Sometimes, but not often, I have someone on the pro-abortion choice side of the issue want to make this distinction. Within the debate, as far as it concerns me, anti-abortion and pro-life as labels are distinctions without difference. I will proudly admit I’m anti-abortion. Recently, however, MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell made this distinction and assigned a difference.
(Newsbusters) — ANDREA MITCHELL: Some veteran Republican politicians and strategists believe that the Republican Party needs to rethink its positions on women’s reproductive issues after losing the women’s vote once again in the presidential race and losing at least two Senate races over ill-tempered comments from Republican men candidates. Joining me now is Juleanna Glover, a Republican strategist…
JULEANNA GLOVER: Thank you for having me.
MITCHELL: Let’s just establish that you have been very strongly your whole career…
GLOVER: I am deeply pro-life.
MITCHELL: Well I would call, anti-abortion.
GLOVER: Yes.
MITCHELL: To use the term that I think is more value neutral. …
I wonder, does Andrea Mitchell believe abortion is a morally neutral issue? It would certainly help one’s conscience to believe that, but I don’t think it is. Human life being taken at the hands of another is not morally neutral. I have long been convinced that pro-abortion choice defenders know this too. What makes me say this? The lengths to which they will go to employ some technicality to remove the human-ness of the yet-to-be-born human being. Whether it’s by requiring some human plus… criteria, that it doesn’t look human enough, or by changing the nomenclature, they will offer any argument they can which they believe will enable them to take the life of the developing child in the womb with moral impunity.
But if abortion isn’t a moral issue in the first place, why make any distinctions at all. Proudly embrace the photos of aborted fetuses. I mean, people think pictures of large tumors are pretty cool, right? If fetuses carry no moral distinction from tumors, be proud. Hell, I still have my wisdom teeth in my top dresser drawer. Honestly I have no idea why, perhaps the novelty of it.
Why would Mitchell want to make this distinction? Because it implies pro-choice equals anti-life. I have to say, I think that’s fair considering what abortion actually does. Elective abortion intentionally takes the life of an innocent human being. When you believe a mother should have the right to take her child’s life, it’s not too far of a drive to conclude you’re anti-life.
Sifting Reality 
No, I think she makes the distinction because people who are against abortions are in many instances also for the death penalty and in favor of war even when it means killing innocent people who get in the way. Pro life should mean pro life in all things…shouldn’t it? We also don’t proudly display or show photos of people being put to death or being killed in wars. Why? aren’t we proud of those things? Because they are necessary? Unfortunately Many people consider abortions necessary and other killings necessary too. Is there a difference?
Go
You could very well be right about that. But I think if you ask prolifers who support the death penalty or willing to accept accidental casualties in war is that they are pro innocent life. Accidental casualties could be analogous to aborting a baby to save the life of the mother, you don’t want to, but in order to save lives someone else may die in the process. A poor analogy I know, but on the fly that’s what I got.
Because if they accept the pro-life definition, they have to admit they are pro-death, and anti something makes it look as if you are against what everyone else is for!
Loopyloo, I think you’re right about that. Paint your opponent as against what you think people are for, like saying antiabortion is antiwoman
Good point. An abortion does no harm, aside from some hormonal fluctuations and the indignity and discomfort of the procedure itself. I’m pro-life. Pro-quality-of-life. Others are pro-quantity-of-life. If anything, that’s a distinction to be made.
That doesn’t mean we should praise abortion photos. Aborted fetuses will always build emotion, just like any bloody flesh. If I walk into a room with blood gushing down my face, people will think I’m terribly injured and they will have a visceral reaction. I might just have high blood pressure from a small, harmless bump on the head. Wet wash cloth and all is mended. I might just have ketchup or corn syrup for a horror movie. The emotions are the same and entirely unrelated to the false idea that some actual child suffered in any way.
Actually Jason, abortion is heavily linked to depression, future miscarriage, infection, cancer, and not to mention it always kills a baby. Death is pretty harmful, right?
An abortion does no harm? To whom? The effects that John mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg, women are killed during legal abortions, as well as their body so damaged that they can never have children again, and the memory is always with them, it drives some of the to suicide. And again it kills the baby in most instance, but there are those who survive, some with severe injuries, some live because someone rescues them, but some are killed by the abortionist or his staff by cutting their spinal cord with sicssors. Are you telling me they do not suffer. God have mercy but please tell me you do not really believe this do you?
Unfortunately Loopyloo, I pretty sure he’s not joking
Very sad, that kind of ignorance is simply willfull!
I think the photos show that a person died. Most abortions don’t make the new human being suffer. Granted. The point is that the photos show clearly recognizable human babies, something pro-abortion folks deny are being killed.
Gpicone,
By that logic, then, the term “pro-choice” is not appropriate. Unless, of course, pro-abortionists are willing to admit they believe people should have a legal choice in all facets of life. Since you are stretching the definition of “pro-life” so far, the same should be done for the definition of “pro-choice.”
So, you must think people should have the legal choice to discriminate based on race, gender, and sexual orientation. You also believe people should have the choice to pay their taxes, rob a bank, and kill human being that’s been born. Awesome!
Andrea Mitchell is an anti-life moron. And so, my friend, are you.
Jason Torpy,
Abortion has been shown to cause women all sorts of physical and psychological problems. But it occurs to me that we’ve had this debate once before. That was one of those “hit-and-run” replies of yours. I offered more than 30 peer-reviewed studies showing a correlation between mental illness and abortion, but curiously you didn’t respond.
Why? Because you don’t care about the truth. You’re an ideologue, Torpy. I know it and you know it. This progressive, atheist, pragmatic world-philosophy of yours is disgusting.
And Torpy, don’t come back still claiming to know abortion causes no harm to anyone until you respond to the arguments laid out in in this post.
I think “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are euphemistic tags.
“anti-abortion” and “pro-abortion” tags are more accurate.
Isu
I agree that pro and anti abortion are the most accurate labels. The pro choice crowd however, doesn’t like that term. But interestingly, they are only for choice until a woman chooses to consider abortion, then they seem to believe no one should try to change her mind.
John,
“I wonder, does Andrea Mitchell believe abortion is a morally neutral issue?”
Maybe she wanted to use “value neutral” terms.
For example, “pro-choice” is not a value neutral term. It includes “choice” with it is used to be considered a good term.
I wonder if Mitchell would respond Well “I would call, pro-abortion” to someone who says “I am deeply pro-choice”.
Maybe we should call ourselves “pro-fetal personhood” and they can be “fetal personhood deniers”. Isn’t that really the difference? Haven’t we moved beyond “life” and “choice”?