Why do supporters of legalized abortion call themselves "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion"?

[bodecea]

Why do supporters of legalized abortion call themselves "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion"?

Because you are confusing people who think it is none of their damn business as being pro abortion.

Kitty Genovese was murdered while dozens "minded their own business".

Are you asserting that that is the same thing?

Wow...how bad are RWrs at analogies.

 

[WinterBorn]

The use of this sort of euphemism suggests to me that abortion supporters themselves aren't entirely convinced of the merits of their position. If abortion isn't wrong, why don't they feel comfortable with the term "pro-abortion"?

I acknowledge that the same could be said of anti-abortion being called "pro-life". I personally find that term corny as well, and generally do not use it to refer to myself.

It is simply because they are not pro-abortion. They advocate a woman's right to choose. That is why they call it pro-choice.

 

[Iceweasel]

If abortion isn't wrong, why don't they feel comfortable with the term "pro-abortion"?

Because Pro-Choice means that you can choose to have an abortion, or you can choose not to have an abortion.

It's so simple even a wingnut should be able to figure it out.

The confusion is all yours. Women don't choose life, it happens or it doesn't. The choice is abortion. Death.

Every woman who gives birth has been Pro-Choice. She chose to have the baby.

Wrong. Even if they wanted to get pregnant, nature calls the shots, they cannot will themselves pregnant. So life isn't the choice, death is.

 

[Borillar]

If you support Abortion, you do support the killing of babies. There's no denial spin that can change that. I have a grudging respect for those who at least admit the truth. But i truly despise the gung-ho Abortion cheerleaders. They refuse to accept and acknowledge that they do support the killing of babies. They instead try to spin and justify it by proudly proclaiming to be 'Pro-Choice.' It's very dishonest and cowardly.

I also find it so bizarre that most people who proudly support Abortion, are absolutely mortified at the thought of killing a puppy or kitten. These people need to visit Abortion Mills and observe the brutal disposal process. The dead babies are stacked up and then thrown into trash bags. It's a truly grotesque process. If more people observed that process, they'd be less inclined to be gung-ho Abortion cheerleaders. So in the end, if you support Abortion, you do support the killing of babies. More need to accept that and come to grips with that ugly truth.

Kinda like those who describe themselves as "pro-life" but then they're for the death penalty, innit?
Now there, there's no question whether it's a human life.

Yeah, they're usually the war cheerleaders too. Hypocrites.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Pogo
YES there is a difference.
When I asked an anti-death penalty activist why she wasn't OKAY with death penalty being
a CHOICE as she was with abortion being a CHOICE
she said she trusts woman with the choice of abortion [that affects her directly where the
woman bears the responsibility] but she DIDN'T trust juries and govt with the CHOICE
of putting someone to death [because that doesn't affect them directly, so it can
get skewed by too many other factors because the consequences aren't on them].

Her words were just the part about trusting a woman to make her own decision
about abortion, while not trusting the legal system with the choice of the death penalty.

I added the part CLARIFYING that the woman is making a choice that directly
affects her, while the govt/juries are making a choice of something affecting other people's lives.
They are never punished either way, for making the wrong decision to punish an innocent person.
The judge, jury lawyers are not held to it, so anything can go wrong because they don't pay for it.

Pogo if you are going to be fair, the way I use the death penalty to make an analogy,
when a Catholic Prolife leader asked me how can I be AGAINST abortion and want to prevent it 100% but I am prochoice,
I pointed out that her own Catholic church is AGAINST the death penalty,
yet most people support that as a choice.
We don't believe in BANNING it, but we don't want executions to happen when they could be prevented by preventing murder and crime in the first place.

So I said that my views of abortion are like that.
I believe we can PREVENT it without banning it by PREVENTING unwanted pregnancy
by PREVENTING rape, incest, sexual abuse and relationship abuse by FREE CHOICE,
by informed consent and education as how the Prolife movement already does successfully.
they don't need abortion to be banned in order to prevent completely by free choice.

