Pro-choice but not pro-abortion, that is the second time today that I have heard a liberal try to make a distinction, one that I admit completely escapes me. Does anyone understand what point they are trying to make and if so, would you be willing to enlighten me? I mean, I don’t see any gray area between taking the life of an unborn child, or protecting it. How can one be both pro-choice and against abortion? Or is this another attempt at equivocation, courtesy of the democratic party?
Oh I’m pro-choice but not pro-abortion.
You can choose to not have sex. You can choose to wear a condom. You can choose adoption. I’m all about reproductive choice, as long as you don’t kill anyone.
In all seriousness, I imagine it’s the “Pro-life personal, pro-choice political” people. People who think it’s morally reprehensible but want it to be legal, like cheating on your wife. But if it’s a baby, why do you want it to be legal? And if it’s not a baby, why not pro-abortion?
I will grant that a lot of these people want to make abortion rare and believe that social programs will help more pregnant women carry to term and sex ed will prevent more pregnancies. If they truly believe that logistically the best way to eliminate abortion is not through legislation but through outreach programs (including private charities), I can understand that. But I can’t understand the “Well I would never do it because it’s murder, but I want other women to be able to do it,” argument.
There is a libertarian perspective that abortion is (or may be) immoral but is not a government issue. There is also a strict constructionist perspective on the Constitution that says that regardless of its lack of morality or desirability, abortion is not a federal issue at all because of the Enumerated Powers, and the 9th and 10th Amendments. One can think that abortion is a terrible thing but that the government should not meddle with that "personal" decision. My abortion views on what should be legal are different from my views on what is moral, and my views on appropriate federal laws are different from my views on appropriate state laws. I don't describe myself as "pro-choice" because that term implies no restrictions. I also don't approve of a complete ban on abortions, particularly when the medical risk to the mother is high.
It’s just another example of double-think.
“It’s okay for someone else to murder her child in the womb, but I would never do it.”
That’s pro-choice and anti-abortion. IOW, the woman is frelling insane.
I agree. It is a coward's reply. Like you said, either it is a human life or it is not. Either abortion kills a human life or it doesn't. The whole reason, I believe, that there is so much equivocation by some can be blamed on the Supreme Court, who would not take a stand on the "person hood" question in the Roe v. Wade ruling. They used the "we don't really know for sure when life begins" argument and it was BS then and is even more so now. We DO know when human life begins and abortion kills that life.
It is a cop-out, to coin an old fogey phrase, to hide behind a "personal" opposition to abortion but a belief in a woman's right to choose abortion. It is not much different that saying, "I personally am against slavery, but I can't tell you you can't have slaves." Or, "I don't believe in killing my unborn baby, but I won't stop you from killing yours." Either it is morally wrong or it is not. For those who say, "You can't legislate morality.", I say, "Wrong! ALL laws legislate what is right and wrong." Morality comes in when a person must decide whether or not to obey the laws. Certainly, in our day and age what is considered moral anymore has drastically changed - but taking innocent human life has ALWAYS been against the laws of God. We cannot allow the depraved element of our society to determine by their own morays what should be right or wrong. We are not so far gone... yet.