How exactly are "pro choice" and "pro life" defined?

[T'Chenka]

PLEASE READ THIS FIRST:
This thread is NOT about morality, it is strictly about laws and policy.

After having a conversation with a friend, I'm starting to second guess myself here. When it comes to your political positions on what the laws should be, NOT your personal beliefs and morals, where is the line drawn between somebody that is politically pro-life and somebody that is politically pro-choice?

The following has always been my understanding, but maybe I've been wrong this whole time? I would like to get some clarity on this.

PRO-LIFE
- Abortion should be illegal
- SOME pro-lifers want exceptions for rape
- SOME pro-lifers want exceptions for babies that will die young
- SOME pro-lifers want exceptions for pregnancies that will kill the mother

PRO-CHOICE
- Some abortions should be legal
- All of the pro-life exceptions above should be legal
- Abortions should be legal up to ___ weeks (opinions vary on how many weeks)
- SOME pro-choicers want all abortion to be legal

Does that sound right?

[T'Chenka]

If mods want they can move this to Individual Politics or wherever they see fit. Didn't occur to me to post it there.

[It’s so Joever]

Pro-choice: “Women deserve the right to murder babies up to birth”
Pro-life: “Big corporations deserve the right to murder babies once they leave the womb!”

Sorry too tempting. Anyways I would define pro-choice/pro-life as two theoretical ends of a spectrum of abortion views, and even then many views in the issue still don’t fit on the linear spectrum.
Purely pro-choice means supporting a woman’s right to abortion no matter what.
Purely pro-life means wanting to prohibit abortion no matter what.

Depending on your views, pro-birth and pro-abortion could be the true extreme ends which aren’t accepted on the Overton window.

[TJ in Oregon]

I consider "pro-life" to mean the belief that abortion should be illegal in general, with some possible exceptions for things like rape or the health of the mother, but no elective abortions regardless of the point in the pregnancy. While I believe life begins at conception, I would still consider someone who believes it begins at implantation to be "pro-life".

I consider "pro-choice" to mean someone who believes abortion should be legal in elective cases, and, presumably the exceptions above also.

[afleitch]

I consider "pro-life" to mean the belief that abortion should be illegal in general, with some possible exceptions for things like rape or the health of the mother, but no elective abortions regardless of the point in the pregnancy. While I believe life begins at conception, I would still consider someone who believes it begins at implantation to be "pro-life".

I consider "pro-choice" to mean someone who believes abortion should be legal in elective cases, and, presumably the exceptions above also.

I'd add that pro-choice generally believes in a woman or atransmans right to be personally pro-choice or pro-life in their decision making and ultimately it should be their decision or their families decision without state or community coercion.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I consider "pro-life" to mean the belief that abortion should be illegal in general, with some possible exceptions for things like rape or the health of the mother, but no elective abortions regardless of the point in the pregnancy. While I believe life begins at conception, I would still consider someone who believes it begins at implantation to be "pro-life".

I consider "pro-choice" to mean someone who believes abortion should be legal in elective cases, and, presumably the exceptions above also.

I'd add that pro-choice generally believes in a woman or atransmans right to be personally pro-choice or pro-life in their decision making and ultimately it should be their decision or their families decision without state or community coercion.

Is this in dispute? I see "pro-abort" as a lazy pejorative from the pro-life side a lot but I don't often run into people seriously denying that almost no sincere pro-choice activists are in love with abortion for the sake of abortion or interested in affirmatively shilling it to people. It's probable that the pro-lifers I associate with are atypically nuanced in their approach, though.

[afleitch]

I consider "pro-life" to mean the belief that abortion should be illegal in general, with some possible exceptions for things like rape or the health of the mother, but no elective abortions regardless of the point in the pregnancy. While I believe life begins at conception, I would still consider someone who believes it begins at implantation to be "pro-life".

I consider "pro-choice" to mean someone who believes abortion should be legal in elective cases, and, presumably the exceptions above also.

I'd add that pro-choice generally believes in a woman or atransmans right to be personally pro-choice or pro-life in their decision making and ultimately it should be their decision or their families decision without state or community coercion.

Is this in dispute? I see "pro-abort" as a lazy pejorative from the pro-life side a lot but I don't often run into people seriously denying that almost no sincere pro-choice activists are in love with abortion for the sake of abortion or interested in affirmatively shilling it to people. It's probable that the pro-lifers I associate with are atypically nuanced in their approach, though.

