for abortion except for r*pe, incest and when the mother's life is endangered). I think there should be some limits. If the pregnancy arises from r*pe or incest or if the mother's life is in danger, then there should be no limits on when the abortion should occur. Other than that, abortion should be banned at the federal level after the conclusion of the 2nd trimester. (I am somewhat sympathetic to the religious right's objections to abortion but they have become much too one-sided and obssessed on the issue. They've blindly supported Trump throughout everything he's done, including the Access Hollywood tape and calling white supremacists "fine people", because he gave them pro-life judges.)

[courts]

pro-choice though pro-life at a certain point before infancy

[Benjamin Frank]

Being anti abortion does not make a person pro-life.  Many 'pro life' people couldn't care less about actual living humans, except for themselves.

Cast in point.

https://twitter.com/TylerDurden/status/1419862242820952064

[Orwell]

Not a huge fan of women having rights, but also not a huge fan of kids...

Pro-choice under all circumstances up to 224 months.

[CEO Mindset]

Pro-choice to the point of favoring taxing the hell out of churches that get mouthy on abortion or LGBT. Or just confiscating a bunch of their assets then saying they'll be taxed from here on out.

[John Dule]

Pro-choice to the point of favoring taxing the hell out of churches that get mouthy on abortion or LGBT. Or just confiscating a bunch of their assets then saying they'll be taxed from here on out.

Republicans with avatars of long-extinct European political entities are the most unpredictable people on this site.

[LBJer]

Option 2.  I don't think any significant number of women would want to have an abortion shortly before birth unless there was a compelling medical reason to do so--particularly a threat to the mother's life--in which case it should be allowed. 

[beesley]

#4 for me.

[afleitch]

#4 for me.

So unborn life over that of the mother?

[afleitch]

I'm pretty much content with UK law as it stands, so #2.

I'm old fashioned in that I think it's not something that I should have any investment in. I trust women and transmen to make choices relevant to them including defining 'life' within them. If they take a view that life begins at conception I'll be their most robust defender. If they do not, I'll support their choices.

[beesley]

#4 for me.

So unborn life over that of the mother?

No, that would be an exception, and I'm not just saying that because I've been asked. If I could pick 'between #3 and #4' I would've done, I should've stated so in my original post.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Opposed to the forced-pregnancy movement that wants to control womens' bodies.

[BushKerry04]

I support a woman's right to choose up until the 3rd trimester. I don't believe I, or any man for that matter, has the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body.

[Rjjr77]

#3 for me.

Pro-Life, but for non-religious reasons, and not an asshole about this.

Anyone that says an abortion doesn't end a life is disingenuous. It clearly does. It comes down to the hubris of the current state of human being. 

[Person Man]

You can't really be "pro-life" without being #4. If you say #3, then you are someone who thinks abortion should be illegal but that it's not really murder. You don't really compromise about murder.