That's the simple fact. Nothing else correctly frames the issue.

I disagree that it frames the issue, because it's too nebulous.

That's a flimsy assertion at best. Anti-abortion is what they are, as opposed to their "pro-life" nonsense, which they certainly aren't.

Yes, anti-abortion is correct, but that misses the point: They want to take that choice away. They are anti-choice.

Several fundies have abortions, they are pro-choice for themselves rather often. There's been articles on it. Anti-choice is fine too, but I use anti-abortion as opposed to "pro-life". That's my *choice*. They are not pro-life and I wish to highlight it. Otherwise they try to weasel away in euphemisms.

They're hypocrites. Not a big surprise. And absolutely, the anti-choicers do their best to reframe it to make themselves look better.

Obviously we are not "pro life" vs "anti life". But these are dichotomous thinkers who don't want to be known as "anti-choice" when we are "pro choice". They want to reframe it so we are "pro abortion" while they are "anti abortion", because it paints them in a better light.

The left is sadly behind the curve when it comes to semantics. I'm here to tell everyone that "pro choice" vs "anti choice" is the terminolgy we should be using.

Don't you see the irony? I've had an abortion, I'm going to keep using my favored phrase kthxbai.

I'm just saying, the anti-choicers prefer to frame it pro life / pro abortion because it makes their angle look better. I'm not heckling anyone, it just seems like nobody is understanding my point.

This thread was just about semantics and how not to give the right wing their terms, including of course pro-life, (which means the other side is anti-life) and anti-abortion, which means the other side is pro-abortion, which as we see brings up all kinds of controversy which should not be there, about whether abortion is really as awful as they say, etc...etc.

Shaping the language is a way to gain power over minds...I am trying to fight that, and it is not, as we can see on this thread, very easy.
Roe vs. Wade, was not a decision on abortion. It was a decision on a woman's right to privacy in her own body.
This is where the problem lies. Not in whether abortion is better or worse than a root canal

Oh well...

If you claim you are anti-abortion, that means you are AGAINST anything that increases the number of abortions. Fair enough? The problem is that doesn't describe people. They are not for things that have a proven track record of preventing unwanted pregnancies. They are not for making birth control, including Plan B more widely available. They are not for teaching safe sex in schools. In fact, these same people are vehemently against these things.

They are not anti-abortion, they are anti-choice.

That I am "for" abortion access for anyone for any reason.

I think we cave to them when we use euphemisms like "choice," pretending that we think abortion is a dirty word and a shameful thing. It's not.

Of course no one wants to have an abortion if they can avoid it. But sometimes it is a necessary and totally respectable choice--and NOT just in the case of rape or incest.

I was fortunate never to have needed to have an abortion. But there was a period of my life, when I had been married for some time and had two young children--one with a disability and another who was a handful--and not a lot of money or energy left over, that I knew that if I were to become pregnant again that I would need to seek an abortion. It was out of love and duty to my two existing children (and for my own sanity) that I knew I could not have another child at the time. Or at least so I felt: I never had to test that feeling. But I didn't feel ashamed of making that mental decision at all. And I felt safe knowing that option was available to me.

I am definitely FOR the right to have an abortion.

Both medical and therapeutic. None of them were scarred by it.

eager to have abortions...this is simply not true.
Sorry I used the term "terrible". But it is and was for me a serious and difficult time.
This doesn't mean in any way that it should be made illegal.
It is a woman's natural right, and it should be guaranteed safe. That's all.

I am also pro-chemotherapy.

When you meet a pregnant woman, do you tell her that you hope she's going to abort?

"Hi Sis. I heard you and your husband are planning to have a baby. Hey, look...have you considered an abortion?"

These are examples of pro-abortion.

I am in favor of abortions being available to any woman, any time, for any reason.

It may be terrible for the woman/family making the decision. It may be a no-brainer.

Either way, it's none of my business. Your hypothetical is absurd.

I am pro-abortion.

I don't think abortion is "terrible" at all. Why are people so confused about what I'm saying?

All I'm saying is, we want to frame it as "pro-choice" vs. "anti choice". The semantics are important.

And pro-abortion.

Pro abortion means you actively encourage pregnant women to get abortions.

Imagine saying to a co-worker who is happily pregnant, "you should probably have an abortion".

There is nothing shameful about abortion.

Sigh.

I don't know about you, but I think it's rude to encourage happily pregnant women to get abortions. That's what we mean when we say "no one is pro-abortion".

