To think these people are pro choice not pro life

[ToCaravanOrNotToCaravan]

I've heard a few people say that they are 'pro life' because they personally couldn't go through with an abortion but they don't judge others who have.

AIBU to say that these people are in fact pro choice then given that they do not judge other women for their choice to have an abortion?

See, I've heard the mumsnet definition of pro choice as 'as early as possible, as late as necessary, for any reason', so right up to birth. I couldn't support that and would oppose any proposed change of law to allow it. So by that criterion, I'm not pro choice.

On the other hand, systems where people can be treated with criminal suspicion if they have a miscarriage are terrifying.

ReganSomerset, I'm with you there so by that definition I'm not pro-choice. I personally don't want to change the 24 week limit. I don't like abortion, as I said before, but I think it's better to tackle that by encouraging better birth control.

I was very interested to discover that there were actually fewer abortions under the more liberal legislation under Clinton than the more restrictive legislation of Reagan and Bush.

I also wouldn't want to go back to the times of orphanages for unwanted children. There are over 60,000 children in care, and there aren't enough adopters and fosterers as it is. And the damage done to the children taken into care is extreme, as I can tell you from trying to get my DD1 (now 10) the help she needs.

It seems clear to me that you either support women’s right to choose or you don’t. You’re either pro choice or anti choice. I’m definitely pro choice. I’m not gonna try and stick an arbitrary time limit on it though because I’m not a medical professional and every case is different.

Also, this might be a weird way of looking at it but I also think the planet is over populated as it is... imagine if every termination that ever happened hadn’t been allowed - how many more people would there be?

“imagine if every termination that ever happened hadn’t been allowed - how many more people would there be?”

Indeed but there would also be a lot more dead women :(

they personally couldn't go through with an abortion but they don't judge others who have

This describes me. I describe myself as pro-choice.

It's interesting hearing people say 'I don't think abortion is a good thing' - I'm as pro choice as they come but I still don't think it's a 'good' thing. It's not the ideal situation, it's a necessary option. I don't think many people celebrate abortion as a brilliant experience and a fun day out. You don't need to consider abortion a brilliant thing or want there to be more of them in order to be pro choice.

On the other hand it's refreshing how many people on Mumsnet either say that while they wouldn't have one, they don't want to take away someone else's option to, or who recognise that while it's not the ideal form of contraception, vanishingly few women it as such and it's an essential service which prevents women from dying.

There is quite a broad pro-choice spectrum. IMO if you say you are pro-choice then you are pro the woman choosing to terminate the pregnancy at any stage and for any reason. It’s all about supporting her right to choose, whatever the circumstances. However, most people don’t actually feel that way. Saying you are pro-choice but you support the current limit (or another limit) or in certain circumstances etc is the same as someone saying they are pro-life but with caveats - rape/incest/tfmr for example. Which some pro-life people do. If it’s ok for pro-choice to have a spectrum then I don’t see why pro-life can’t have one too.

I think the difficulty is that there are extremists on both sides when the vast majority of people want to fall in the middle but they still have to call themselves something. Some people worry that if they call themselves pro-choice they’ll be associated with those who support abortion to term and others worry that pro-life makes people think that they consider the MAP to be murder and that they stand around outside clinics waving placards in people’s faces! Neither of these are true for the vast majority of people.

“I was very interested to discover that there were actually fewer abortions under the more liberal legislation under Clinton than the more restrictive legislation of Reagan and Bush.“

Better awareness of and access to contraception and better contraception options could also be a factor. IMO it’s a bad move for pro-life people to try to restrict access to contraception (seems to be happening a lot in the US.)

Better awareness of and access to contraception and better contraception options could also be a factor. IMO it’s a bad move for pro-life people to try to restrict access to contraception (seems to be happening a lot in the US.)

That's precisely what I was trying to say. I think too many Christians have their heads in the sand about this issue, especially in the US. You can have your principles but you can't insist on others having them too.

