I'm curious about what she found offensive.

On the main question, though, I do think there's a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion.

To me, "pro-abortion" is when someone is actively in favor of abortion in general, or a particular abortion. For such people, at least at times, they view abortion (or a particular abortion) as the right thing to do. Or to put it another way, they believe that it would be wrong not to have an abortion. (For instance, they might think that their daughter or girlfriend or sister ought to have an abortion that they want her to have.)

People can also be pro-abortion in general, in the sense that they think abortion is socially desirable in order to limit population growth, or to prevent the abuse of unwanted children. (I don't agree that abortion has those benefits, but some people think it does.)

A person can be pro-choice but anti-abortion. This person might think that abortion is morally wrong, but still think that abortion should be legal.

What I find hard to figure out is whether such a person believes that abortion is wrong in the way that killing an innocent person is wrong, or whether such a person things that abortion is wrong in a much less significant sense.

People who think that abortion is wrong in the sense that killing an innocent person is wrong usually don't stay in the "pro-choice but anti-abortion" camp for very many years.

But why wo0uld someone think it should be legal, unless it seemeed to them that sometimes it was a good? why would anyone advocate that something they believe to be morally wrong be legal?

I agree with most of what Emily says, especially her observation that people who are pro-choice but anti-abortion don't stay that way for too long.
I think that it is a contradiction because I believe that being pro-life is not just about wanting no unborn child to be destroyed, but also to bestow upon them human rights and recognition of their personhood. If all abortions mysteriously stopped while it was legal, it would be great beyond words, but a shame still as they would still be seen as lower than the dust and have no rights, legally.

I have to say that I could see why this woman was offended by the comment that "pro-choice" automatically means "pro-abortion." I am pro-choice. However this does not automatically mean that I think in all instances of pregnancies that are unplanned should they result in abortion. When I hear the words "pro-abortion" I think of a definition that would probably be someone who holds the philosophical view that in any or most instances of pregnancy, both intended and unintended, the believer would hold to a policy of abortion over birth. That's a pretty bitter pill to swallow, especially if your views are a bit less dramatic.

"Pro-choice" is also a hard concept to define. As I understand it and personally accept, being "pro-choice" means that in the event of a pregnancy, specifically unintended, a woman has the option to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, raise the baby, give the baby up for adoption, or terminate her pregnancy, having made the decision for her own reasons. The idea is to understand that regardless of how much abortion is unappealing personally to someone who is "pro-choice", there will always be a woman who feels her only option is an abortion, regardless of the services available to her to make a differnt choice, and only she can know what's best for her. Thus a person who held a "pro-choice" stance would feel it is in the best interest of woman that abortion remain a legal and safe option for those who felt they need it.

I don't usually really like to use the term pro-abortion because it often offends individuals who consider themselves pro-choice in the way that "anti-choice" can offend individuals who consider themselves prolife.

Pro-choice people often consider the term "pro-abortion" to mean "in favor of forcing women to have abortions." Many pro-choice people are offended by "pro-abortion" because of what they perceive it to mean. I find this somewhat off since those in favor of the legalization of marijuana or gambling often call themselves pro-gambling or pro-marijuana yet no one thinks this means they want government to force people to play Texas Hold'em or roll a joint.

I think other pro-choice people see the term as meaning more than favoring the legality of abortion but also favoring the performance of abortions, maybe even thinking that pro-abortion means hoping more women have abortions.

Kate, you asked about why someone would advocate that something they think is morally wrong be legal.

As an example, I think adultery is morally wrong, but I'm not in favor of making it illegal.

There are a fair number of small-L libertarian conservatives who worry about the pernicious consequences of a government that intrudes on the private sphere of morality.

The basic thinking comes down to saying, "Even though I think Act X is wrong, our society would be worse off if our government got involved in punishing or prohibiting Act X than if it is legal"--similar to the arguments made against alcohol prohibition.

Whether you think an immoral act should be made illegal is pretty strongly connected to your basic views about what government is, does, and can reasonably be expected to succeed at accomplishing without causing additional harm.

The question also relates to just HOW wrong you think something is. If you think it is tantamount to murder, you'll probably want it to be illegal, even if you are basically a libertarian.

Being "pro-choice" is ALWAYS wrong when it comes to advocating abortion because abortion is murder, and murder does NOT permit ANYONE to have a say in anything. By snuffing out an unborn child's life, abortion NEGATES all possibility of this child being able to make his own decisions as he would be able to if he were born and grew up to be old enough to do so. When a woman dies of a botched abortion, HER ability to decide for herself is silenced, too. A postabortive woman may APPEAR to have been able to choose freedom, but in reality she has LOST OUT on two saner and safer alternatives--adoption or raising her child herself. Abortion is NOT liberating, because it is EVIL, and evil is ALWAYS enslaving.