So this is similar to wanting to get rid of executions by preventing murder.
Not by banning the choice of executions.
I believe we can prevent MOST murder by addressing conflicts and criminal sickness in advance. Most murders can be prevented, just like most abortions can be prevented.
The work on prevention is not something that can be legislated by govt because
it is all personal work and addressing issues on a private level only individuals can do by CHOICE.

So I support free choice, and try to prevent killing and murder that way,
not by banning the choice of abortion and not by banning the choice of executions.
With executions, I would require CONSENSUS since it is a highly spiritual
and religious matter; people would have to AGREE on guilt including the guilty party
and AGREE that no other restitution or other sentencing would serve better, etc.
If people AGREE to give that authority to the govt, as long as it is consensual
I believe that is a choice. But if there is spiritual or religious disagreement,
then that should be resolved first, even if it means having the prolife Catholic groups
pay for the life sentence of restitution or whatever else they can get an agreement on.
I would go for consensus and restorative justice as the model to establish a sentence
and agree who is going to pay for what. If we handles all cases that way, we could prevent murder by intervening and resolving conflicts, ordering treatment for sick people, much
sooner, at the first sign of abuse or complaint, and not wait until a killing occurs to require
a consensus on how to resolve the criminal complaint or charges. So I would intervene much sooner in order to prevent murder, capital crimes and punishment. All without banning executions.

Emily, you really really need to hire an editor. There's no way I'm reading though all of that. None.

My point is simple. Here it is:
The word "life" means "life". Period. It doesn't mean "life" when we want it to and then "death" when its meaning becomes inconvenient.

That's it. Full stop. It's about the definition of a simple word. Not rocket surgery.

In other words, she (pogoloco) is going to remain ignorant.

Not ignorant just defensive.
When people quit this blame game back and forth
maybe we can hear what each other is trying to say.
We can sort through these differences
but not when people feel forced to defend sides.

Some sociopaths I met don't feel any such feelings
and can argue no matter how tight it gets.

But as you can see above, Pogo didn't even
want to read the message I posted because of
these barriers that are emotionally reinforced.

We'd have to break down those walls before
we can even speak to each other.

I'll keep trying, as I am not anyone's enemy here.
As a Constitutionalist I believe in defending everyone's beliefs
equally for them, just not imposing this on others.
But if they are too busy punching each other out,
I end up with black eyes also and I wasn't in this fight.
I'm actually trying to show that all sides are right in what
they are trying to defend, but the way they argue is missing that point
and throwing things off. just because I correct that doesn't
mean I'm against their original point. just not in imposing it that way.

Anyway, I know Pogo to be quite capable of spelling
things out specifically and articulately. So this is some
issue of defensiveness and not about inability.

Remove the emotional insult or whatever got projected,
and there is plenty of room and capacity to talk rationally with Pogo.
that isn't the issue here. thanks!

 

[emilynghiem]

If abortion isn't wrong, why don't they feel comfortable with the term "pro-abortion"?

Because Pro-Choice means that you can choose to have an abortion, or you can choose not to have an abortion.

It's so simple even a wingnut should be able to figure it out.

The confusion is all yours. Women don't choose life, it happens or it doesn't. The choice is abortion. Death.

Every woman who gives birth has been Pro-Choice. She chose to have the baby.

Wrong. Even if they wanted to get pregnant, nature calls the shots, they cannot will themselves pregnant. So life isn't the choice, death is.

The issue you are missing is that when you get govt and laws involved,
the point that this intervenes is AFTER the pregnancy when it affects the WOMAN
not the MAN who has equal responsibility for causing pregnancy, if not MORE in the case of rape, incest
coercion or relationship abuse and fraud.

So if you want to stop abortion, to be fair to BOTH partners who had the sex,
both of them have to be held responsible EQUALLY for having sex when the pregnancy and baby wasn't wanted by both partners. If they BOTH had sex they are BOTH responsible for an unwanted pregnancy, and thus an abortion that happens as a consequence. BOTH partners made that choice*, so BOTH should be held responsible not just the woman. *Note: it is less common for the woman to force the man to have sex, and more common for men to force women, so why aren't such men held equally if not more responsible instead of women only?

