“Nobody is pro-abortion,” says a pro-choice activist trying to find common ground between herself and a pro-lifer who just called her a “pro-abortion, pro-death, baby killer”. From the old “safe, legal, and rare” mantra to the “nobody is pro-abortion” line, activists on both sides of the abortion debates have subtly and not so subtly expressed their discomfort about the medical procedure of abortion.
In this political battlefield over abortion, there has been much discussion recently regarding the nomenclature used for the opposing positions in the abortion debates. The tradition framework is this: pro-life vs. pro-choice. Pro-choice people traditionally believe that when faced with a pregnancy, a woman should be able to choose for herself based on her personal situation whether she wants to continue the pregnancy, give birth, and parent; continue the pregnancy, give birth, and place the baby for adoption; or terminate the pregnancy through abortion. Pro-life people believe that abortion should never be an option for women making decisions about a pregnancy; the choices become limited to parenting or adoption.
We see a pattern here: both groups technically advocate making a choice. Pro-lifers simply remove one of those choices based on their beliefs about personhood and when life begins. They also believe that when you become pregnant, you better stay pregnant. There is no weaseling your way out of that.
If both groups are technically pro-choices, the terms that we have been using to describe positions on the abortion debate are fundamentally inaccurate. The point of contention here is abortion. Groups should define their position with terminology that accurately represents what they actually mean.
Pro-life people are not pro-life. We see this in their inability to grasp the facts about women who die from unsafe and illegal abortion, their frequent support of the death penalty, and their lack of interest in supporting born persons through social welfare programs and universal healthcare. Pro-life is not a universal philosophy or ideology about human life; it is an upbeat and positive name for the movement against abortion. So, let’s call them what they are: anti-abortion.
If pro-lifers are anti-abortion, not anti-choice, then their opponents should be pro-abortion, not pro-choice! It is not choice we are fighting about. It is abortion. I argue that the pro-choice movement needs to embrace the pro-abortion label in order to resist the mounting political attacks against abortion access and Roe vs. Wade. Firmly standing in the pro-abortion camp is the only way to hold our ground and move forward as a society with reproductive justice. We cannot play nice anymore. We cannot try to reason with people whose only mission is to get rid of safe and legal abortion completely.
Claiming the pro-abortion label does not mean that we believe that abortion is always good, positive, or necessary. It does mean, however, that it can be. That abortion is an option for someone facing a pregnancy, and that it is an option that is just as valid as the choice to parent or pursue adoption. Abortion can be an empowering experience. When you are pregnant and you don’t want to be, the ability to take control over your life, your future, and your body can be positive. Claiming the pro-abortion label reflects these diversities of women’s lived experiences and accurately reflects what we are fighting for.
I’d love to hear opinions on this in the comments. Do you think that pro-abortion is a term that can be used in politics? Where do you fall in the abortion debate and what term would you use to describe your position?
Because it is too direct, too galvanizing, “pro-abortion” cannot be used as a political term. “Pro-choice” is a less direct, less polarizing way of describing reproductive autonomy. However, my position in this
debate is pro-abortion.
It is very much galvanizing, and I would say slightly alienating. I know many people who are anti-abortion and would never get one, but still support the right of me to choose to have one, and have it be safe. I wouldn’t call these people pro-abortion at all.
I am anti abortion, but am pro choice. I feel you are taking an innocent life by having an abortion. Not even giving the unborn baby a chance to have a choice. If you don’t want children abstain from sex until you want children. But then I also feel you have your free agency to make your own choice. And you will be judged accordingly by the highest judge of all on your decision and circumstances.
Having sex is not the problem, having UNPROTECTED sex is the problem. who are you to say that we can ONLY have sex if we want a baby? what are we back in the dark ages? and many people dont believe in your god, so you argument is invalid about being “judged”. the only people who are judging are anti abortionists.
You shouldn’t make the assumption that all pro life people support death penalty – just an advice on making a fair argument. You are looking at the worst part of the movement. There are many pro life people who are also against death penalty, war, and any kind of killing.
I reject the use of “pro-abortion”. Because I believe in a woman’s right to choose. And I know that, were I to unexpectedly become pregnant, I would CHOOSE not to have an abortion. So I am not “pro-abortion” because I would not have one and I would never presume to tell a woman she “should” have an abortion and I think that whatever a woman chooses (abortion or kids) she should be fully supported in that decision.
I believe “pro-choice” is really a mindset about many things. I’m not PRO drugs, but I believe in a person’s right to choose drugs. I believe you should have the choice to marry someone of the same or opposite gender. I believe a woman (or a man, when the technology is there) should be able to choose to take birth control (for free).
I do not demean straight people, people who kept the baby, people who don’t use drugs or those who don’t use birth control. Those are equally valid choices.
It says something about progressive causes that they’re about CHOICE. Conservatives by-and-large want to be able to tell you what you cannot do: you cannot have an abortion, you cannot marry someone of your same gender, you cannot get birth control, you cannot smoke marijuana. I feel like we need to highlight this difference as much as possible.
To the extent that it does not infringe upon the rights of others I believe in choice. They believe in government control of your personal life. I think if we can frame it like that we can take ‘em down.
I don’t know where I stand on this. I can’t call myself “pro-abortion” in the way I am, say, “pro-sex” or “pro-gay marriage.” But I see what you’re saying.
Pingback: Occasional Link Roundup | Brute Reason
I am comfortable describing myself as pro-abortion for the reasons you outlined but I think it is a politically problematic term that will only alienate people from understanding our aims.
I agree with this article wholeheartedly. By watering down terminology and trying to appease the anti-abortion masses we have let them walk all over us. It is apparent in all of the anti-women legislature that has been popping up in record numbers over the last few years.
We need to play as hard as the other team. I am sick of trying to find common ground, because there is none. It is either legal in all cases, or not. I believe strongly in bodily autonomy, and more people on the pro-abortion side need to emphasize that.
As a legal U.S. citizen I have more rights under Constitutional Law than someone who 1. is not a legal U.S. citizen 2. cannot survive without being physically attached to another human being. My rights trump theirs. Every. Single. Time.