Up till now I've used the term 'pro-life'....

'Pro-forced-birther' is apt. I might start using that.

I don't agree with woman-haters or misogynist, as religion infects women as often as it infects men, and it seems odd to describe millions of delusional women as women-haters.

I simply use religious, or religious extremists, as I prefer to focus on the cause rather than the symptom. That said, there is some minority who are not religious.

Alternatively, pro- vs anti- medicine (which results in the loss of a foetus), or more generally, anti-euthanasia.

I've heard the term 'pro-birth' used before, as that's what it's all about. Personally I prefer using 'anti-choice'.

There's plenty of pro-choicers who, privately would not choose an abortion themselves, so are 'pro-life' on a personal level, however they don't want to force their personal choice onto other people.

I think the problem with pro-life/pro-choice rhetoric is that it sets up an emotionally charged, oppositional dichotomy, which does not deal with the complexity of the issues.

I think it is hard to argue that pro-life means pro-life, when there are examples of places where the woman's life is secondary, I concur with that view.

Equally, I would also argue that pro-choice is a misnomer, when many women seek abortions due to poverty, social pressure, lack of resources to bring up a child, where women are seen as the primary carers, having primary responsibility for contraception, for childcare, for balancing the needs of existing and potential children. Without equality, with more women than men living in poverty, without adequate support for pregnancy and childcare, I am sure that many, many times, it is not a 'choice' as such. I personally would not adopt the language of choice until all else is equal.

I am aware others disagree with me, having had this debate before. I don't have the heart to have it again at the moment. I don't have a name for my views or a quick label. I just am not sure that polarising the debate helps.

what about "interfering judgemental hypocrites"?

I really like "pro-forced-birther".

I am going to use it from now on.

When not using "uterus-bothering bucketheads", obviously.

I concur entirely with that sentiment too

I am quite torn on this one. The baby has a heartbeat very early on....there is life there. That can't be denied. I am 16 weeks pregnant and have started to feel the small little flutterings of a living, growing baby inside me. Never in a million years could I live with myself if I chose to end this life. It is a brand new and yes, INNOCENT life.

Yet I can also see that women should have autonomy over their own bodies. I am very much pro-women and would find it very hard to tell a desperate woman she should have the baby when not having it would be best for her.

I would never put the baby's life before the woman's...but I also cannot see the baby as anything but a baby who is human and alive as much as you or me.

I suppose what I am saying is I think women should choose, but I feel sad and sorrowful for the little lives that are lost.

Well said grimble

I think anti-choice is appropriate - it will be as offensive to those that are pro-life as the term pro-abortion is to those who are pro-choice!

I use anti-choice because they want to remove a woman's choice. If you are pro-choice it does not mean you are pro-abortion: you can choose not to have an abortion as many women with unexpected pregnancies do. It means you are free to choose what is right for you in your particular circumstances.

To use the term anti-abortion is to imply that pro-choicers are pro-abortion. We are not. We are pro the woman's right to choose whether to have the child or not.

I refuse to use the term pro-life because pro-lifers are only pro the foetus's life. They regard the mother's life as secondary. That is not being pro-life.

I'm pro-choice because I think that the procedure of an abortion is sufficient that no-one who is mature and stable enough to have a child would deliberately get herself into the position of choosing to be pregnant. Do we by law limit fillings to only those who have tooth decay or assume that if someone is willing to go through with one they must be in a bad position.

The problem with permitting abortions only when the mother's life is in danger is that HCPs have to be prepared to stand up in a court and say that that woman would have died had an abortion not been carried out. This doesn't work because its very rare that maternal death is a certainty. Instead its a % risk, and is non-zero even for healthy uncomplicated pregnancies. So how likely does death have to be before an abortion can be performed, given the HCP risks ending up in jail should they judge the risk incorrectly?

My preference for term is also "forced birther".

I usually use 'anti-choice'. I think it's the least worst fit in the situation.

My preference, as I have said elsewhere is "forced birther" because that is the end result of the removal of choice from women.

It may sound harsh but it forces us to acknowledge what the end result of this argument is i.e. women forced to give birth against their will. Or, in the Galway case, a women left to die.

I want a more accurate term

Mysoginist?

My preference is "anti-abortion," because campaigners oppose access to abortion, usually in any circumstances.

I suppose anti-choice could refer to those campaigners who agree that abortion should be available in some cases (e.g. where life of woman is at risk, in case of incest, etc.) because they don't oppose abortion totally - just that they do not believe women themselves have any right to decide for themselves. It can only happen where there is a medical indication or where pregnancy resulted from a breach of the law (e.g. incest or rape.)

Pro-choice does what it says on the tin - believes that women not only should have access to terminations for health reasons, or as the result of rape or incest, but because they do not wish to continue a pregnancy.

I say 'anti-abortionists' because that's what members of the pro-life movement are. They are against abortion in most cases and the more fundamental ones are against it in all cases.

When I was at university, an anti-abortionist I encountered told me, "if I'm an anti-abortionist, you're a pro-abortionist." I calmly pointed out no-one is pro-abortion, simply pro-choice. I told her no-one goes around with banners saying "abortion is great - go have one" and thus, no-one is pro-abortion.

NB: To explain briefly how I encountered this person. I fell pregnant at 19 (and was left in the lurch by the father), and when I returned from a year long break from university (to have my son), I was approached by the university's pro-life group. For some bizarre reason, they seemed to assume that as I had had my child, that must mean I was one of them.

mayihave it's not a straight choice for some people with pro-life beliefs. If you see the foetus as a living being, than the doctors have the horrible choice of mother vs child. If you argue that the child is dying anyway, then may I ask what is your view on assisted suicide? Do you think it's right for a doctor to help a patient with a terminal illness to die? In the case of a 17wk foetus, he couldn't even make a choice for himself.

Whatever your view of pro choice/life, isnt it a straight choice where the medical staff did not do their job.
Medical staff are liable for criminal charges.

Out of this,and the untenable position that allowed them to neglect that has been highlighted, the strict right to life edict must fall.

I see your point youllscream, but for me the 'choice' refers to women having the choice over what happens to their body, where as anti-choice would be taking away that choice completely iyswim.