You're pro-choice.

so maybe you could call me pro-abortion. But I am pro-choice.

I'm not one of these people who doesn't like abortion. I say, so what!
But I certainly don't encourage happily pregnant women to terminate their pregnancies.

(disappointed voice) You mean you're going to carry through with the pregnancy? Tsk, tsk! How can you live with yourself? You're going to regret having a baby forever! I think you should definitely get an abortion.

Isn't pro-choice the choice to have an abortion? I don't see any roadblocks to birth being thrown up. I reject the pro-lie movement's reframing.

Do you go around encouraging happily pregnant women to abort? No? Didn't think so.
You're pro choice.

Ideally it would be better if society was a better place to live, men got vasectomies, rape or incest didn't happen, etc. then abortion would not be all that necessary.
Abortion is a natural right for women. It is their body, their choice.
This is why I am not "pro-abortion", but pro-choice for women to have a safe abortion.
It is not any more shameful as a root canal, though quite painful, and psychologically draining.

It means abortion should be safe and legal. Don't put YOUR crap onto it.

thank you.

I'm saying it's why "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" are the most agreed upon terms. It's about choice.
Sigh... it looks like I'm having a difficult time explaining this.

Question: Do you tell happily pregnant women that they should get an abortion? No?
Well, then you're pro choice.

It is the anti-choicers who have done their best to change the terminology to what suits them best. They call themselves anti-abortion, because it sounds nicer, but they are truly anti choice. Likewise, we do not want to impose abortions on anyone who doesn't want one, so we are not actually pro-abortion. We are pro-choice.

I do think that was sort of rude of you to just knee-jerkedly assume that I'm "putting crap" out there. This is not something that I myself came up with all by myself.

So, a pro-appendectomy person would stop a person on the street and say, "hey, still got your appendix? Maybe you should think about having that out."

If I were a medical or other therapeutic practitioner, or a family member of a pregnant person, and the pregnancy was problematic for any reason, yes, I would say, "have you considered terminating this pregnancy? It might be best for everyone concerned."

That is what it means to be "pro-abortion." It is a viable option for a pregnancy that is problematic for any reason--medical, psychological, financial.

Now I'm curious if there is something unappealing about the term "pro-choice", or what.

I'm obviously doing a terrible job of explaining my viewpoint. I personally don't care how many abortions someone has, or what reasons they choose. Does everyone get that? I'm more in favor of abortion than 95% of everyone else probably.

It is important to frame the issue with "pro choice" vs. "anti choice", is all I'm saying. The anti-choicers are te ones who chose to call pro life people pro-abortion. Does that make any sense to anyone here? (not you in particular, lapislzi. Several people on this thread are reading my comments differently than what I meant).

Being "pro" doesn't mean you want everyone to do something. People have rightly pointed out that being "pro-appendectomy" doesn't mean you want everyone to have them - just if they need them. The right uses the term "pro-gun" for themselves. They don't mean they want everyone to have guns. They want everyone who wants one to be able to have one, even if it's a howitzer. People who are "pro-nuke" want to be able to build more nuclear plants and keep them running, not replace all forms of power with it everywhere. Don't try to insist the language means something it doesn't.

First. Sex needs to be seen as a natural beautiful thing when done right.

And the twain between the rational and the religiously insane will never be bridged.

They see sex as a sin and dirty.

Sane people see it as a miracle.

Long answer:

Abortion doesn't affect well-being, study says

New York Times (as printed in the San Jose Mercury 2/12/97)

Abortion does not trigger lasting emotional trauma in young women who
are psychologically healthy before they become pregnant, an eight-year
study of nearly 5,300 women has shown. Women who are in poor shape
emotionally after an abortion are likely to have been feeling bad about
their lives before terminating their pregnancies, the researchers said.

The findings, the researchers say, challenge the validity of laws
that have been proposed in many states, and passed in several, mandating
that women seeking abortions be informed of mental health risks.

The researchers, Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo, a psychologist at Arizona
State University in Tempe, and Dr. Amy Dabul Marin, a psychologist at
Phoenix College, examined the effects of race and religion on the
well-being of 773 women who reported on sealed questionnaires that
they had undergone abortions, and they compared the results with the
emotional status of women who did not report abortions.

