Please can we talk about what "pro choice" means?

[BertrandRussell]

Some threads on here, and coincidentally, a couple of real life conversations prompted by a recent television programme, have made me think that there is an attempt to erode the meaning of the term. For me, pro choice means that a woman should be able to have an abortion within the law because she wants to. Her reasons are immaterial.

Generally, I think it's reasonable to consider yourself pro-choice if you agree with abortion up until the foetus is viable

I'm glad to find someone else who would define my views as "pro-choice"!

DS was born at 35 weeks, perfectly healthy just small. The idea that instead of having some steroids and antibiotics before he was born, I could have chosen to take something that would have killed him instead... Well, I can't begin to go there.

I don't agree that women should get to make life and death choices (because by that point, DS was very much an alive being) just because.

I completely agree that where there are complications during pregnancy or birth, if something has to be done to save the mother that will harm the baby that is usually the correct course of action (thankfully, fathers are asked "Mother or baby?" far far less than in the past).

I worry that there are vulnerable women who very much want to keep their baby but would be forced into a termination if they didn't have the cut off date to provide protection against late term abortion.

I disagree that labouring and delivering a dead baby would provide "closure", whereas delivering a live baby who is given up for adoption would give the mother a life time of angst and emotional turmoil.

I agree that there needs to be more support in the early weeks, including scan and referrals that take account of pregnancy choices and make these viable in the most straightforward way possible.

User - why can't pro-choice mean under the current law? Because I think they're fine ((not that I'm God of laws ). Isn't that what we currently mean when we say pro-choice? When was it decided it had to mean to the end of the pregnancy? I honestly didn't realise that was what Pro-choice meant?

If we called it pro-options, would everyone be happier?

Or you could accept the intended meaning of the majority when they use the term which is how language usually works. Or accept it's the best fit.

"A lot of people equally seem to think 'pro-choice' means if I don't agree with the circumstances of your pregnancy, your lifestyle, your financial position, the number of you children you have, then I will look down on you/berate you/belittle you for choosing not to have an abortion. I've seen those types of views spouted on here plenty of times.
That's just as bad in my book."

That is such bollocks! I'm sorry- but nobody has said anything of the sort!!

Bertrand - I saw that yesterday. I won't name the poster, but I did see it. Actually, I think it was Monday. It wasn't nice. Never seen it before though so maybe a rogue arsehole?

It wasn't in any of the DS threads though.

Yes they have Bertrand I've seen it on plenty of threads, and been on the receiving under (under an old username).
Not this one, if that is what you think I meant?
I

There are, obviously, plenty of positions people can take up between "no abortion at all, ever" and "abortion on demand". But they can't be called "pro choice" can they?

I agree. Choice must be free if it is to exist at all.

'Conditional Pro-choice' versus 'Absolute Pro-choice?

I have never, ever in all my Mumsnet years, seen anyone berated and belittled for not having an abortion.

Let alone "a lot of people" doing it, as your post says.

Women do occasionally kill their children. Therefore we have legal protection for children and safety nets for children in danger of being harmed by a parent

Thats for children. Who are born, alive, and have the legal status of being a person. An foetus is none of those things, and my choice to stop whatever is growing in my body should be mine and mine alone, and have nothing to do with anyone else.

To clarify: there is nothing WRONG with being "pro-choice within the confines of the law as it currently stands and anti any change to that law". It's a perfectly valid, understandable, viewpoint, and a very common one.
But you do have to admit that you need to add the qualifiers, because pro-choice (without qualifying remarks) is NOT quite the same thing. That is simply a linguistic fact.

Come up with a new name for those people you won't allow to call themselves pro-choice then.

Inexplicably, they seem to be asking you if they are pro choice so tell them what they are and we can all move on.

This 'am I pro choice?' 'no!' ' gosh I thought I was pro choice and I seem to have been a forced birther all along!' could go on a while.

'Conditional Pro-choice' versus 'Absolute Pro-choice?

This works.

Come up with a new name for those people you won't allow to call themselves pro-choice then

Its not about ME to allowing it, its about how the English language works. I'll admit to some arrogance but I don't actually believe I get to decide what the words mean, they do that all by themselves!

Conditional Pro-choice, Abolute Pro-Choice and Pro-life (anti-choice).

I've seen plenty of "why did you even have children if you dump them in nursery / work abroad sometimes / choose to have a hobby that takes you out in the evening / do anything at all without your child in a sling until they are 17" type posts, but not "you should have had an abortion you idiot" posts

I disagree that 'Conditional Pro-choice' versus 'Absolute Pro-choice 'works', other than to validate someone else's judgement of a woman's health care decisions.

If you are 'pro-choice' then surely you are pro the right for individual women to make decisions about their own pregnancy (within the current legal framework, which you may or may not disagree with).

Who defines the 'conditions' in 'conditional pro-choice?

Not a catchy title though is it user?!

Do we expect people in favour of the death penalty to say 'I'm in favour of the death penalty for crimes of heinous magnitude where there has been huge loss of life and no remorse'? No because we assume that there will be a circumstantial context for the view.

I think this is more about feminists feeling that people of less extreme persuasions are pissing about with their terminology than any great semantic delicacy.

I'm in the 'as early as possible, as late as necessary' camp.

I trust women, that given free access to abortion, they will not wait until 38 weeks and abort on a whim if abortion is freely and easily available earlier (easier than it is now - it's not very hard in my area, but it could be better, and for people who aren't free to travel or who already have kids it must be extremely difficult).

Who is it here that says edge cases make for poor law? Talking about these hypothetical women who wait until the last moment doesn't help. Talking about the women with desperately wanted babies who will not survive outside the womb, or who have their own lives in extreme danger is what tells me that women need to be able to abort, and we shouldn't quibble, but should support and make it as easy for these women and their doctors as we can.

christina obviously the 'Conditional Pro-choice' label, to define views on abortion is a big catch all, encompassing both pretty conservative views to pretty liberal ones. What it does do, is allow a distinction for those that define their views as 'Pro-choice' within the law and those who are 'Pro-choice' beyond what the law allows for.

user A unborn child past the age of viability is a baby in every way, as anyone who has given birth to one can confirm. They are not defined by their location anymore than you're a different sort of being in a plane than you are on the ground.

Ok Bertrand, but the terms dog and bone spring to mind.

I am pro-choice (within the current limits) and feminist. Is that ok with you?

But women in your (also rare) circumstances are already catered for chocolate.

Who defines the 'conditions' in 'conditional pro-choice?

The person who considers themselves to be conditionally pro choice, of course.

user A unborn child past the age of viability is a baby in every way, as anyone who has given birth to one can confirm. They are not defined by their location anymore than you're a different sort of being in a plane than you are on the ground

Only in YOUR opinion, you need to understand this point. Not in mine, and I have given birth to several.
They are absolutely defined by their location in the most fundamental way: if they are outside a womans body they are a person, if they are on the inside they are not. You are not legally a person until the moment you are born.

And no-one has answered whether I am pro-life, despite having had an abortion, because I agree with the current limits?

Seeing as I would be perceived as a loon if I described myself as "pro-choice with conditions" to anyone outside mn, what does that make me according to how most people understand the term pro-choice?