| One of many articles on|
|In the back alley|
“”I think politicians shouldn't decide when a woman has to take off her pants and when she has to put them on - she has to decide for herself!
Pro-choice is the name given to the political stance that is in favour of recognizing a right for a woman to choose an abortion over being forced to carry a baby if the pregnancy is unwanted. It is considered a liberal view, therefore, evil and murderous by those who oppose it, but a sensible and protected freedom by those who don't. It is also used for the political stance that is supportive of a person's right to choose whether or not to end their life through euthanasia. While some pro-choice activism is based on the principle of self-determination, bodily integrity, and physical autonomy, others have a smaller scope by targeting factors such as incest, rape or fetal defects.
Pro-choice could be considered by some as the antonym to Pro-life, although this is not strictly true by any stretch of the meaning ("pro-death" perhaps?). However, like the term "pro-life", it an emotionaly loaded term, essentially designed to vilify the opponent, saying that people who are against abortion are therefore anti-choice or against a freedom to choose.
Unlike what the right-wing propagandists may say, the position does not mean that pro-choice advocates think abortion should be forced on women. Nor are they encouraging women to abort or telling young women it is their best or only choice. Quite the contrary; in fact, it's the moderate position between forced birth (Ireland, etc) and forced abortion (China). It's in that little word "choice" where Pro-Choice advocates spend their efforts. In general, they tend to favor accurate information, quality advice, and legal options in order to let women make the right choice for themselves. They also tend to think that acting before the pregnancy (ie., effective Birth control) is the best option for all women everywhere; sex education and access to birth control, by reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place, reduces the number of abortions, which makes you wonder why the anti-choice crowd are against these two things.
The choice must exist for women to have a pregnancy terminated in a professional, legal and above all safe manner.
There is a small amount of controversy as to whether there is pro-choice violence committed to the same extent that fringe pro-life/anti-abortion proponents stoop to, i.e., murdering doctors and firebombing clinics. The anti-abortion claim is obviously that pro-choice by definition is "violent", involving the termination of a pregnancy, however, the definition is somewhat hazy. One side is committing violent illegal acts while the other side is committing legal medical procedures. Currently, while like every social movement some people get carried away, there is no evidence that pro-choice campaigners are engaging in such activities.
- 1999, Jennifer M. Scherer, Rita James Simon, Euthanasia and the Right to Die: A Comparative View, Page 27
- From Abortion to Reproductive Freedom page 35, Marlene Gerber Fried - 1990
- The choice is really between a doctor doing it with sterilized equipment and tested drugs and some maniac in a back alley with a bottle of bleach and a coathanger.
- The NPOV claims on this Wikipedia talkpage sum it up fairly well
|Abortion articles on RationalWiki|
|Abortion - Fetus/Fœtus - Gonzales v. Carhart - Nuremberg Files - Pro-life - Pro-choice - Roe v. Wade - Schlafly, breast cancer and abortion - The Silent Scream - Barnett Slepian|