The women, initially 14 to 24 years old, completed questionnaires and
were interviewed each year for eight years, starting in 1979. In 1980
and in 1987, the interview also included a standardized test that
measures overall well-being, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

"Given the persistent assertion that abortion is associated with
negative outcomes, the lack of any results in the context of such a
large sample is noteworthy," the researchers wrote. The study took
into account many factors that can influence a woman's emotional
well-being, including education, employment, income, the presence of
a spouse and the number of children.

Higher self-esteem was associated with being employed, having a
higher income, having more years of education and bearing fewer children,
but having had an abortion "did not make a difference," the researchers
reported. And the women's religious affiliations and degree of involvement
with religion did not have an independent effect on their long-term
reaction to abortion. Rather, the women's psychological well-being before
having abortions accounted for their mental state in the years after the
abortion, the researchers said..

In considering the influence of race, the researchers again found
that the women's level of self-esteem before having abortions was the
strongest predictor of their well-being after an abortion.

"Although highly religious Catholic women were slightly more likely
to exhibit post-abortion psychological distress than other women, this
fact is explained by lower pre-existing self-esteem," the researchers
wrote in the current issue of Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

Overall, Catholic women who attended church one or more times a week,
even those who had not had abortions, had generally lower self-esteem
than other women, although within the normal range, so it was hardly
surprising that they also had lower self-esteem after abortions, the
researchers said in interviews.

Gail Quinn, executive director of anti-abortion activities for the
United States Catholic Conference, said the findings belied the
experience of post-abortion counselors. She said, "While many women
express `relief' following an abortion, the relief is transitory."
In the long term, the experience prompts "hurting people to seek the
help of post-abortion healing services," she said.

The president of the National Right to Life Committee, Dr. Wanda
Franz, who earned her doctorate in developmental psychology, challenged
the researchers' conclusions. She said their assessment of self-esteem
"does not measure if a woman is mentally healthy," adding, "This requires
a specialist who performs certain tests, not a self-assessment of how
the woman feels about herself."

The Relationship of Abortion to Well-being: Do Race and Religion Make a Difference?
Nancy Felipe Russo and Amy J. Dabul
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 1997, Vol. 28, No , 23-31

Relationships of abortion and childbearing to well-being were examined for 1,189 Black and 3,147 White women. Education, income, and having a work role were positively and independently related to well-being for all women. Abortion did not have an independent relationship to well-being, regardless of race or religion, when well-being before becoming pregnant was controlled. These findings suggest professional psychologists should explore the origins of women's mental health problems in experiences predating their experience of abortion, and they can assist psychologists in working to ensure that mandated scripts from 'informed consent' legislation do not misrepresent scientific findings.


RUSSO, NANCY FELIPE
ZIERK, K.
Abortion, Childbearing, and Women's Well-Being
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice 23 (1992): 269-280. Also, http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/psy_resea...
Cohort(s): NLSY79
ID Number: 4029
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)

This study is based on a secondary analysis of NLSY interview data from 5,295 women who were interviewed annually from 1979 to 1987. Among this group 773 women were identified in 1987 as having at least one abortion, with 233 of them reporting repeat abortions. Well-being was assessed in 1980 and 1987 by the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The researchers used analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple regression to examine the combined and separate contributions of preabortion self-esteem, contextual variables (education, employment, income, and marital status), childbearing (being a parent, numbers of wanted and unwanted children) and abortion (having one abortion, having repeat abortions, number of abortions, time since last abortion) to women's post abortion self-esteem.




Most Women Do Not Feel Distress, Regret After Undergoing Abortion, Study Says



   The majority of women who choose to have legal abortions do not experience regret or long-term negative emotional effects from their decision to undergo the procedure, according to a study published in the June issue of the journal Social Science & Medicine, NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest reports. Dr. A. Kero and colleagues in the Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology at University Hospital in Umea, Sweden, interviewed 58 women at periods of four months and 12 months after the women's abortions. The women also answered a questionnaire prior to their abortions that asked about their living conditions, decision-making processes and general attitudes toward the pregnancy and the abortion. According to the study, most women "did not experience any emotional distress post-abortion"; however, 12 of the women said they experienced severe distress immediately after the procedure. Almost all of the women said they felt little distress at the one-year follow-up interview. The women who said they experienced no post-abortion distress had indicated prior to the procedure that they opted not to give birth because they "prioritized work, studies, and/or existing children," according to the study. According to the researchers, "almost all" of the women said the abortion was a "relief or a form of taking responsibility," and more than half of the women said they experienced positive emotional experiences after the abortion such as "mental growth and maturity of the abortion process" (NewsRx.com/Mental Health Weekly Digest, 7/12).