A. The equivalent of putting all the legal burden on the woman AFTER pregnancy
would be to put all the burden on the man beforehand, and call ALL cases of unwanted
pregnancy, unwanted sex, unwanted children, unwanted abortion (anything that both partners don't both want and agree on)
to be a form of RAPE or relationship abuse.

If you don't want this all on the man, then why enforce laws putting it all on the woman?
Neither is fair.

B. What I suggest to reduce and prevent relationship abuse and sexual abuse
is to hold both partners equally accountable and responsible for COUNSELING until complaints of abuse are resolved.
So that doesn't judge one more than the other;
one may be a rapist and the other a rape victim and they both need counseling to identify sickness
or unhealthy conditions and get help.

So if you really want to make laws that are fair,
write them to address both partners equally.

I think we should have a DIFFERENT level of law for that
which is drawn up locally like ordinances and optional to create for each participating district
(because this is so private like what people want to be taught in public schools.)

instead of just civil and criminal
have another ordinance on safety and health, to report abuses that aren't yet civil or criminally proven violations or charges.

If people agree what constitutes abuse, each community
can decide its own threshold on what to require counseling for.
Some people may require any drug addiction or sexual behavior
outside committed relations to get reported as abuse for counseling.

And agree what the rules are we agree to or not.

We have to pay welfare for children if the child support of each man
is limited to 500-900 and he has 10 children his "baby mama's" can't pay for.
So they all go onto welfare and child support if they have children before they are financially ready.

So what if communities don't agree to pay that, or pay for abortion,
but want the loose sexual activities to stop: only if you can afford
it or "other people agree to pay for that" sure you can do that.

But not at the expense of people who didn't agree to pay for your 4 kids
while you go out to make 3 more women pregnant.

If we address the issue at the root cause,
of people either CHOOSING or COERCING sex
when they don't want or can't afford to have
pregnancy, children or abortion,
maybe we'd focus on solutions and prevention,
instead of arguing about "abortion after the fact"
which disproportionately targets the woman and
doesn't hold men EQUALLY responsible for rape or relationship abuse.

Where is the other half of these laws?

 

[Iceweasel]

I think you need to slow down and take it off of full auto. I said I wouldn't impose laws on the masses, it should be up to the citizens of the state.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm not pro abortion. I'd love to see zero abortions. Abortion isn't desirable.

My method for realizing zero abortions is different than yours. It's also better than yours and more likely to succeed. It has already proven to be more effective in reducing the number of abortions.

You won't find a single person who is pro abortion. That's a ******* stupid thing for you to say....even if you couch it in such a sweet and innocent OP.

Try harder.

LoneLaugher
Wrong, MEN pressure women to have abortions all the time.
Some even kill their girlfriends who refuse to have them. Look up Dan Leach who "terminated" both his
girlfriend and her unborn child. He was a Christian and was ashamed to find she was pregnant,
but confessed later the murder he covered up as a suicide, after a pastor counseled him to make right with God.

Obama made it clear he was biased toward abortion when he said
that he wouldn't want his daughter "punished" by having a child early due to unplanned pregnancy.
This is clearly biased toward MEN making the choice for WOMEN to have abortions.
But they don't pay any penalty or burden for that, only benefits from not having a child to be responsible for.

One of my prolife friends even agreed that the motivation to have abortion
is coming more from the man trying to avoid responsibility.

So he understood the problem with the laws against abortion
imposed disproportionately to pressure and affect women while the men are free
and even benefit from abortion to escape responsibility!

I was forced to have an abortion against my will
by my boyfriend at the time who threatened suicide if I had the baby and gave it up for adoption.
Harassed bullied and coerced until I felt the baby's spirit die inside me and slip away.

So the pressure to "force abortion on someone" is so great
that even I as someone who wanted the baby and is against abortion for myself
even gave into that pressure because I was made to feel
I was wrong to have the baby.

