When I discuss abortion and reference the pro-choice side of the issue, I use the term abortion defender. It doesn’t (shouldn’t) come across as confrontational, poisonous, and accurate. I understand defenders of the right to elective abortion tend to prefer the term pro-choice. Many of those who take that position assert that the idea that it’s the choice they are arguing for, not abortion per-se. The choice entails either birth or abortion. However, I think this emphasis on choice is misleading, even if unintentionally so. Why is this? Because the pro-choice position only nurtures choice until there is the slightest interest in abortion as an option at which point the entire discussion moves from defending a choice to birth or abortion into full advocacy for abortion.
Think about it. Any time legislation requiring an informed non-impulsive decision the “pro-choice” side cry foul — loudly and with plenty of expletives. Laws requiring a waiting period in order to ensure the choice is not made in haste; emotional counselling; options such as adoption; ultrasound/heartbeat presentations so the mother can see and hear what it is she will be removing from her womb, et. al. the pro-choice movement goes all out in advocating that women should not have access to the information. But we should ask, why would they be against women making an informed and careful decision if it is only a choice they are defending? Why are they so vehemently opposed to women being persuaded to rethink having the abortion?
The answer is simple. They are pro-abortion. The only choice pro-choice advocates endorse is the choice for abortion. Every attempt to dissuade a mother of her decision to abort is followed by claims that women are being deprived of basic human rights necessary “health care”. Pro-abortion politicians and activists even coined a term for this: The War on Women. Listen, if I am mistaken, why is every attempt made (either by lawsuit or protest) to prevent the birth of the child?
It hasn’t gone unnoticed either that, to my knowledge, there are no crisis pregnancy centers owned and/or operated by self-described pro-choice individuals or organizations, which is either a grand coincidence, or as I argue, something more.
If it was choice that was the concern of pro-choice advocate and not the abortion, there would not be such vigorous attempts made to ensure mothers are prevented from information and measures which may persuade them to choose birth over abortion. Offering and encouraging a choice other than abortion is met with fierce opposition. Their protest says choice, but their actions demand abortion.
Sifting Reality 
I use abortion defender as well. “Pro-choice” is way too euphemistic, and although I feel “pro abortion” is a more accurate description, it evokes a visceral reaction far too often. I don’t see how “abortion defender” can be denied in any way.
As a side note, I note that Planned Parenthood is opting to drop the “pro choice” label these days in favor of the even more euphemistic “reproductive justice.”
Reproductive freedom, reproductive justice, et al is just a way to cloud the issue.
I think, if you’re going the route, “abortion rights defender, would be more accurate. I don’t know that people are defending “abortions,” specifically. They are defending a woman’s and family’s right to have their choice of medical procedures, including abortion, when it comes to pregnancy. They are defending the RIGHT to an abortion, not defending abortion, per se, although they may also do that.
Just a thought.
Dan
What is the difference. I mean I know you support abortion, but under the guise of calling it a “family planning medical procedure” but there’s no difference that I can see between defending the action and the right to the action.
Hi Dan,
John nails it. “Abortion defender” is just a more concise way of saying “abortion rights defender.”
Mike, dan makes the distinction because it helps soothe his conscience. Dan is prochoice but he hides it by saying he doesnt support abortion, he merely supports a family’s right to make their own medical decisions. He’s alk for killing babies as long as you frame it properly.f
John…
What is the difference. I mean I know you support abortion
What is the difference? Facts, John. I have no great opinions in favor of abortion, and certainly don’t just willy nilly “support it.” I am opposed to a big gov’t taking away people’s choices. So, I am a abortion rights supporter… maybe even a reluctant abortion rights supporter.
That is, abortion seems like it might be misused in the real world – as family protection rather than a medical procedure and that is a genuine concern. But I don’t support abortion as birth control, thus, factually speaking, I do not simply “support abortion.” Rather, I oppose gov’t drawing the line on when a family can use this or that medical procedure.
Factually speaking, I’m no more an abortion supporter than I am a masectomy supporter or a vasectomy supporter. They are medical procedures that families can choose to use and I oppose gov’t taking away those choices.
The difference, John, is facts. If facts are important to you, you use the right words, so as to not misrepresent. Because misrepresenting people is wrong.
~Dan
Right. You dont support abortion, you support a family’s right to make their own medical decisions, including abortion. You support abortion, you just hidebit in rhetoric.
Would you say, then John, that I support vasectomies? That I support mastectomies? That I support boob jobs? That I support nose jobs? That I support gastric bypass procedures and tattoos?
It may be semantics, but that doesn’t seem an apt description of my position. I hold no great opinions one way or another about these medical procedures, just that they are medical procedures. Just because I don’t want to outlaw tattoos, ear, nose, navel piercings or vasectomies does not insist that I “support” them.