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports...

The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion--denied and completed

PK Dagg
Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ont., Canada.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the available literature on the psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion, addressing both the issue of the effects of the abortion on the woman involved and the effects on the woman and on the child born when abortion is denied. METHOD: Papers reviewed were initially selected by using a Medline search. This procedure resulted in 225 papers being reviewed, which were further selected by limiting the papers to those reporting original research. Finally, studies were assessed as to whether or not they used control groups or objective, validated symptom measures. RESULTS: Adverse sequelae occur in a minority of women, and when such symptoms occur, they usually seem to be the continuation of symptoms that appeared before the abortion and are on the wane immediately after the abortion. Many women denied abortion show ongoing resentment that may last for years, while children born when the abortion is denied have numerous, broadly based difficulties in social, interpersonal, and occupational functions that last at least into early adulthood. CONCLUSIONS: With increasing pressure on access to abortion services in North America, nonpsychiatrist physicians and mental health professionals need to keep in mind the effects of both performing and denying therapeutic abortion. Increased research into these areas, focusing in particular on why some women are adversely affected by the procedure and clarifying the relationship issues involved, continues to be important.
Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148:578-585
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/conten...


Psychological sequelae of medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation.

Ashok PW, Hamoda H, Flett GM, Kidd A, Fitzmaurice A, Templeton A.

From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.

Background. Although not much research comparing the emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion is available, few studies have compared psychological sequelae following both methods of abortion early in the first trimester of pregnancy. The aim of this review was to assess the psychological sequelae and emotional distress following medical and surgical abortion at 10-13 weeks gestation. Methods. Partially randomized patient preference trial in a Scottish Teaching Hospital was conducted. The hospital anxiety and depression scales were used to assess emotional distress. Anxiety levels were also assessed using visual analog scales while semantic differential rating scales were used to measure self-esteem. A total of 368 women were randomized, while 77 entered the preference cohort. Results. There were no significant differences in hospital anxiety and depression scales scores for anxiety or depression between the groups. Visual analog scales showed higher anxiety levels in women randomized to surgery prior to abortion (P < 0.0001), while women randomized to surgical treatment were less anxious after abortion (P < 0.0001). Semantic differential rating scores showed a fall in self-esteem in the randomized medical group compared to those undergoing surgery (P = 0.02). Conclusions. Medical abortion at 10-13 weeks is effective and does not increase psychological morbidity compared to surgical vacuum aspiration and hence should be made available to all women undergoing abortion at these gestations.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005 Aug;84(8) 61-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...


Post abortion syndrome: myth or reality?

Koop CE.

What are the health effects upon a woman who has had an abortion? In his letter to President Reagan, dated January 9, 1989, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop wrote that in order to find an answer to this question the Public Health Service would need from 10 to 100 million dollars for a comprehensive study.

PIP: At a 1987 briefing for Right to Life leaders, the author--US Surgeon General C Everett Koop--was requested to prepare a comprehensive report on the health effects (mental and physical) of induced abortion. To prepare for this task, the author met with 27 groups with philosophical, social, medical, or other professional interests in the abortion issue; interviewed women who had undergone this procedure; and conducted a review of the more than 250 studies in the literature pertaining to the psychological impact of abortion. Every effort was made to eliminate the bias that surrounds this controversial issue. It was not possible, however, to reach any conclusions about the health effects of abortion. In general, the studies on the psychological sequelae of abortion indicate a low incidence of adverse mental health effects. On the other hand, the evidence tends to consist of case studies and the few nonanecdotal reports that exist contain serious methodological flaws. In terms of the physical effects, abortion has been associated with subsequent infertility, a damaged cervix, miscarriage, premature birth, and low birthweight. Again, there are methodological problems. 1st, these events are difficult to quantify since most abortions are performed in free-standing clinics where longterm outcome is not recorded. 2nd, it is impossible to casually link these adverse outcomes to the abortion per se. Resolution of this question requires a prospective study of a cohort of women of childbearing age in reference to the variable outcomes of mating--failure to conceive, miscarriage, abortion, and delivery. Ideally, such a study would be conducted over a 5-year period and would cost approximately US$100 million
Health Matrix. 1989 Summer;7(2):42-4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...

