Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life: Can They Be One and the Same?

2 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
Thirty-seven years after the Supreme Court ruling legalized abortion, we are still struggling to find the right language to identify the opposing sides in a debate that will likely never end. Those who support abortion rights (or is reproductive rights?) call themselves pro-choice. Yet those who would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned recoil from the label anti-choice, and rightly so, and call themselves pro-life. A lot of the media have adopted the pro-life label as a matter of convenience, which infuriates the other side since those who support reproductive choice (yet another way to say it) consider their views life-affirming, not anti-life.

When one side is intent on slurring the other, activists pick and choose among the labels. Anti-abortion works for the pro-life community, but pro-abortion is not how pro-choice activists see themselves. "It drives me crazy when people say we're pro-abortion," says Jen Bluestein, communications director for EMILY's List, which works to elect pro-choice Democratic women. "You can be pro-life and pro-choice," she explains, meaning you would not seek an abortion yourself or advocate for one, but would not want to take away the right from someone else, or criminalize the procedure.

Language is important because how the argument is framed can determine who wins at the ballot box. For two decades after Roe, until the early 1990s, the pro-choice side enjoyed an edge in the national debate. The advent of ultrasound images evened out the political playing field, and supporters of abortion rights talked about abortion in a different way, pledging to make it "safe, legal and rare," a phrase introduced in the '92 presidential campaign by Bill Clinton, running as a centrist Democrat. Fast-forward to 2010, and anti-abortion advocates want to require women seeking an abortion to view an ultrasound and listen to a doctor describe the fetus.

In Florida, conservative Republicans pushed through such legislation only to have it vetoed earlier this month by Gov. Charlie Crist, who wrote in his veto message, "This bill places an inappropriate burden on women seeking to terminate pregnancy," adding that he put his personal "pro-life" views aside in making the decision. Crist was pro-choice in the 1990s, but was elected governor as a pro-life candidate. He's now running for the U.S. Senate as an independent, where he's Exhibit A of how malleable these labels can become in the political arena.

National Public Radio set down its own marker for how the two sides should be labeled. In a memo to staff distributed earlier this year, NPR said it would no longer use "pro-choice" and "pro-life." After what the network describes as a lively debate, editors came up with "abortion rights supporter or advocate" and "abortion rights opponent," phrases that are politically correct but unlikely to catch on outside the studios of NPR. Each side has too much at stake to surrender the labels that have become part of our culture, and the media too often just go for the shorthand.
Filed Under: Woman Up

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

19 Comments

Filter by:
johmich5

Eleanor, pro-choice can not be pro-life. You cannot support and oppose the same thing. Pro-choice is pro-abortion and abortion is pro-death. Eleanor abortion is not life affirming, it destroys life! Semantics won't change the debate. Is the unborn child, that the mother wants to kill, an alive person or not? That is the issue! It is not about "reproductive rights" or “health “. All pro-life conservatives acknowledge a woman's "reproductive right" to get pregnant or not. The question is, does abortion kill another person. Science proves that it does. It is the abortion industry, liberal ideology, radical feminism and radical religious belief that claim it doesn't.

February 05 2011 at 11:13 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
johmich5

Eleanor, pro-choice can not be pro-life. You cannot support and oppose the same thing. Pro-choice is pro-abortion and abortion is pro-death. Eleanor abortion is not life affirming, it destroys life! Semantics won't change the debate. Is the unborn child that the mother wants to kill an alive person or not? That is the issue! It is not about "reproductive rights" or “health “. All pro-life conservatives acknowledge a woman's "reproductive right" to get pregnant or not. The question is, does abortion kill another person. Science proves that it does. It is the abortion industry, liberal ideology, radical feminism and radical religious belief that claim it doesn't.