My friend Juda has a nonprofit group and website
helping women pressured by family AND SOCIETY to abort their children conceived in rape.
Home

And the Nurturing Network has organized clusters of educational and career
opportunities to MOVE pregnant women across the country if they must, to
escape the PRESSURE of partners trying to "force them into abortion for convenience"
even corporate executives who threaten all kinds of ways if the coworker has the baby.

Read the stories about women saved from partners trying to force them into abortions
with all kinds of emotional, physical and financial threats.
The Nurturing Network

Much like the anti-death penalty activists oppose the choice of capital punishment
that is politically pressured even on the wrong person, but are told to
PREVENT murder if you want to prevent executions.

The Prolife advocates can show you case after case where the "free choice" is
ABUSED to FORCE women into it, but are told to
PREVENT unwanted pregnancy if you want to prevent abortion.

Where is the focus on MEN to prevent unwanted pregnancy?

What is this business of dumping this all on the woman
and then either defending or blaming HER for her "choices" after that?

Where is the choice of the MAN to avoid sex, or to take responsibility for consequences?
If it's all on the woman, that is where all the pressure goes.

And the MEN are happy to add to that pressure because it doesn't hurt them.

The men I've found who've REALLY figured it out
are focused on stopping rape, bullying and coercion at the beginning levels,
where people have equal power and responsibility to change it.

Prochoice and Prolife who think that just making it legal or illegal is enough
really don't get it yet. the whole paradigm has to change, not just the laws at the end after the fact.

 

[emilynghiem]

I think you need to slow down and take it off of full auto. I said I wouldn't impose laws on the masses, it should be up to the citizens of the state.

And neither should States make laws that touch on religious and spiritual issues
without consensus of the people affected by them. They are bound by Constitutional standards also.

Anything to do with religious or political beliefs
* gay marriage
* voting rights, gun rights
* termination abortion, euthanasia, death penalty
or spiritual healing to cure terminal diseases and criminal illness
* right to life or right to health care
* prochoice, religious freedom and civil liberties, or powers reserved
to the people or states
* First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment
issues of religion, belief, and not discrimination by creed
* and now immigration and health care
Will UNCONSTITUTIONALLY exclude people by belief or creed,
unless laws are drawn up by consensus to either be neutral,
or to include all people and beliefs represented equally without discrimination,
or to agree to separate so the beliefs neither impose on nor exclude each other.

Because people's inherent beliefs will not change, whether they are
religious or political, then these conflicts will never be resolved by imposing one over the other.

it violates natural and Constitutional laws on freedom of religion, consent of the governed,
and equal protection of the laws from discrimination on the basis of creed.
Everyone has these rights, so even State laws cannot be imposed against
the will of the people, but must be by free choice in keeping with their beliefs. That will not change.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm not pro abortion. I'd love to see zero abortions. Abortion isn't desirable.

My method for realizing zero abortions is different than yours. It's also better than yours and more likely to succeed. It has already proven to be more effective in reducing the number of abortions.

You won't find a single person who is pro abortion. That's a ******* stupid thing for you to say....even if you couch it in such a sweet and innocent OP.

Try harder.

LoneLaugher
Wrong, MEN pressure women to have abortions all the time.
Some even kill their girlfriends who refuse to have them. Look up Dan Leach who "terminated" both his
girlfriend and her unborn child. He was a Christian and was ashamed to find she was pregnant,
but confessed later the murder he covered up as a suicide, after a pastor counseled him to make right with God.

Obama made it clear he was biased toward abortion when he said
that he wouldn't want his daughter "punished" by having a child early due to unplanned pregnancy.
This is clearly biased toward MEN making the choice for WOMEN to have abortions.
But they don't pay any penalty or burden for that, only benefits from not having a child to be responsible for.

One of my prolife friends even agreed that the motivation to have abortion
is coming more from the man trying to avoid responsibility.

So he understood the problem with the laws against abortion
imposed disproportionately to pressure and affect women while the men are free
and even benefit from abortion to escape responsibility!

I was forced to have an abortion against my will
by my boyfriend at the time who threatened suicide if I had the baby and gave it up for adoption.
Harassed bullied and coerced until I felt the baby's spirit die inside me and slip away.

