And I think that PRO-life is an apt term as well except that most, high profile, in-the-news pro-lifers exclusively deal with abortion. They only seem to care about the life of the fetus and once that child is born, the pro-lifer no longer seems to care. They don’t argue for adoption or campaign to make adoption easier or (God forbid) adopt the baby themselves! They want the mother to have the baby and raise the baby by herself (but the single Mom must “get a job” and get off welfare) without the pro-lifer’s help.

And that’s where I take issue. Pro-lifers can call themselves anything they want, I don’t care. It’s what they protest and what they ignore that matters.

However, my perception of the pro-life / pro-choice activists is that this is not exactly the case. Pro-abortionists and Anti-abortionists have a PR problem in that “abortion”, whatever your stance, is not a pleasant, feel-good, save the world topic. (Typical reaction: Yuck, I think I’ll change the channel.)

This is especially true for the PRO abortionists, so (if I remember correctly) they made the first move – not PRO abortion, but PRO CHOICE. “Choice” IS a pleasant, feel-good concept.

The anti-abortionists countered (again, if I remember right) with PRO LIFE. Once again, “Life” is a pleasant, feel-good, save-the-world concept.

Neither was primarily or principly pro CHOICE or LIFE. They were, and are, fighting about abortion. But by using euphemisms for their stance they dragged in all sorts of peripheral issues (especially the pro-lifers) that they were, and are, unprepared to deal with very well.

But having done so, I think it is fair to challenge them on it, and to ask for a broader, more socially responsible response to abortion.

Cheers.