February 05 2011 at 1:41 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
wqrrygaghads

ummm well i would just like to say i literally cried wheni read some of these comments just tissue??? apparently people aren't very educated on the aubject of abortion..... have you ever seen pictures? from the momennt of contraception a new individual is created.... now whether or not you believe in god is not the point here and is completely irrelevant so really if your so insistent and stubborn you on't even have to bring Him into the picture yet (although if you dont you may be a complete moron), the point is that this is a life like any other no matter how it came to be, rape, birth control failure, prpose, this doesnt matter and now ladies this isnt about you so dont bring in the whole deal about " its my body ill choose what to do with it" cuz its not about your body anymore.... theres a child inside of you now. are you gonna kill it for your own selfish reasons? deny life to that child cuz you dnt wanna have to deal with child birth? i mean come on WOOOOOOOOW. if you are considering killing your child please consider this: 18-20 days the foundation to the brain and spinal chord are laid 21 days the hearty begins to beat (but th child's not alive? hahah oooo goodness if you still arent completely convinced keep going) 28- 32 days 2 tiny arms and legs form and a mouth and nose start taking shape ok it goes on and on but i dnt think i need to go any further, i think ive made my point ABORTION IS TAING AWAY A LIFE!!!! is it ok to kill a new born because it cant walk yet or feed itself? ummm id definitely say most people in their right minds would say no is it ok to kill a new born baby with a heart defect that cant live on its own? the correct answer would be no so what makes an unborn different? id like to know honestly and hey if the issue is you dnt wanna keep the baby theres this really neat thing called adoption!!!! in fact id personally take the baby right off your hands for you if youd just carry he? she to term thank you

October 08 2010 at 12:11 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Dan

"[The NPR] editors came up with "abortion rights supporter or advocate" and "abortion rights opponent." Yet even this is calculated to support the pro-death position. (I know the label "pro death" will drive Jen Bluestein more crazy, but it is what it is. An abortion puts a fetus to death.) The position of the pro-life side is that no one has a right to kill a fetus; that there is no such thing as abortion rights. To speak of such is to support the other side of the issue.

When we ask the SCOTUS to dismantle Roe, we are not asking it to take away anyone's rights, but to recognize that those rights never existed in the first place. It was a (gross) mistake.

June 25 2010 at 7:55 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
Don

I consider myself to be a liberal. And I am not in favor of overturning Roe. It is the law and overturning it would just make the anger greater on both sides. But I have come to the conclusion that abortion is murder. As is capital punishment. Both are the positions of the Catholic Church. But only one seem to get any support. I am not Catholic or even Christian, but the highest value of Western Civilization, in my opinion, is human life. And this value, this morality, trumps the freedom of a woman to control her own body. I might make an exception for rape or the life of the mother. But let's face the honest true most abortions are birth control after the fact. And yes, I acknowledge the fact that its the women who will most likely pay and not the man. That is wrong and they both should be responsible, but in any case the child should not be the one to pay.

June 24 2010 at 4:45 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Don's comment
Dan

I completely agree with your reasoning. Given that, I cannot understand your support of maintaining Roe. Slavery was once the law. So was "separate but equal" education. Both have been reversed, and rightly so. And both caused great national turmoil when reversed. It was worth it. It will be worth it to abandon Roe and defend life.

June 25 2010 at 8:11 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
johnelivic

The movie "4 month, 3 days and 2 hours" is writer and director Cristian
Mungiu's story of a young Romanian student Gabita, and her attempt to
procure an abortion at a time when the procedure was illegal during the
Ceausescu regime in the 1980s.