Psychological sequelae of induced abortion.

Romans-Clarkson SE.

Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago Medical School, Dunedin, New Zealand.

This article reviews the scientific literature on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion. The methodology and results of studies carried out over the last twenty-two years are examined critically. The unanimous consensus is that abortion does not cause deleterious psychological effects. Women most likely to show subsequent problems are those who were pressured into the operation against their own wishes, either by relatives or because their pregnancy had medical or foetal contraindications. Legislation which restricts abortion causes problems for women with unwanted pregnancies and their doctors. It is also unjust, as it adversely most affects lower socio-economic class women.

PIP: A review of empirical studies on the psychological sequelae of induced abortion published since 1965 revealed no evidence of adverse effects. On the other hand, this review identified widespread methodological problems--improper sampling, lack of data on women's previous psychiatric history, a scarcity of prospective study designs, a lack of specified follow-up times or evaluation procedures, and a failure to distinguish between legal, illegal, and spontaneous abortions--that need to be addressed by psychiatric epidemiologists. Despite these methodological weaknesses, all 34 studies found significant improvement rather than deterioration in mental status after induced abortion. There was also a high degree of congruity in terms of predictors of adverse reactions after abortion--ambivalence about the procedure, a history of psychosocial instability, poor or absent family ties, psychiatric illness at the time of the pregnancy termination, and negative attitudes toward abortion in the broader society. As expected, criminal abortion is more likely than legal abortion to be associated with guilt, and women who have been denied therapeutic abortions report significantly greater psychosocial difficulties than those who have been granted abortion on the grounds of their precarious mental health. Overall, the research clearly attests that abortion carried out at a woman's request has no deleterious psychiatric consequences. Problems arise only when the woman undergoes pregnancy termination as a result of pressure from others. Legislation that undermines the ability of the pregnant woman to assess herself the impact of an unwanted pregnancy on her future impedes mental health and should be opposed by the psychiatric profession.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1989 Dec;23(4):555-65
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...

Psychological and social aspects of induced abortion.

Handy JA.

The literature concerning psychosocial aspects of induced abortion is reviewed. Key areas discussed are: the legal context of abortion in Britain, psychological characteristics of abortion-seekers, pre- and post-abortion contraceptive use, pre- and post-abortion counselling, the actual abortion and the effects of termination versus refused abortion. Women seeking termination are found to demonstrate more psychological disturbance than other women, however this is probably temporary and related to the short-term stresses of abortion. Inadequate contraception is frequent prior to abortion but improves afterwards. Few women find the decision to terminate easy and most welcome opportunities for non-judgemental counselling. Although some women experience adverse psychological sequelae after abortion the great majority do not. In contrast, refused abortion often results in psychological distress for the mother and an impoverished environment for the ensuing offspring.
Br J Clin Psychol. 1982 Feb;21 (Pt 1):29-41.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...

I have ... I am speaking for myself. It was a hard choice, and kind of depressing.
I support a woman's right to choose and right to have an abortion.
The right wing speaks as if abortions were a fun thing that people want to have.
They are not fun.
don't lecture me on abortion. Thank you.

who was not in ANY way suggesting abortions are 'fun' - only that they do not universally cause the level of emotional distress that many on both sides of the debate would like to have people believe.

I know you are speaking for yourself, but you are also ascribing a position to the poster that they did not imply and that isn't very fair.

I didn't mean to imply that. I was just reacting about being compared with the right wing.
I just think that in a better society, where men are better about birth control, where rape and incest are not that prevalent, where single mothers are respected and helped, abortion wouldn't be all that necessary...
It is not my idea of a fun day...that's all...

Yes, I too would like for there to be no rape. I'd also like perfect birth control available to everyone that has no failure rate. I wish it were much easier for young women (and men) who knew they didnt want to be parents to obtain sterilizations. But we aren't there yet, and there will always be women like me, for whom no children is the right number; or my very married grandmother, who had three and wanted no more.

Married women have abortions. Women in stable, long-term relationships have abortions. Women of all ages, races and classes have abortions. Many of them have thought this through long before the pregnancy happened. No one longs to have an abortion - or a root canal - although individuals with an unwanted pregnancy or an infected nerve may very much 'want' the procedure; not because it's fun or pain-free; but because it is the correct way for that individual to address her situation. And the vast majority of these individuals have no negative emotional sequelae to their abortions.

No argument necessary...