My husband calls prolife advocates as pro-force birth advocates. See the diff.? I tell him not to do that.... lol as if that makes any difference. I would put myself on the fine line of pro-choice yet anti abortion (never thought of it that way until Emily said it but that really fits). I don't believe that the government should ever be in the decisions making process of what is best for a patient, I do not agree with our drug laws for much the same reason. I think that people suffer when the government mandates such black and white laws. However I would like to see less abortions, I would like to see that women feel they have more choices when they are in that situation. I would like us to stop seeing young preg. woman has a horrible awful thing. I would like to see abortion as a last resort after other interventions have been tried rather then a first option. What does that mean? It means that I don't fit inside of either camp. That I refuse either sides raving lunatic fringe element and instead have been finding people inside of each group that are caring loving individuals that really want to see better.... what ever better turns out being.

If you are for something then you are not against it....on the flip side if you are against something then then you are not for it...forgive me for saying that it is black or white....either you are or you aren't...Just my opinion for what it is worth:) I think we have had tolerance stuffed down our American throats so long that we don't understand that there is a right and a wrong. What does God's word say? hmmmmmmmm

words, words, words.

i believe the most accurate descriptions are:

abortion supporter
abortion opponent

abortion is either something you generally support (name your extent) or generally oppose (name your extent).

I have also noted that many pro-choicers do not get involved in anti-choice-to-give-birth matters -- such as political asylum for pregnant Chinese women, or Unborn Victims of Violence Acts.

Some actively oppose choice in these matters, saying they support China's need to control its population, or the acts are attacks on a woman's choice.

I think most prochoice people Mary, if they think that people should get political asylm in the US think that just being preg. does not give you better statis then others who may have worked hard and long to get here. I think it is more that they don't believe that someone should get to "jump in front" just because they got themselve preg. But even more just don't think very far off of their own boaders apathy reins hard core.

PS that securtiy thing is weird what happened that you gotta have it?

"most pro-choice people... think that just being preg. does not give you better status than others who may have worked hard and long to get here. I think it is more that they don't believe that someone should get to "jump in front" just because they 'got themselves pregnant'..."

1. anyone who thinks in terms of a woman "getting herself pregnant" either doesn't know a hill of beans about human reproduction or is a pseudo-feminist responding to a woman's right to give birth in a derrogatory way.
2. better status just because they're pregnant??? are you kidding me?!? we're talking about a woman, no matter her nationality, who is seeking asylum because someone is trying to kill her child!!! look at it as a triage situation if you like; it is literally life or death. i am utterly appalled at the notion that one calling themselves "pro-choice" would not respond to the woman's self-determination, to her choice to have her child... particularly a liberal who cares enough for foreign peoples that they oppose the current war.

good grief! we are not talking about someone who is trying to "jump ahead in line"! we're talking about a woman fighting for her child's life and her right to choose to give birth to her child.

abortion supporters like your husband are appalled at the notion that people would "force birth" on a woman. where is the outrage for those who would force abortion?

Well, a parallel would be my stand on the death penalty. You could say that I'm against the death penalty except in certain instances, or that I'm for the death penalty but only in certain rare instances. I don't fall into a neat category, and that's hard. I mean, we're talking about ending a human life -- are you for it or against it? Well, in the case of somebody like Ted Bundy, who had already escaped twice to kill again, in order to place equal value on all human lives, you HAVE to exectute him, or you're placing greater value on Ted's life than on the lives of those he would surely kill when he managed to escape again. But in the case of somebody like Ed Kemper, whose crimes were similar to Bundy's, it's not necessary to kill him because he turned himself in and became a model prisoner. He was no longer a risk to others.

So I can see somebody saying, "Well, yes abortion is killing, but in certain circumstances it's sadly necessary." But the same stand would be described as "prochoice" by one person -- "I'm in favor of keeping abortion legal, but only for hard cases," or "prolife" by another -- "I think we should outlaw abortion, except for some hard cases."

So there's actually an area where folks who self-identify as "prochoice" and those who self-identify as "prolife" overlap. It's a matter of how they choose to phrase it.

You think a woman can't purposly get preg. just to get into a country? You think that women wouldn't do that? Come on... seriously? Expecially comeing from the prolife camp that says a woman should be able to control her own fritlty w/o BC?