What happens in practice is that young women and girls within their churches are more likely to have abortions, as they don't know about contraception. They then get pregnant and choose to terminate because they don't want their families and church leaders to know that they're having sex with their boyfriends.

I'm another one of those who believes women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy at any point up to the moment of birth.

Because, first of all, I accept that it is none of my business what happens in anyone else's uterus.
And secondly, while I'm just about able to accept that there are some women who might decide to terminate a pregnancy hours before they go into labour, just because they don't like the colour of their hospital nightie, or their partner didn't bring them flowers this morning or something, the percentage of women who might do that is vanishingly small. Especially when you set it against the percentage of women who have died due to being unable to access safe abortions.
To demand any restriction on abortion is to say that women cannot be trusted and must be owned and controlled by men and the state, because their function is primarily to serve as walking incubators.

“IMO it’s a bad move for pro-life people to try to restrict access to contraception (seems to be happening a lot in the US.)”

This happens because most anti-choice movements are about controlling women rather than genuinely worrying about fetuses dying. That’s also where the anti-choice except for rape etc comes in - apparently the a fetus dying is only a problem if a woman had fun consensual sex when it was conceived. Once it’s clear that the vast majority of the movement is about shaming and controlling women, it’s obvious why many anti-choice supporters would also be anti-contraception

You are either pro choice or not

No need to add on it’s not something they could do sounds patronizing.
I don’t think many of us think about having a termination until we are in that position of having an unwanted or complicated pregnancy we just accept that it is a choice

@lizzie48 And churches preaching abstinence instead of teaching about contraception too.

ReanimatedSGB, the vast majority of people don’t murder, rape or steal either. We have laws and restrictions because, as society, we determine what we consider to be acceptable and justifiable. Terminating a perfectly healthy baby that could survive if delivered is in no way acceptable or justifiable so I think restrictions are necessary to try to prevent the few instances where that could potentially happen.

Hersymphony I disagree. I don’t think being prolife is about controlling women. I think it’s about taking (what they consider to be) the other life into consideration. If you think of holding up an actual baby and deciding whether or not to kill it based on the mother’s reasons for considering an abortion, then it’s probably easier to understand their position. They are viewing that as another life, not just a bundle of cells.

I think the rape caveat is not because they don’t think the baby is important if it’s not conceived from ‘fun sex’ but rather because they think those particular circumstances are up there with ‘to save the life of the mother’ as far as reasons for terminations go. Most pro-life people support the abortion to save the life of the mother but there are very few instances where that is actually medically necessary these days.

Like other I think it depends."Not judging" could mean they feel that abortion is wrong but still don't judge people who do this wrong (in their eyes) action. In the same way you might say I could never commit a crime but I don't judge criminals (because they might have had a hard life etc etc). In this case I don't think they necessarily are pro choice.

If they mean that they personally would never have an abortion but aren't against anyone else having one then of course they're pro choice.

Obviously no one (that I know of) is for compulsory abortions in the case of accidental pregnancies as that stance would be untenable so the fact that you personally wouldn't have an abortion doesn't have any relevance to your stance on the availability of abortions in general.

I agree, OP. That sounds pro-choice to me.

I do think in some cases pro lifers are interested in controlling women. They feel women are responsible for having sex and should suffer the consequences. In some cases though there are people who genuinely believe a fetus is alive in the same sense as a baby is and in that case they are morally against killing it.

You can usually tell these two groups apart by their attitudes to providing antenatal care and to supporting mothers in difficult circumstances who decide to keep their babies. If they suddenly stop caring when the baby is born you can guarantee they're part of the former group.

“Hersymphony I disagree. I don’t think being prolife is about controlling women.“

Whether you personally as someone who is anti choice are interested in controlling women is neither here nor there (though you have to be prepared to do so if you are anti choice). I said “the vast majority” want to control women. Most religious groups, conservatives in the US etc - these are all enormous groups of people who are not into the liberation of women. You aren’t required to defend yourself if you do not see yourself in that category.