I'm still waiting to feel anything but relief from mine. Please don't lecture ME.

it was a tough choice. The day of it I was sad. Couldn’t quite face going home so I went to a movie. I saw “Heaven Can Wait.” It was just what I needed at the moment but I could just as easily have seen the original “Star Wars.” It might have been just as therapeutic—who knows. But SW seems to have held up better over the years.

Just an FYI

I haven't heard her use it yet...maybe I missed some of her shows.

Running away from the word "abortion" isn't helpful. It continues the foolishness of considering abortion "icky" and something to hide.

That doesn't help us in the long run. The word abortion should be treated as if it's as scary as "transportation policy" or any other political issue.

It can be agreed upon as a fair and neutral characterisation of both sides of the argument.

It emphasises the legality and privacy over the morality, and tends to move the onus to those that are for criminalisation of abortion ('pro-criminalisers') to defend their arguments.

I think pro and anti-choice and pro and anti-abortion have too much ambiguity and stereotype baggage and there's no quicker way to get into semantic fights than by using them.

Anti-criminalisation and pro-criminalisation are the most useful two-word encapsulations of the positions that I can think of.

Also, unlike 'anti-abortion', you can more easily use the term on general TV and in situations where you want to minimise exposing young kids to adult issues (which is one of the advantages of the term pro-choice).

What really bugs me is describing opposition to reproductive rights as "pro-life" -- considering that the same people generally support the death penalty, military adventures abroad, an end to environmental regulation, and other policies that are manifestly anti-life.

...the term "anti-abortion" implies that its opposite would be "pro-abortion".

I call them the forced-birth crowd, since that is a literal description of their position. But if we're going with current terminology, then you are 100% correct -- better to use the terms pro-choice and anti-choice.

Abortion may or may not be a "terrible thing to live through", depending on the person and the practitioner. The choice may be made quickly and easily, or may be more difficult and sad.

The procedure is not comfortable, though modern anesthetics help.

Thank you for reading.

Abortion is a valuable and sometimes life-saving medical procedure. However the term has been vilified and conflated with "murder", which it is not.

The anti-choicers prefer that a woman DIE rather than have an abortion. They are NOT pro life. They put the life of a fetus, embryo, or even a blastocyst ahead of the life of the woman. They are pro-death, and I think we need to start calling them that.

What's playing into 'their meme' is pretending there is anything wrong with making a medical decision.

And who the hell would choose an abortion when it is 'absolutely unnecessary'? Why take the physical risk? Why not just carry on with the pregnancy, if there is absolutely no reason to terminate it?

Oh, maybe you mean when the MAN is telling the woman she HAS to have an abortion because HE wants her to? You would be right in that case, I am not pro-abortion when someone else is trying to make the choice for her.

I would clarify that I wouldn't call it 'abortion' if, in the actually very rare case that pro-deathers prefer to claim is frequent, a viable fetus is killed in the womb when it could have been birthed with very little risk to the mother. On the other hand, if there is a choice between the life of the fetus and the life of the mother, I side with whatever choice the mother makes. She has every much a right to life as the fetus. It is the failure to support the RIGHT-TO-LIFE OF THE MOTHER that has me calling rabid anti-choicers pro-death.

I also support other rational limitations, such as consent of a parent or guardian in the case of a very young girl. Of course in that case the police should be involved anyway, and the perp should be sent to general population in a very unpleasant prison.

That said, I am COMPLETELY TIRED of people acting like abortion is some terrible act that will scar a person for life. You want to scar a woman for life? Make her carry the child and put it up for adoption. Lie to her the papers are sealed. Then a decade or two, or three it all becomes public to her family when the pawn in this game, the child who is now an adult, understandably wants to find out who their birth parents are. The fraud of 'closed adoption' is the worse crime and far more problematic than a medically safe abortion could ever be.

I am sick and tired of the LIES on these issues. So yes, I call myself PRO ABORTION because it is a valuable medical procedure and women NEED TO HAVE ACCESS TO IT and not be told they are somehow immoral or damaged for choosing it.


edited to fix their/there typo. I hate when I do that.

to have abortions. If what you want is for the woman to have the ability to choose either abortion or birth or adoption, then you are pro-choice.

I think the adoption industry is another fraud. Particularly so-called closed adoptions, where they outright lie to the woman, but even open adoptions are worse for everyone in the long run, I think.

