The problem is that when the issue is characterized that way, it is easy for those opposed to choice to characterize themselves as pro-life and we get caught up in this whole talking past each other issue.

There is nothing incorrect about what you say however the public debate on this issue has gotten mired down in “labels” and I think what dampt and I are both trying to suggest is that these labels become code words that allow people to dig in their heels and not seek common ground.

As I said I am 100% pro-choice but that does not mean that I feel this issue is best discussed with that terminology.

Elliot

How can “pro-choice” be a misleading term? The issue is precisely one of choice – whether a woman should have the right to choose to abort or whether she should be forced to have a baby she doesn’t want. “Pro-abortion” sounds like the position that one _should_ have abortions, or that abortions are an explicitly good thing. “Pro-choice” on the other hand is consistent with the position of many people who believe that while abortion isn’t a good thing (not something to be aimed for) the right to be able to choose is a good thing.

Agreed. I don’t think pro-choice or pro-life are useful or meaningful ways to phrase the debate and lead to red-herring arguments. I also agree that abortion itself is not the true issue but the underlying economic-social milieu in which abortion arises as a “solution” to the underlying problem.

Elliot

I agree entirely. My point, however, is that I dislike greatly any attempt to sugar-coat abortion by referring to it in inoffensive terms. “Pro-choice” is almost an oxymoron in the context in which it is used, just as “pro-life” is. The truth of the matter is that we are all pro-life and pro-choice; the difference comes down to whether or not you support abortion. If you believe in a woman’s right to choose, you must accept that, ultimately, you support the practice of abortion, tacitly or otherwise. Similarly, if you believe that a woman shouldn’t be able to choose to have an abortion you are guilty of supporting the invariably bad consequences which she will have to suffer.

The debate is not really about abortion itself; it’s a practice which is as old as the hills and will probably continue forever. The crucial point which needs to be addressed are the underlying problems which drive women to consider abortion to be a valid choice. If these are economic problems they must have an economic solution; if they are social problems they must be solved within a social context. But these are the true issues, not abortion itself.

Very few people would characterize themselves as “pro-abortion”. That’s why I believe the common ground on this issue is to reduce demand for abortion rather than focus on the supply side (restricting/permitting abortions).

The stark reality is that most abortions are chosen for economic reasons. When someone from the GOP is prepared to discuss a living wage for all Americans as a baseline to reduce the economic pressure on the underclass to chose abortion as an economic decision then I think we can have a meaningful discussion. But the same folks who don’t wan’t to permit abortions are encouraging them by their union busting globalization efforts.

If we can get closer to economic parity, the number of abortions will go down.

I fully support the fundamental right of a woman to decide what to do with her own body. I also hope that we can live in a world where as Bill Clinton so eloquently put it.. “Abortions are safe, legal, and rare.”

Elliot

As I grew up I realized that my family is also heavily Republican. My Grandfather was a State Senator for 18 years and President Pro Tem for a his last 2 terms. He had an elephant on his TV – took me years to understand the significance of that. My parents wouldn’t dream of supporting a Democrat. They stay up at night wondering what they did wrong in raising me. But my Mother is a staunch supporter of legalized abortion and is willing to base her vote on this issue – IF she is convinced that legalized abortion is in real danger. And that’s the catch, she doesn’t sense the danger. Politicians are expert at using rhetoric to cover up what they are really doing and Republicans are good at trying to preserve their moderate base while still pandering to the radical right.

Can we get something straight? “Pro-choice” and “pro-life” are both horridly misleading phrases, as are all derivative terms such as “right to choose” and “right to life.” With reference to abortion, the two sides are necessarily split into “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion;” sanitising your terms serves only to muddy the (already murky) waters and does a disservice to everyone, including those women who find themselves faced by such an agonising prospect.

I really wish that someone in the Democratic party would have the courage to come out and deconstruct this argument fully. As it currently stands, both right and left in the US will have you believe that you are either pro- or anti-abortion. When will someone have the mettle to say that there is a third way which is better: recognise that abortion is a terrible, but real, occurrence and that the reasons which lead someone to choose abortion are the fundamental problems which need to be addressed, not the act itself.