With the heroic help of her roommate Otilia, who does everything but have
the abortion for her troubled friend, Gabita overcomes difficulties and
dangers and has the abortion. While watching the film, and understanding
the dangers and consequences for those seeking to procure an illegal
abortion under an oppressive totalitarian regime, the viewer must consider
whether abortion should ever be illegal. One reviewer wrote that the
strength of Mr. Mungiu's film is that he "never forgets the palpably real
women at the center of his film, and one of its great virtues is that
neither do you." After Gabita has the abortion, Otilia, who has left the
hotel room before the abortion was completed, returns. Informed that the
fetus passed in the bathroom Otilia, ever the servant friend, goes to clean
the room. As she views the remains of bloodied sheets, the surprised look
of shocked recognition on Otilia's face, and the camera showing what she
sees, helps the viewer to realize that abortion is not only a crime against the state where it is illegal, but a crime against humanity which should never be legal in any society. Contrary to the above mentioned reviewers
opinion, the greatest strength and virtue of Mungiu's film is that he
doesn't let the viewer forget the palpably real human being that is killed
because of the abortion. The problem with those who are pro choice is that they want everyone to think about the freedom to choose and ignore the choice that is being made. Perhaps this is a reasonable compromise for Ms. Clift: the "pro choice movement" should change its name to the "pro woman's right to choose to kill the developing human life within her womb movement".

June 24 2010 at 11:54 AM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
jimwyse

We spend so much time talking past each other. The usual conversation does not address the actual point of disagreement. Either an abortion is a human rights violation, an act of child abuse, a form of domestic violence, or it isn't. Either a fetus/unborn child has rights, or not. If the fetus/unborn child has some rights, either his/her dependent connection with the mother gives the mother the right to kill/terminate him or her, or it doesn't. That seems to me the disagreement, and talking around these issues is just going to wear us out.

June 24 2010 at 11:34 AM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
oldengineera2

One thing is sure. No one has the information surrounding conception that the mom-to-be has, and no one has a greater incentive to make a wise choice to carry to term or not. Also, no one can stand between mom and the almighty powers who may judge an unwise choice. This is one tough decision, and I am grateful it is not one I face.
Unwanted pregnancy is like venereal disease in that it is best prevented rather than treated.

June 23 2010 at 11:46 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
Ken

I am in my 60s now and remember still the way things were before abortion was legal.. For a couple of years before abortion became legal all over America with Roe vs Wade, it was legal in some states, but illegal in most of the states.

I was a young 20ish year old travel agent, just back from the military, and I sold airline tickets much of the time. I worked in Ohio where abortion was very much illegal at the time. New York had legalized abortion and word got around. I soon got requests for round trip tickets from Ohio to New York city from some of the more wealthy families in our city. Oh just a few days going up for shopping I was told more than a few times, and the tickets were picked up, and almost always paid for in cash - not the credit cards we were used to even back that long ago. I appreciated the business, it made me extra money. But I was slow on the uptake when a coworker older than me said these women are going up for abortions.

A few weeks later the military reserves called me back into the Service and I was not a travel agent anymore. Over the years, I have reflected back on that time in my life when the daughters of wealthy took advantage of that to get around the local law and get an abortion. Airfares were very expensive back then, so the poor, or middle class for that matter, were not flying to New York. No, I think that such laws while being written for everyone were obeyed by the poor, beause they had no resources to take this expensive short-cut in life.
- - -I would think if the laws revert back to the way they were and abortion were to become illegal again, then young women with money will be flying off to perhaps Europe where abortion remains legal, to resume those shopping trips of almost 40 years ago. Laws are laws, unless you can buy an exemption.

Mike

June 23 2010 at 6:54 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
AzDustieRose

I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I would not seek an abortion for myself, because that is MY CHOICE! I will not judge another for making their own choice.
My last pregnancy ended, not by my choice, but by GOD's. My child would have been born with too many life ending problems due to weekly x-rays and many narcotic drugs given to me during my recovery time after major back surgery. I began spotting at 8 weeks, but my so-called doctor told me everything was fine. I had an ultra sound at 13 weeks and was told I did not have a viable pregnancy; the fetus had died in-utero at 8 weeks and the doctor let me carry a dead fetus for 5 more weeks!! I had asked GOD to show me the way, and HE took the decision from me, and made it HIS own. I was very gratefull for that, because the burden was too much for me to bear, at the time. GOD knew my heart, and made it easier on me to endure. GOD knows what is in our hearts, and I won't be the one to challenge HIS knowledge and love. To each her own, and to her GOD.

June 23 2010 at 6:14 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily


  • Comics
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>