HOWEVER, I'm not at the point where I would criminalize women who choose adoptions. If I had a say, though, I would investigate and vigorously prosecute fraud at adoption agencies.

Women early enough in a pregnancy should find it easier to abort than to carry to term for an adoption, and that's the path they should take. There will already be too many babies who are orphaned for one reason or another, without encouraging women to go through that when they don't have to.

I am for abortion any time a woman wants it. I don't care about her reasons. I have no more problem with a woman choosing abortion at any stage of pregnancy just because she doesn't want the baby, than I would with her choosing to get a mole removed.

However, I agree that we are all "pro choice" not "pro abortion", no matter how comfortable you are with abortion.

I asked, "do you encourage happily pregnant women to get abortions? No? Well you're not pro-abortion, then." But nobody understood my point. People were getting a little rude, as a matter of fact.

In any case, it is about choice. I want anyone and everyone to have the choice available to them. Sounds like we agree.

But that's an awfully big word for most of them, so they mostly just looked confused. And stupid.

once you are born, they DO NOT care about you... unless you are wealthy, white and male.

I tried to say the same thing several times in this thread but apparently nobody understood my point.

But I guess that only proves the point, that wording is important!

sadly. Go to the gungeon some time. Anti-choice or forced birth are the only two accurate descriptions of the "pro-life" cabal

"They're not 'pro-life.' They're anti-woman. Simple as that. They think a woman's place is to serve as a brood-mare for the state!"

I and many others ARE pro-abortion. We do not believe it is a tragedy or some kind of horrible life experience. We roll our eyes when we hear this kind of apologist language, whether it's about how "no woman really wants an abortion," or "it's a tragedy but..." or "but Planned Parenthood only spends 3% of its budget on abortion." You personally may feel ooky about abortion, but that's your choice. Don't think you speak for everyone.

I would rather that we reclaim the fight from the right by saying "Yes, we are pro-abortion and proud of it. There is nothing tragic, difficult, or problematic about abortion. It is a safe and legal medical procedure, and we support it in all it's forms."

Any other stance opens women up to shaming, and promotes the right-wing's stigmatization. The way to take away their power is not to be an apologist, but get fully in their faces with a "Yeah, we are, and we're willing to go to the mat on this. Ready to rumble, patriarchal losers?"

If what you want is for women to have the ability to choose abortion or birth or adoption, then you are "pro-choice."

The other side, by contrast, is, technically speaking, anti-abortion. That is a correct term for them, since what they want is for women NOT to get abortions.

But I understand the OP's point, that for political reasons, using the term "anti-abortion" lends credence to the other side using the term "pro-abortion." No one is pro-abortion, except maybe serial killers.

The FACT is that the word "Pro-Abortion" does have a negative connotation for many Americans,
probably a majority.
The OP's suggestion would have a beneficial effect in the war to keep abortions
Safe, Legal, and Rare.

You CAN split hairs and argue semantics all day long to no productive end.
You CAN fight a whole different war to Take Back words like "abortion" and "liberal",

OR

acknowledge that the word "Pro-Abortion" does indeed mean something negative to a great many Americans,
and that the "Pro-Lifers" have already won the first battle by claiming the language and Framing the "opposition".

"It is easier to put on shoes,
than to try to carpet The World."





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

I've had conversations similar to what the OP started off with, both here at DU and elsewhere.
And there's always someone who says "but yes, I AM pro-abortion. There are too many people on the planet, and we should encourage more abortions."

I don't think there's anyone who seeks to get pregnant simply so that they can have an abortion. Personally, I think it should be a somber decision, but there are those who do take it lightly. That's their choice.

I think the OP is off the mark when saying things like "Abortion is a terrible thing to live through, and no one, I repeat no one is 'pro-abortion'" and "The only acceptable terms are 'pro-choice' and 'anti-choice.'"

You just can't say things like that, particularly around here.
You don't get to decide how people feel about things, or how people get to say things.
There are people who DON'T feel abortion is a terrible thing to live through, and there are people who feel "pro-abortion" is appropriate. As you've found out on this thread.

And so it goes...

So "anti-abortion" is accurate. I reject the "pro-life" label because for most of them their promotion of life is too selective. For the record, I am pro-abortion. I think it is a perfectly acceptable means of birth control and far preferable in many situations than having the baby. If I had a teenage daughter who became pregnant, I would drive her to the clinic myself.