Not in person so much, as I am in the UK and at the counter vigils to the few vigils that rarely happen there's very little language used at all. Not that it was thankfully required, but advice given to advocates/escorts was to simply not respond or engage. And to not expect engagement.

My school had an active (as in imposed top down) pro-life group and as a debate geek, I certainly got some less nuanced born-of-teenage-emotions accusations that I would only later encounter online; baby murderer, baby dismemberer etc which I sometimes still see. One of our more litigious posters called me 'antifa and abortion left' which I actually quite liked. But I've withdrawn mostly from those places.

I know in the States, clinic escorts have varying experiences, sometimes it's the same on both sides for years and they get to know each other.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/13/mississippi-lone-abortion-clinic

[Person Man]

My guess is that the legal difference is whether the government has to initially prove that the abortion happened outside of protocol (if there any restrictions) or that it is on the provider/abortive parents to prove an affirmative defense or justification  (if there are any exceptions).

There are people who are sincerely in the middle and either think that abortion should be legal and restricted heavy or believe that abortion should be illegal but with any exceptions. Countries that have laws like this are Israel, SK, Japan, Australia, and the U.K., I think.

[Former President tack50]

From my point of view it is very simple and it centers on whether you think a woman should be able to have an abortion "on-demand"; without any explanation other than her wanting it

If you are pro-life; you will be against it. You may be in favour of permitting some certain justified abortions (the common exceptions being rape and danger to the mother's life most notably) as some sort of lesser evil; but if a mother has no special reason for having an abortion, you would not permit it at any point in the pregnancy.

If you are pro-choice; you will be in favour of the woman receiving an abortion; at least during a certain window of her pregnancy. You can get more nuanced on how long this window should be; or some auxilliary details like for example whether or not abortions should receive public funding; or whether or not the mother should attend a counselling session first. But at least during a certain pregnancy window you will allow abortion with no reasons asked.

The line between pro-life and pro-choice is a very simple and clear one to me. There is of course then a lot of nuance in each camp.

[Person Man]

From my point of view it is very simple and it centers on whether you think a woman should be able to have an abortion "on-demand"; without any explanation other than her wanting it

If you are pro-life; you will be against it. You may be in favour of permitting some certain justified abortions (the common exceptions being rape and danger to the mother's life most notably) as some sort of lesser evil; but if a mother has no special reason for having an abortion, you would not permit it at any point in the pregnancy.

If you are pro-choice; you will be in favour of the woman receiving an abortion; at least during a certain window of her pregnancy. You can get more nuanced on how long this window should be; or some auxilliary details like for example whether or not abortions should receive public funding; or whether or not the mother should attend a counselling session first. But at least during a certain pregnancy window you will allow abortion with no reasons asked.

The line between pro-life and pro-choice is a very simple and clear one to me. There is of course then a lot of nuance in each camp.

What would you consider an abortion ban where the threshold of qualifying for an exception is that there is just some reasonable reason and not some dire or special situation?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

From my point of view it is very simple and it centers on whether you think a woman should be able to have an abortion "on-demand"; without any explanation other than her wanting it

If you are pro-life; you will be against it. You may be in favour of permitting some certain justified abortions (the common exceptions being rape and danger to the mother's life most notably) as some sort of lesser evil; but if a mother has no special reason for having an abortion, you would not permit it at any point in the pregnancy.

If you are pro-choice; you will be in favour of the woman receiving an abortion; at least during a certain window of her pregnancy. You can get more nuanced on how long this window should be; or some auxilliary details like for example whether or not abortions should receive public funding; or whether or not the mother should attend a counselling session first. But at least during a certain pregnancy window you will allow abortion with no reasons asked.

The line between pro-life and pro-choice is a very simple and clear one to me. There is of course then a lot of nuance in each camp.

What would you consider an abortion ban where the threshold of qualifying for an exception is that there is just some reasonable reason and not some dire or special situation?

Isn't that basically what countries like Britain and Israel have? My understanding is those countries' laws are generally classified as pro-choice.

[Former President tack50]

From my point of view it is very simple and it centers on whether you think a woman should be able to have an abortion "on-demand"; without any explanation other than her wanting it

If you are pro-life; you will be against it. You may be in favour of permitting some certain justified abortions (the common exceptions being rape and danger to the mother's life most notably) as some sort of lesser evil; but if a mother has no special reason for having an abortion, you would not permit it at any point in the pregnancy.

