There is a specific and relevant definition of 'anti-choice.'

[LanternWaste]

There is a specific and relevant definition of 'anti-choice.' I bring this up because too many people are pretending there is no one definition.

The Cambridge Dictionary spells it out clearly: opposing the idea that a pregnant woman should have the freedom to choose an abortion.

Re-read that if you have to. It projects the personal choice not to have an abortion onto everyone else. It projects a personal choice as a restriction on everyone else. On a personal level, I'm ambivalent about abortion, but as I'm not anti-choice, neither am I forcing that same ambivalence onto anyone else.

I thought this was basic, entry-level information. If you didn't know this fundamental Poli-Sci 1301 material before, now you know... and now you have no more excuses to misuse the word, regardless of whether you still do.

[janx]

1. THANK YOU!

Some ridiculous conversations are going on based on false definitions. It was driving me nuts. A person who is "anti choice" is a person who believes that abortion should be

against the law.

[angrychair]

2. Golly gee thanks for the explanation

With all due respect you could not have said that in a more condescending tone if you tried. Your definition is NOT the issue.

Unless you are running for public office to hold the power to create and remove laws, your personally held beliefs are not an issue.

They are an issue once you are running for public office.

It says little of a person's convictions, their closely held values, if you do not act in their defense.

Once you are in office, those values take on a very different value, you are empowered to act on them.

Doesn't mean you would vote to overthrow Roe v Wade but you may be persuaded to compromise, a little of something "X" you want to vote to restrict access to reproductive healthcare options for minors or cut funding to PP just a little. Nothing earthshaking on it own maybe but just one more cut in the "death by a thousand cuts" to women's rights.

That is why it matters.

Be in women's rights, LGBT rights or immigration or social injustice.

Power.

The power to act on those beliefs changes everything.

[Scoopster]

9. No definition is absolutely the issue here.

There have been NUMEROUS threads here attempting to DEFINE Democratic party candidates as anti-choice & attacking the party, elected officials and groups of supporters as such.

There have been people claiming Harry Reid is anti-choice, when he is not. Like MANY Democrats he is personally against abortion, but in his official capacity as a Senator he was pro-choice because he didn't let his personal beliefs interfere with the work of the country.

I'm really sick and tired of the fucking party purity brigade. WE ARE NOT FUCKING REPUBLICANS TAKE THAT SHIT ELSEWHERE.

[angrychair]

10. Funny you should mention Senator Reid

He has done exactly what I said, used his position of power as a senator to impact a women's access to reproductive healthcare.

He has a very mixed record, which was my whole point. Though NARAL has him at 100% for 2016, NARAL gave him a 20% on the issue in 2008 and 2004.

The extremist National Right to Life gave him 55% in 2004 and 50% in 2005.

55% showed a significant desire to violate the rights women to access reproductive healthcare.

Reference link: https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/53320/harry-reid#.WYTZPTRlCaM

He voted to continue the ban on abortions at overseas military bases.

He is allowed to feel any way he wants as a private citizen but he has abused his power to oppress women when it suited him and that should never be acceptable.


Harry Reid is the perfect example of my point, using their power as a senator to enforce their personal values to oppress the rights of women.

[Weekend Warrior]

3. Thank you. You pick your words with purpose.

Something we should all strive to do better.

[DoodAbides]

4. Excellent Op. nt

[niyad]

5. welcome to du

[DoodAbides]

6. Thanks. Ready for 2018? I am. We have work to do. I am in a very liberal blue.

We think 2018 is going to be right there with a GE in importance, which is interesting in itself.

[GeorgeGist]

7. Isn't Poli-Sci 1301 ...

a graduate level course?

[Scoopster]

8. I was about to post a thread about exactly this.

You can be personally against abortion and STILL be vigorously pro-choice & pro-women's health.

[Binkie The Clown]

11. +1000 Absolutely!

I've beat my head against the wall trying to point this out to people whose box of crayons only includes black and white.

[mopinko]

12. imho, the proper frame is- who decides?

does the woman decide, or do we give that power to someone else?
the government?
parents?
spouses?
doctors?

anything but the person who OWNS that pregnant body is a slippery slope.
the only place to draw the line is at zero.