Just because you are able to get preg. doesn't make you more worth saving then anyone else. I'm not against politcal asylm for women in China, but there are others that I think are in far greater need.... like children in danger of clitorectomy... or people the people in Sudan. Or even the people in parts of Iraq. The need of China.... I'm sorry but in my mind those women are not in as great of danger... they have access to BC, I can't make them use it and I feel sorry for them I do. BUT not as sorry as I feel for a 9 yr old that is being held down and her clit removed by a peice of glass and her vagina sewed up.

My husband says (I read him your commet) that this is where he has a vote and this is where his conserns is. (not a globiist as you can tell) I think the thing is that as he doesn't have moral religious reason for his belief but instead believes that each person choose and as a people we all choose what type of goverment we live in. In other words the Gov. of China could not exist without consent of the people. That indivuals do not agree is always the burden of the people and it is their right to do what ever they need to do as an indivual to create a better nation for themselves.

How do you define the "hard cases" ? Where do you draw the line? Who makes that decision? Abortion ends a human life. The end of a human life means death. The taking of a life by another person is murder. This is a black and white issue. There is no gray area. If you try to justify ending the life of an unborn child because of circumstances surrounding the pregnancy then you are condemning the unborn child to a death sentence without a trial. At least the prisoners on death row receive a fair trial and an opportunity to prove themselves to be "model prisoners". You cannot be certain that the model prisoner is reformed. The unborn child sentenced to death by abortion has no opportunity to prove anything.

Philosophically, yes there's a significant difference between the two. It is indeed quite possible (and indeed rational) to be against abortion but also against government-enforced prohibition of it.

But politically, I really don't think there's an effective difference anymore.

What choice are we referring to if not the choice to abort. There are philosophies and positions that arise out of that core belief on issues such as abstinence vs. "safe sex." It is also key to note that the pro-choice side refers to detractors as anti-choice. Again, the only choice that is different is whether or not abortion is okay.

This is not to say that pro-abortionists believe abortion should be mandatory or forced, but those at the head of the movement have successfully fought to oppose informed choice and those at abortion clinics routinely steer women toward abortions. While there are certainly shades of how comfortable they are with abortion based on stage of the pregnancy and the reason offered, but they have been silent on restricting abortions. Pro-life advocates oppose any abortion as it is the taking of an innocent life, so anyone who can find circumstances for taking an innocent life therefore fails to understand the pro-life position.

So, achromic, you have no problem with a woman being dragged to an abortion clinic in shackles?

Pregnant women were not, under pro-life administrations, get asylum not because they are pregnant but because they faced being forcibly aborted.

(Clinton had no problem with shackles.)

I think there is definitely a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. I heard something about this from Dr. Reardon once.

Anti-abortion: Actively involved in opposing abortion.

Pro-life: Having a desire to help unborn children and women.

Pro-choice: Having a desire to help women get out of an unplanned pregnancy through abortion.

Pro-abortion - Actively involved in promoting abortion.

His point was something along the lines of being able to "relate" to those who are pro-choice, since both pro-life and pro-choice individuals want to help women - it's just that those who are pro-choice are mistakenly believing that abortion will help women.

In my experience, pro-choicers often don't care what a woman decides to do, but pro-aborts want the woman to choose abortion. Pro-aborts often believe in population control and/or don't like children.

Did I say that I didn't have a problem with it? I just think that she has more of a choice about how she ended up in that position then a child facing a clitorectomy or the people who are dieing in Sudan and Iraq. I qoute myself " I'm not against politcal asylm for women in China, but there are others that I think are in far greater need." I do feel sympathy. I mean my G*d do you really think that if I met a woman trying to save the life of the child she carried that I would just turn away? Jeesh I'm not that cold hearted. Infact I'm for open boarders period. I don't agree with any of our immgration laws at all. BUT if I am being forced into a "sophie's choice" type thing where I have to choose who does get asylem then I think there are people in greater/more urgent need then the preg. women in China. In other words if we are going to make the standerd of letting people into this country the fact that they can get preg. then I think that is awful unfair to many others who are too young, too old, and not the right sex. That is a far cry from being indiffrent. Apathy blows.

If women have a choice about whether they become pregnant, political asylum is not the only matter that could be affected by that matter. It might, for that matter, influence views about abortion.

You can't have it both ways. You can't tell me that a woman doesn't need BC because she should be able to "tell" when she can get preg. via the Mother Tresa method or she can't. Accidents do happen and infertialty is a problem but accidents are rare on BC and infertiatly isn't the issue that we are currantly talking about.