Dan,
And yet you defend ObamaCare and Democrats in general? Also, I resent the implication that those opposed to abortion, such as myself, are in favor of limiting people’s choices. We do not believe that MURDER should be a legal choice. Anti-lifers the world over refuse to admit that unborn children are human beings, and thus persons, because that fact render the “pro-choice” ideology utterly indefensible.
Murder is not a legal choice.
Murder is a legal term. This is not murder, not by definition.
Is it morally murder? People of good faith disagree.
I held your position once, and still lean away from abortion as a choice, certainly, for mere birth control. But reducing the other side as “the side that supports murder” will not help resolve this human disagreement.
I’d vote for finding places where we can find common ground rather than casting aspersions and creating more divisions (ie, calling the Democrats the side that favors taking away choices…)
~Dan
Dan,
By definition, elective abortion IS murder, notwithstanding the court’s refusal to call it such.
Elective abortion is absolutely morally wrong.
Here is common ground for you: No elective abortion, no exceptions, ever. Commit the crime? Go to prison.
Well, that is not the law, so you Terrance, are not able to unilaterally send people to prison. Plus, this harsh, “my way or death row” approach on your part turns people away from your side, I’d wager.
~Dan
Dan,
Like I said, the court’s refusal to call a spade a spade is of no importance to the issue. The act of abortion purposely takes the life of a human being and that act, if elective, is always unjustified. So elective abortion is the unjustified taking of a human life, otherwise known as murder.
I have no intention of moderating my view, as though it actually requires it. Call it anything you want, but abortion is murder and murder should not be a legal choice.
I knew it wouldn’t take Dan long to start defending abortion. Imagine, there’s an entire group of people who call themselves Christian trying to market this crap to people as valid Christian thought.
Dan, you do know that most states have fetal homicide laws, don’t you? That means someone who causes the death of a fetal human being is tried for murder. The only exception is if the mother commissions the death and uses a doctor to kill it, which as we see, you whole-heartedly approve of.
Indeed, and this from someone who constantly uses the phrase “the least of these” as if the unborn don’t qualify. He treats the unborn as second class citizens in supporting the notion that any born person can determine whether an unborn person can live or die. Best we determine the unborn to be homosexual in order to protect it from such bigotry and hate.
The worst part is the cowardly position that he is defending the rights of others to choose…except for the unborn. But every law on the books interferes with someone’s right to choose something.
In a post at his blog, Dan puts forth the case that “the least of these” are in a very real sense “holy”.
So I asked him, “If the least of these are holy, then wouldn’t killing them be a heinous crime?”. It took a couple of tries to get an answer, but I finally got this.
“Killing any innocent is a truly heinous act. And yes, targeting especially oppressed and marginalized groups is, I would say, an especially heinous act.”
The exception, of course, being when “the least of these” is an unborn human child. Then it’s simply one of a number of morally neutral medical procedures to be chosen.
The last time I really thought about it vasectomies, mastectomies, nose jobs, and boob jobs are at worst morally neutral. In many cases all of them have genuine positive medical effects, but otherwise have no moral component. Which is why it makes perfect sense to compare them to a procedure that almost never has any positive medical effect (obviously to save the mother’s life which is rare), and comes loaded with moral baggage.
Now this might be off topic, but why is it that those who favor abortion seem to always fight against state standards which hold abortion providers to the same standard of care as they do any other medical facility? I thought they wanted abortion to be “safe”.
Calling abortion just a “medical procedure” is dishonesty to assuage one’s conscience. As a “medical procedure” it has no commonality with other medical procedures in that it is the only procedure which has the sole purpose of killing a human being.
I am pro-self defense. That means that I am in favor of certain citizens, under certain circumstances, shooting other citizens to death. I support your right to do it, AND I support the act itself. It’s a horrible thing to have to do, but sometimes it’s necessary.
Why can’t the pro-aborts say it like I just said it? “I support the necessary action, though I hope I never will do it, myself”.
I’m not afraid of someone calling me pro-killing, or whatever accurate description of my pro-self defense position they might think is the worst possible way to say it is. Why should they be afraid?
Could it be that self defense is not only necessary, but a good and honorable thing, and killing unborn children isn’t?
I don’t know how, but my seven-year-old daughter found out about abortion. Obviously, I told her what I think about it. It’s bad. But, she came to that on her own.
Also, children are taught how to be safe in crowds, etc. because there have been people who take kids away from mommies and daddies. So they know about kidnappers. I asked my little girl, “If someone came to hurt you, what do you think I should do?”.
“Stop them! Beat them up!”, she said. I had no problem saying that I would do everything I could to stop a bad guy from hurting her, up to and including shooting him dead on the spot! That’s what good people do.
Defend “the right” to abortion all you want. I just can’t imagine telling my little girl exactly what I would hope a doctor would do to a baby “if necessary”.
Why is it that I seem to get the last word so often on this blog? Is it that I’m late to the party, or that no more can be said after reading my BRILLIANT writing (just kidding), or that I am completely nuts and I freak out the table?