“They feel women are responsible for having sex and should suffer the consequences.”

I don’t think this is true. I have never met anyone or heard from anyone with this opinion. Are you talking about some far out religious groups?

Hersymphony, I disagree that the vast majority of pro-life people have ‘controlling women’ as their primary focus. Their focus is preserving, what they consider to be, another life that is worthy of existence. It wouldn’t be seen as being ‘controlling’ any more than they would see it as controlling to try to prevent someone from committing murder.

I've worded it before as I'm politically pro-choice, but personally pro-life - in that I don't think I could actually have an abortion (and as I was at higher risk of having a baby with a condition incompatible with life I even considered continuing with a pregnancy where I knew the baby wouldn't survive - thankfully I never had to make that decision in the end)

What I really don't understand - and I believe this is more common in the US - is how someone can be prolife and prodeath penalty

How can it be pro life for medical care to depend on ability to pay? Why is it murder to end a potential life but not murder to refuse life saving treatment because the parent can't find $100 000 (for say leukaemia).

Would it be murder to not carry out a c-section on a mother who had no insurance or means to pay, or to not carry out monitoring in case of reduced movements.

When the pro "life" movement start supporting affordable health care in the US, they might start to have a point.

This argument is less valid in the UK obviously...

If you care so much about the 'potential human life' that is a fetus, you need to be campaigning for better-funded, more accessible maternity care to start with. And better-funded childcare, housing and education, and all the things that will help those babies and children have better lives.
And access to contraception, and good sex education that teaches young people about consent and pleasure, so that fewer women and girls end up pregnant when they didn't want to be pregnant.

But I don't think I've ever met an anti-choice activist (a different category from those who spout unthinking sentimental nonsense about how 'selfish' some women are to seek terminations but generally mind their own business) who had any interest at all in the wellbeing of pregnant women, babies and children other than ensuring women have as little control over their own lives and bodies as possible.

iolaus - maybe because they see the baby as an innocent life and the convict as guilty of a crime punishable by death?

Randoms - yes, I can’t understand some people’s attitude to healthcare in the US. People who go to church every Sunday and then turn their backs on people in need.

I have a lot of friends and family members (particularly my SIL) who are pro life. They're not trying to control women, a lot of them support organisations that help women who are struggling with an unplanned pregnancy. They simply firmly believe that the foetus is already a living baby whose life should be protected.

The friend I work with has a lot of experience dealing with Central Asian women, many of whom have been through multiple abortions, one lady had had 14 abortions. Terminations are used as birth control there. Women are dragged to the clinic by mothers in law. So not the woman's choice at all in many cases. Understandably, this has coloured her view about the issue. She's definitely not looking to control women's lives.

No doubt, some are out to control women, but it's not a view I've personally encountered, even in evangelical churches in this country. Some people have a very simplistic understanding of the issue, but I wouldn't say their concern is controlling women. I actually don't think they've thought about it beyond the fact that they've been taught to see a foetus as a life in its own right.

There does appear to be more of a controlling attitude towards women in the US from what I've read. There are a lot of women who hold that view, too, curiously. But then, as we've seen on other threads, women can be very judgemental of other women.

ReanimatedSGB Really? I can see why your opinion might be tarnished if those are the only people you have met. There are actually several pro-life organisations that care very much about the welfare of women and children offering counselling, accommodation, help with childcare, education and careers etc.

The problem is that the alternative to allowing women to control their own fertility (and that includes both free access to contraception and to abortion, as well as fighting patriarchal attitudes to sex and women’s sexuality, ensuring an adequate support system for mothers and children etc) is controlling women. If you aren’t allowing women to control their own fertility in those ways, you are controlling them. Of course the irony is that the more women are trusted with their own fertility, the fewer abortions take place