I think what's odd here is how 'choice' has come to be associated mostly with the abortion issue, when in reality many issues involve choices.

There are plenty of behaviors that some progressives don't want to give people choice on. For instance, vouchers and 'school choice.' Or the choice on which guns people can own and where they can carry them. Are people against legal prostitution against the choice to sell sex? Is being against drug legalization against the choice to consume certain intoxicating substances? You can frame just about any issue as a 'choice' issue. It's not really a left-right thing either. On some issues the right wants more choices. On others they want less or none. Same thing with the left.

I'm not saying I'm necessarily opposed to saying anti-choice. If people prefer that way of phrasing it, then go for it. But I tend to prefer anti-abortion because I think it contains a little more information, i.e. exactly what the issue is (it's not 'choice' in the abstract, but abortion).

Every human has the right to control their own body. There is no choice involved.

rather than narrow the discussion to abortion much as the rabid right want to do so.

One problem is that there isn't really any "one size fits all" terminological solution to communication difficulties. Another is that, to some extent, trying to "game the discourse" by using euphemisms and "communications strategies" is in some small sense is being less than honest and open with others.

Communication is contextual and often personal; terminology and strategies that work in one circumstance are not going to be effective across all circumstances.

It gives one the opportunity to ask questions and discover entirely what another is thinking/feeling etc. Pollsters typically hang up on me thinking I am just jerking their chain when they call and ask, "Are you Pro-Choice or Pro-Life". I answer, "both". They hang up, BUT, when speaking to someone personally, it is usually an opportunity to explain that while I support a women's choice to an abortion, I tend to have a philosophy of being pro-life (this often leads to what *I* consider 'life'). I do not support the death penalty. I do not hunt or fish. I do not like killing most anything and when I do, I take no pleasure in it. So, in reality, *I* am both (which after all, they are asking MY opinion). I do not feel the need to fit any one's labels other than my own. If someone really cares about my opinion, they listen. If not, then I guess they really didn't want my opinion after all.

"Pro" means "in favor of" and for that reason I am not nor ever would be pro-abortion. I am personally opposed to abortion. However, that is my decision which cannot be forced upon anyone else. It is a choice made by each individual and it should be based upon each individual's personal beliefs. Therefore, I am pro-choice.

The government should stay out of it.

"Pro-choice" is the correct terminology.

and shouldn't be.

The abortion debate ultimately comes down to defining when a human gains rights, no matter what side a person is on. That is the real crux of the question, and there really hasn't ever been a term to describe one's position on it. It's the real sticky question and thin line. Then, once a person has defined when a human gains rights, an even sticker question arises as to how to balance those rights with the rights of the mother. Again, there are no terms to describe this either.

But I agree with you that "anti-abortion" shouldn't be used, and I don't know why Maddow uses it.

Anti abortion means 'pro life'

In favor of or pro abortion rights means 'pro choice.'

Because it's in the AP stylebook, it's very common.

No right-wing slant - no job

like I'm pro-bypass surgery
like I'm pro-appendectomy.

Everyone should have access to the medical procedures that they and their doctors agree they need.

Sid

this is a very well-reasoned take on the situation. that's why you'll never see it on TV or anywhere else in Big media

That said, I think both sides of the abortion debate are guilty of using flowery terms to try to twist the language in the debate. I.e. "pro-life" and "pro-choice."

There are other "lives" than the life of a fetus.

There are other "choices" than the choice to have an abortion.

"Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" are as meaningless as "pro-sunshine" or "pro-puppy." They are rhetorical devices meant to make each respective side look good and their respective opponent look bad. And all we get out of it are a bunch of bad bumper sticker slogans.

If you are to take an honest look at it, the issue at hand is and will always be abortion and whether or not it should be considered a legal right.

Those who believe abortion should not be a legal right--in either some or all circumstances--I call "anti-abortion" (not "pro-life&quot . They base their position out of a basic opposition to the procedure of abortion. Agree or disagree with that position, but that's basically what it boils down to.

Those who believe that abortion should be a legal right--in either most or all circumstances--I call "pro-abortion rights" or "abortion rights proponents." (not "pro-choice&quot . Note, many of them believe abortion to be a bad thing in most circumstances, hence why I don't deem them "pro-abortion." But still because they believe abortion should be a legal right regardless of their personal feelings on it, I say they are "abortion rights supporters" or something akin to that.

The issue is abortion. I refuse to play dumb when discussing the issue.