Those who support the continued availability of legal abortion often object to being labeled "pro-abortion" and insist on calling their opponents "anti-choice." In the early years of the political debate over abortion, the sides were often simply referred to as "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion." That has always seemed to me the least euphemistic way to describe the positions. But the supporters of Roe v Wade felt that "pro-abortion" put them at a rhetorical disadvantage and argued that they didn't favor the act - they merely wanted it to be an available legal choice for mothers and their doctors. Carl Olson at Insight Scoop answers a correspondent who accuses him of being "overly simplistic" in equating "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion" in "'Pro-choice' vs. 'Pro-abortion'? Or, 'Pro-choice' = 'Pro-abortion'?" Part of his argument uses as an analogy the issue of slavery:
...[W]hich of the following could reasonably be considered "pro-slavery"?:Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog: "Pro-choice" vs. "Pro-abortion"? Or, "Pro-choice" = "Pro-abortion"?
These actions and stances are all "pro-slavery"—that is, they each, in various ways, are in favor of the practice and reality of slavery even though not all of them are based on the belief that everyone in a certain group or class of society should have slaves. Put another way, the merely complacent position of believing that slavery is alright for some people can be fairly construed as being "pro-slavery," even if the person with that perspective never acts upon it. But if they do act upon it and work actively for the right to own slaves, etc., there can be no doubt that they support slavery and are thus "pro-slavery." ....
- Believing that slavery should be enforced on a certain group of people. (Yes, obviously.)
- Supporting the right of others to be able to have slaves if they choose so. (I would say so.)
- Insisting that the decision to have slaves is a matter for the potential slave owner to decide for himself and that such a decision should be protected by law. (Again, I would say so.)
- Demanding that the government should not be involved in keeping people from having slaves if they so choose, and supporting legislation to that end. (Yes, without a doubt)
...[R]eturning to the analogy of slavery: imagine that someone who described themselves as "pro-choice" when it came to slavery supported legislation with the following language:A man's decision to buy, trade for, own, and control a slave is a personal choice. As such, decisions regarding slavery are best made by certain men, in consultation with other slave owners or trusted associates, without governmental interference. A government may not--He may call himself "pro-choice" when it comes to slavery. I may call him "pro-slavery." Regardless, this much would be clear: the white man/slave owner would enjoy rights, protection, and moral status, while the slave would not. The slave, in fact, would be legally considered either non-human or sub-human, and that legal status would mean a life of subjection, denied the basic rights due every person. ....
(1) deny or interfere with a man's right to choose--
(A) to buy and own a slave;
(B) to sell a slave for financial gain or
(C) to terminate a slave where termination is necessary to protect the physical life or financial health of the slave owner and his family
Those who call themselves "pro-choice" do so because they support the right to choose death for unborn children. They are "pro-abortion." .... [more]