So the pressure to "force abortion on someone" is so great
that even I as someone who wanted the baby and is against abortion for myself
even gave into that pressure because I was made to feel
I was wrong to have the baby.

My friend Juda has a nonprofit group and website
helping women pressured by family AND SOCIETY to abort their children conceived in rape.
Home

And the Nurturing Network has organized clusters of educational and career
opportunities to MOVE pregnant women across the country if they must, to
escape the PRESSURE of partners trying to "force them into abortion for convenience"
even corporate executives who threaten all kinds of ways if the coworker has the baby.

Read the stories about women saved from partners trying to force them into abortions
with all kinds of emotional, physical and financial threats.
The Nurturing Network

Much like the anti-death penalty activists oppose the choice of capital punishment
that is politically pressured even on the wrong person, but are told to
PREVENT murder if you want to prevent executions.

The Prolife advocates can show you case after case where the "free choice" is
ABUSED to FORCE women into it, but are told to
PREVENT unwanted pregnancy if you want to prevent abortion.

Where is the focus on MEN to prevent unwanted pregnancy?

What is this business of dumping this all on the woman
and then either defending or blaming HER for her "choices" after that?

Where is the choice of the MAN to avoid sex, or to take responsibility for consequences?
If it's all on the woman, that is where all the pressure goes.

And the MEN are happy to add to that pressure because it doesn't hurt them.

The men I've found who've REALLY figured it out
are focused on stopping rape, bullying and coercion at the beginning levels,
where people have equal power and responsibility to change it.

Prochoice and Prolife who think that just making it legal or illegal is enough
really don't get it yet. the whole paradigm has to change, not just the laws at the end after the fact.

Holy shit. You are weird and wordy. I'll bet rooms get quiet when you enter them.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, you really really need to hire an editor. There's no way I'm reading though all of that. None.

My point is simple. Here it is:
The word "life" means "life". Period. It doesn't mean "life" when we want it to and then "death" when its meaning becomes inconvenient.

That's it. Full stop. It's about the definition of a simple word. Not rocket surgery.

Pogo thanks for clarifying and I hope we can work together on this.

A.
People don't agree on the political protections of "life" because
they DON'T agree on the definition of when "human LIFE begins."

What do you think this whole argument over Prolife and Roe V Wade was about?

Some people say that the definition of Life begins at Birth
and others at Conception.

So no, it isn't straightforward and just "one definition of Life"

B. Because people have DIFFERENT views and beliefs on LIFE
then we can't argue about that point directly for making laws.

The next level we can address is people's BELIEFS about Life
which ARE protected by law REGARDLESS what those beliefs are.

So this is why the legal questions become a matter of BELIEF,
because on that level, people CAN be treated EQUALLY.

NOT by trying to define LIFE equally because that invokes religious differences that Govt cannot regulate.
But trying to include and respect the different BELIEFS as equal that the Govt CAN be held to standards on.

Is this more clear there is a difference?

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm not pro abortion. I'd love to see zero abortions. Abortion isn't desirable.

My method for realizing zero abortions is different than yours. It's also better than yours and more likely to succeed. It has already proven to be more effective in reducing the number of abortions.

You won't find a single person who is pro abortion. That's a ******* stupid thing for you to say....even if you couch it in such a sweet and innocent OP.

Try harder.

LoneLaugher
Wrong, MEN pressure women to have abortions all the time.
Some even kill their girlfriends who refuse to have them. Look up Dan Leach who "terminated" both his
girlfriend and her unborn child. He was a Christian and was ashamed to find she was pregnant,
but confessed later the murder he covered up as a suicide, after a pastor counseled him to make right with God.

Obama made it clear he was biased toward abortion when he said
that he wouldn't want his daughter "punished" by having a child early due to unplanned pregnancy.
This is clearly biased toward MEN making the choice for WOMEN to have abortions.
But they don't pay any penalty or burden for that, only benefits from not having a child to be responsible for.

One of my prolife friends even agreed that the motivation to have abortion
is coming more from the man trying to avoid responsibility.