You can feel sorry for one group of people and still feel more sorry for another and put your time and your money towards people that you feel need it the most. Just because it isn't the one that you think is the most needy is totally your choice. I think most pro choice people feel that they have to watch out for their own right that they think you are trying to take from them before they can worry about someone else's rights. They are probably wrong about that but that is their perception of the lvl of threat that they feel from your side. It isn't a good thing. Not at all. There is so much energy being wasted while so many people need help. I saw two NEW homeless people in my neighborhood today. I donno if I will be able to help THEM... they are always so scared at first and sometimes they are too far gone to take even food. Yet here we are.... we can't even take care of who is here right now, we can't even protect them and you want us to bring more here. Because lets face it the rich will always have abortion as a choice even if it isn't legel here.

BTW what is up with that code thing? It doesn't show up when first try and post but then it does later when I hit post... what is up with that?

Hi everyone... Thanks so much for your input. You've certainly given me some food for thought. This issue is a complex one indeed, and our emotions often become elevated when we discuss it. But the bottom line for all of us, I think, is that we still have a distance to go (even within our own ranks) of coming to terms with the terminology as well as the deeper aspects of abortion and post-abortion trauma. (As a dear Buddhist friend of mine has often said to me: Language often gets in the way. In this instance I believe that statement holds some truth.)

For me, personally, the issue of abortion is a non-negotiable one based on Who I believe God to be and what I understand of His Word. Beyond that there is much healing to be had, much reaching across aisles of differing opinions and rationales and emotional investments. I think the important thing is that we keep the dialogue going; keep asking; keep sharing; keep talking and listening and learning.

One thing this discussion has taught me is that I still have much to learn! Thank you all for widening the scope of my vision on this topic. I hope we will have many more such conversations in the future.

Oh, and the code thing at the bottom drives me batty as well! It's there for security reasons, so at least for the time being it must remain. Many apologies for the inconvenience. :)

If by BC, you mean birth control, or contraception, we were talking about abortion, which by definition can not be used for contraception.

If refusing to let a pregnant woman have an abortion makes you part of "pro-force birth advocates," why consider her part in becoming pregnant in whether she deserves protection from forcible abortion?

I've been arguing the "pro-forced-birth" label with a commenter on my blog. It's simply fallacious. I don't care whether any individual woman every gives birth or not. That would be a hideous violation of a woman's right to self-determination. Do whatever you need to do to avoid giving birth, if that's your goal....

... until there's a child. As soon as a child has been conceived, the mother's right of self-determination comes into conflict with the child's right to not be killed. In that case, the right to not be killed must take priority, and I will side with the child every time. I have compassion for women who feel trapped by unplanned pregnancies, for mothers whose unborn children have incurable birth defects, etcetera ... but compassion does not extend to killing.

If science can ever develop a method for women to bypass birth without killing unborn children (fetal transplant, perhaps?), I would support it. I'm not interested in forcing birth; I want to stop people from killing their children.

On Dr. Reardon's scale, I would rate myself as being both anti-abortion and pro-life.

I feel that many people do not know what it is like tobe in a tough situation, where the choice had to be made. Maybe you should think about others before you say harsh things. I am pro-choice, I am 34 weeks pregnant also. It was my choice to have my baby, I feel very strong about keeping my baby and if anyone felt this strong about their decision to abort their pregnancy, who am I to stop them. There are many factors that go into the choice and I feel that you are not taking in all of the circumstances. And to add something I am not Pro-Abortion I feel that women should be given advice and help if that is what they need during their pregnancy to avoid abortion. Abortion is a last resort.

Hi Ashley,

Thank you for your comments, and congratulations on your pregnancy! What an exciting time in your life! I am glad you feel so strongly about keeping your baby and I pray all goes well with the remainder of your pregnancy and the labor and delivery.

Your comment was not addressed to anyone by name, so I'm not sure if you were addressing me or not. I don't believe I said anything "harsh" in any of my posts. If something came across that way, I'm sorry. My heart is totally and completely broken for those that choose to end the lives of their babies through abortion. I have seen firsthand the devastation that choice brings to those that make it and it is out of my desire to help those people find healing that this ministry and web site were developed.

Having been in this ministry for several years, I have probably seen every conceivable circumstance surrounding abortion, and you are right about it being a "last resort." No one *wants* to have an abortion. They do so because it *seems* to offer them the best solution to their predicament, whatever that may be. Unfortunately, the solution it offers brings with it a whole new set of problems, and in reality, the consequences of abortion never completely go away.

I am curious about something though.... Why is it that abortion is the last resort? I'd like to know your thoughts on this.

Thanks again for posting, Ashley. Please visit us often!

Sincerely,
mary (mac)

I am not so rapier-like to be enterprising to dash off extraordinary stuff like you do but I am trying to pay it back so hoepfully this will throw you a ear-to-ear grin or make you chuckle or at the very least give you a thought for the day? :

I'm only driving this way to piss you off.



Source: article post