After reading several posts wherein "anti-abortion" and "anti-choice" have been

[Atticus]

used interchangeably and treated as equivalents, I decided I should clearly state that I consider them VERY different.

Stated clearly: anti-choice means that you do not believe that a woman has the absolute right to control her own reproductive decisions. Anti-choice people, usually for vague "religious" reasons, insist that life begins as soon as two gametes unite to form a zygote and that the state has, not just the right, but the moral obligation, to protect that single cell.

Anti-abortion means that you, personally, don't approve of abortion, BUT---YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO IMPOSE YOUR VIEW ON OTHERS---Period.

We have a few Democrats who are anti-abortion AND pro-choice. NO ONE WHO IS NOT PRO-CHOICE SHOULD BE SUPPORTED BY ANY DEMOCRAT. As far as most of us are concerned, these people are not Democrats.

[Sinistrous]

1. This distinction must be made often and everywhere.

Thank you Atticus.

[hlthe2b]

2. I'd llikewise like to see us stop using the RW term "PRO-LIFE"--there's not a damned thing PRO-LIFE

about Republican reproductive and child health/welfare policies-- not to mention their pro-death penalty, pro-gun, pro-war, pro-violence and healthcare only for the rich attitudes.

I am staunchly pro-choice, pro-women, pro-privacy. My own personal thoughts on abortion have no bearing on that. Nor would I agree that I am pro-abortion though I am pro-access to abortion. Like most, I want women to have choices BEFORE pregnancy as well as after and in that, I surely am not wanting to promote more need for abortion by placing obstacles to reproductive planning.

[Binkie The Clown]

3. I don't understand why something so simple and obvious needs to be stated over and over.

You are correct, of course, but there seem to be a lot of people here on DU that remain willfully ignorant of that distinction. I don't know what more we can do but to repeat it over and over until those with thicker parietal bones finally get the message.

Ignorance is only bliss when everyone around you agrees to not challenge your ignorance with actual facts. There are a lot of angry people who would rather that facts didn't keep spoiling their bliss, and they get very angry when those facts are pointed out.

[uppityperson]

4. K&R

[UTUSN]

5. Point made & should be made permanently.

[loyalsister]

6. I don't see them as interchangable

But I disagree with your interpretation. This language has gotten to be too vague and flexible to be very useful.

When using a literal interpretation, anti-abortion to me suggests that a person opposes the procedure and wants it to be unavailable if not abolished entirely. Anti-choice to me would be wanting there to be no personal agency when it comes to a pregnancy.

Thus, a person can be anti abortion but favor the ability of a person to make any of the remaining choices. Alternately, a person could be pro-abortion and anti-choice if they favor the availability of the procedure but oppose allowing the woman to make a choice that reflects her preference for the outcome of a pregnancy.

We all know that people call themselves prolife and oppose providing food and healthcare to infants and children. There seems to be a growing awareness of flaws in the language we have been using. Maybe there is a possibility of opening a valuable dialogue by being open to learning more about the kind of thinking that is actually behind the language?