by Chris Bodenner
A reader writes:
You wrote, “A huge pet peeve of mine is when people in the abortion debate refer to each other as “anti-choice” or “pro-abortion” (or even the noxious “anti-life”). People distort their own beliefs with labels enough as it is, as Rothkopf says, so it’s that much more corrosive to public discourse when people distort the beliefs of others.”
Would you explain, please, how ‘anti-choice’ is a misnomer? Can you point me to a pro-lifer who is also pro-choice? Because I can easily cite any number of pro-choicers who’re anti-abortion. The raison d’être of the ‘pro-life’ lobby is to deny access to this procedure, or criminalize it if possible, thus making gestation ‘til birth the ONLY choice, regardless of circumstance. How can one NOT be considered ‘anti-choice’ if the point is remove all but one option?
I see where you’re coming from (though “ONLY choice, regardless of circumstance” is incorrect, since the vast majority of pro-lifers are also pro-life-of-the-mother).
Perhaps I should have been more specific; while the “anti-choice” or “pro-abortion” labels can be technically correct – banning abortion does limit choice, and legalizing abortion does endorse the existence of abortions – they distort the primary concerns of people in the debate. For better or worse, an anti-legal person is primarily concerned with the life of the fetus, while a pro-legal person is primarily concerned with the mother deciding what is best for the child – and herself.
Thus, it is not intellectually honest to call people “anti-choice,” because those people certainly support other female choices; they just draw the line at destroying a fetus. And it’s not intellectually honest to call people “pro-abortion” (or “anti-life”), because plenty of pro-legal people find the procedure immoral (and certainly no sane person ever finds pleasure in it).
So the whole point of sticking with “pro-life” and “pro-choice” – the commonplace terms that people use to describe themselves – is to at least acknowledge where the other person is coming from. Or else no middle ground is even possible. If you’re not interested in middle ground, but merely polemic, then go right ahead. But you’re not helping your side.
The Dish 