If you are pro-choice; you will be in favour of the woman receiving an abortion; at least during a certain window of her pregnancy. You can get more nuanced on how long this window should be; or some auxilliary details like for example whether or not abortions should receive public funding; or whether or not the mother should attend a counselling session first. But at least during a certain pregnancy window you will allow abortion with no reasons asked.

The line between pro-life and pro-choice is a very simple and clear one to me. There is of course then a lot of nuance in each camp.

What would you consider an abortion ban where the threshold of qualifying for an exception is that there is just some reasonable reason and not some dire or special situation?

What do you mean by "some reasonable reason"?

I do know a handful of pro-life countries have an "economic situation" exemption on abortion; which in my opinion is debatable whether it qualifies as pro-life or pro-choice. There is some grey area for sure, but it is very limited.

"Reasonable reason" just seems like too arbitrary of a clause to me, that would never make it into law.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

From my point of view it is very simple and it centers on whether you think a woman should be able to have an abortion "on-demand"; without any explanation other than her wanting it

If you are pro-life; you will be against it. You may be in favour of permitting some certain justified abortions (the common exceptions being rape and danger to the mother's life most notably) as some sort of lesser evil; but if a mother has no special reason for having an abortion, you would not permit it at any point in the pregnancy.

If you are pro-choice; you will be in favour of the woman receiving an abortion; at least during a certain window of her pregnancy. You can get more nuanced on how long this window should be; or some auxilliary details like for example whether or not abortions should receive public funding; or whether or not the mother should attend a counselling session first. But at least during a certain pregnancy window you will allow abortion with no reasons asked.

The line between pro-life and pro-choice is a very simple and clear one to me. There is of course then a lot of nuance in each camp.

What would you consider an abortion ban where the threshold of qualifying for an exception is that there is just some reasonable reason and not some dire or special situation?

What do you mean by "some reasonable reason"?

I do know a handful of pro-life countries have an "economic situation" exemption on abortion; which in my opinion is debatable whether it qualifies as pro-life or pro-choice. There is some grey area for sure, but it is very limited.

"Reasonable reason" just seems like too arbitrary of a clause to me, that would never make it into law.

Japan has a vague "socioeconomic reasons" indication. An attempt to abolish it and replace it with a fetal health indication in the early 70s led to a temporary coalition of feminist groups and disability rights groups to shoot down the proposed changes.

[Person Man]

From my point of view it is very simple and it centers on whether you think a woman should be able to have an abortion "on-demand"; without any explanation other than her wanting it

If you are pro-life; you will be against it. You may be in favour of permitting some certain justified abortions (the common exceptions being rape and danger to the mother's life most notably) as some sort of lesser evil; but if a mother has no special reason for having an abortion, you would not permit it at any point in the pregnancy.

If you are pro-choice; you will be in favour of the woman receiving an abortion; at least during a certain window of her pregnancy. You can get more nuanced on how long this window should be; or some auxilliary details like for example whether or not abortions should receive public funding; or whether or not the mother should attend a counselling session first. But at least during a certain pregnancy window you will allow abortion with no reasons asked.

The line between pro-life and pro-choice is a very simple and clear one to me. There is of course then a lot of nuance in each camp.

What would you consider an abortion ban where the threshold of qualifying for an exception is that there is just some reasonable reason and not some dire or special situation?

What do you mean by "some reasonable reason"?

I do know a handful of pro-life countries have an "economic situation" exemption on abortion; which in my opinion is debatable whether it qualifies as pro-life or pro-choice. There is some grey area for sure, but it is very limited.

"Reasonable reason" just seems like too arbitrary of a clause to me, that would never make it into law.

Some sort of moderate level of scrutiny between “rational basis with teeth” and “compelling interest”.

[Badger]

Ask 20 different people, get 20 different answers.

[Person Man]

From my point of view it is very simple and it centers on whether you think a woman should be able to have an abortion "on-demand"; without any explanation other than her wanting it

If you are pro-life; you will be against it. You may be in favour of permitting some certain justified abortions (the common exceptions being rape and danger to the mother's life most notably) as some sort of lesser evil; but if a mother has no special reason for having an abortion, you would not permit it at any point in the pregnancy.

If you are pro-choice; you will be in favour of the woman receiving an abortion; at least during a certain window of her pregnancy. You can get more nuanced on how long this window should be; or some auxilliary details like for example whether or not abortions should receive public funding; or whether or not the mother should attend a counselling session first. But at least during a certain pregnancy window you will allow abortion with no reasons asked.

The line between pro-life and pro-choice is a very simple and clear one to me. There is of course then a lot of nuance in each camp.