So he understood the problem with the laws against abortion
imposed disproportionately to pressure and affect women while the men are free
and even benefit from abortion to escape responsibility!

I was forced to have an abortion against my will
by my boyfriend at the time who threatened suicide if I had the baby and gave it up for adoption.
Harassed bullied and coerced until I felt the baby's spirit die inside me and slip away.

So the pressure to "force abortion on someone" is so great
that even I as someone who wanted the baby and is against abortion for myself
even gave into that pressure because I was made to feel
I was wrong to have the baby.

My friend Juda has a nonprofit group and website
helping women pressured by family AND SOCIETY to abort their children conceived in rape.
Home

And the Nurturing Network has organized clusters of educational and career
opportunities to MOVE pregnant women across the country if they must, to
escape the PRESSURE of partners trying to "force them into abortion for convenience"
even corporate executives who threaten all kinds of ways if the coworker has the baby.

Read the stories about women saved from partners trying to force them into abortions
with all kinds of emotional, physical and financial threats.
The Nurturing Network

Much like the anti-death penalty activists oppose the choice of capital punishment
that is politically pressured even on the wrong person, but are told to
PREVENT murder if you want to prevent executions.

The Prolife advocates can show you case after case where the "free choice" is
ABUSED to FORCE women into it, but are told to
PREVENT unwanted pregnancy if you want to prevent abortion.

Where is the focus on MEN to prevent unwanted pregnancy?

What is this business of dumping this all on the woman
and then either defending or blaming HER for her "choices" after that?

Where is the choice of the MAN to avoid sex, or to take responsibility for consequences?
If it's all on the woman, that is where all the pressure goes.

And the MEN are happy to add to that pressure because it doesn't hurt them.

The men I've found who've REALLY figured it out
are focused on stopping rape, bullying and coercion at the beginning levels,
where people have equal power and responsibility to change it.

Prochoice and Prolife who think that just making it legal or illegal is enough
really don't get it yet. the whole paradigm has to change, not just the laws at the end after the fact.

Holy shit. You are weird and wordy. I'll bet rooms get quiet when you enter them.

I'm trying to go through entire haystacks
to find the "needle" or the fine points that we agree are the real issue.
And resolve those first.

Because each person is different, the answers vary.
So it takes going through the whole pile of possible issues
and finding out which one really speaks to that person
if we are going to resolve the key points and build a consensus, point by point.

One by one, if agreement is reached with each person on what is the driving focus,
then we can take the points of AGREEMENT and build a policy that people will agree on.
It has to cover all the points. It has to answer all the grievances and prevent the problems pointed out.
If we leave even one point uncorrected, then someone will jump on that and blow the whole stack.

It helps if more people see the benefit of focusing on correcting points so we make progress,
instead of deliberately "trying to find fault with someone" (like cracks at Pogo)
trying to attack or blow away opposition instead of answering to them as I seek to do.

One method builds, the other destroys.
I'd rather build solutions than keep burning bridges and wonder why we can't get anywhere.

 

[Marvin Zinn]

It separates the decision from the deed. Keeps hands clean while baby is slaughtered. Everyone wins...except the baby.

Yes, it is murder. But I also understand the baby may be better dead than with the mother who want to kill him.
However, the best friend I ever had was from a mother who tried to abort him and failed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Why do supporters of legalized abortion call themselves "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion"?"

Because one can oppose abortion and support a woman's protected liberty to make the choice whether to have a child or not; where the right to privacy places important restrictions on the state far beyond the issue of abortion, prohibiting the state from engaging in unwarranted interference in citizens' personal lives – including compelling a woman to give birth against her will.

Moreover, in additional to being un-Constitutional, 'banning' abortion will do little to nothing to end the practice; as the conflict is not over whether to end abortion or not – everyone agrees the practice must end – the conflict is rather over what's the best solution to the problem, because 'banning' abortion is no 'solution.'

 

[buddhallah_the_christ]

Abortion is bs, guys. That's all. Killing people and cum on a beard too.