What would you consider an abortion ban where the threshold of qualifying for an exception is that there is just some reasonable reason and not some dire or special situation?

What do you mean by "some reasonable reason"?

I do know a handful of pro-life countries have an "economic situation" exemption on abortion; which in my opinion is debatable whether it qualifies as pro-life or pro-choice. There is some grey area for sure, but it is very limited.

"Reasonable reason" just seems like too arbitrary of a clause to me, that would never make it into law.

Japan has a vague "socioeconomic reasons" indication. An attempt to abolish it and replace it with a fetal health indication in the early 70s led to a temporary coalition of feminist groups and disability rights groups to shoot down the proposed changes.

Couldn’t a petitioner just say that they need an abortion because they can’t afford to care for a potentially severely disabled child?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

From my point of view it is very simple and it centers on whether you think a woman should be able to have an abortion "on-demand"; without any explanation other than her wanting it

If you are pro-life; you will be against it. You may be in favour of permitting some certain justified abortions (the common exceptions being rape and danger to the mother's life most notably) as some sort of lesser evil; but if a mother has no special reason for having an abortion, you would not permit it at any point in the pregnancy.

If you are pro-choice; you will be in favour of the woman receiving an abortion; at least during a certain window of her pregnancy. You can get more nuanced on how long this window should be; or some auxilliary details like for example whether or not abortions should receive public funding; or whether or not the mother should attend a counselling session first. But at least during a certain pregnancy window you will allow abortion with no reasons asked.

The line between pro-life and pro-choice is a very simple and clear one to me. There is of course then a lot of nuance in each camp.

What would you consider an abortion ban where the threshold of qualifying for an exception is that there is just some reasonable reason and not some dire or special situation?

What do you mean by "some reasonable reason"?

I do know a handful of pro-life countries have an "economic situation" exemption on abortion; which in my opinion is debatable whether it qualifies as pro-life or pro-choice. There is some grey area for sure, but it is very limited.

"Reasonable reason" just seems like too arbitrary of a clause to me, that would never make it into law.

Japan has a vague "socioeconomic reasons" indication. An attempt to abolish it and replace it with a fetal health indication in the early 70s led to a temporary coalition of feminist groups and disability rights groups to shoot down the proposed changes.

Couldn’t a petitioner just say that they need an abortion because they can’t afford to care for a potentially severely disabled child?

They could and they do. The disability-rights argument against the change (which argument I agree with) was largely philosophical.

[MarkD]

As a kind of aside, .....

I am pleased to see in this thread that the OP and almost every reply has been discussing this issue in such a way that the terms "pro choice" and "pro life" are terms that ONLY refer to one's view on whether government should or should not ban abortion. For several years I have been utterly exasperated to see people on the left come up with disingeuous arguments that the term "pro-life" ought to refer to several other political views, rather than just one's view on abortion. Over the years I've seen countless arguments like, ......

How can you call yourself pro-life when you support the death penalty?

How can you call yourself pro-life when you support the Iraq War? (Or whatever else is the most recent international conflict that the United States is involved in.)

If you were truly pro-life, then you would support more spending on [this, that, or another poverty-fighting program] so that children would not be starving to death! You only want babies to be born; you don't care what happens to them after that!

And, this year, as the Covid-19 pandemic has led to shutdowns of numerous businesses, mask mandates, social distancing, and so on, I've recently seen, ....

If you don't wear a mask, comply with social distancing, and stay at home except for when it's absolutely necessary to go out, you have no business calling yourself pro-life!

Hasn't every Atlas user here seen arguments like these? Even if you are on the left (like most Atlas users are), don't you realize how ridiculous these kinds of arguments are?

Myself, I am both pro-choice and I support the death penalty, so I'm a "double-death" kind of person. The first question above has never been directed to me, but nevertheless, years ago whenever I heard that question being asked, I temporarily pretended to be pro-life and replied to them (more than once): "If my only two choices in this world were that I wanted the guilty to die and the innocent to live, or, on the other hand, that I wanted the innocent to die and the guilty to live, then that choice would be, if you pardon the expression, a no-brainer. Which side are YOU on?"

And more recently, when I saw the Covid-related argument above being posted on Facebook, I posted a reply to them that said, "I assume that the inverse of that argument is that if you DO support government-ordered shutdown of businesses, mask mandates, and social-distancing rules, then you have no business calling yourself pro-choice." The original poster asked me, "What point are you making?" So I replied, "That the terms 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' do not carry any policy implications other than one's views on -- specifically -- abortion."