|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have total control over her fertility and pregnancy. This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights, which includes access to sexual education; access to safe and legal abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments; and legal protection from forced abortion. Individuals and organizations who support these positions make up the pro-choice movement. Pro-choice activists believe that women should have access to safe and legal abortion and, equally, that women should be protected from forced abortions. Some see abortion as a last resort, and focus on a number of situations where they feel abortion is a necessary option. Among these situations are those where the woman was raped, her health or life (or that of the fetus) is at risk, contraception was used but failed, or she feels unable to raise a child. Some pro-choice moderates, who would otherwise be willing to accept certain restrictions on abortion, feel that political pragmatism compels them to oppose any such restrictions, as they could be used to form a slippery slope against all abortions.[1] Pro-choice activists frequently oppose legislative measures that would require abortion providers to make certain statements (some of which are factually disputed) to patients, because they argue that these measures are intended to make obtaining abortions more difficult. These measures fall under the rubric of abortion-specific "informed consent" or "right to know" laws.[2] On the issue of abortion, pro-choice campaigners are opposed by pro-life campaigners who argue that the central issue is a completely different set of rights. The pro-life view considers human fetuses and embryos to have the full legal rights of a human being; thus, the right to life of a developing fetus or embryo trumps the woman's right to bodily autonomy.
OverviewPro-choice advocates emphasize their beliefs that having a child is a personal choice about their own body and personal health, and that both parents' and children's lives are better when the government allows abortions to women, thus preventing women from going to desperate lengths to achieve illegal abortion, while simultaniously assuring that a larger percentage of the children born are wanted by their parents. More broadly, pro-choice advocates frame their beliefs in terms of "individual liberty," "reproductive freedom," and "reproductive rights," the first term was widely used to describe many of the political movements of the 19th and 20th centuries (such as in the abolition of slavery in Europe and the United States, and in the spread of popular democracy), whereas the latter terms derive from changing perspectives on sexual freedom and bodily integrity. Pro-choice individuals often do not consider themselves "pro-abortion" because they consider abortion an issue of bodily autonomy, and find forced abortion as legally indefensible as the outlawing of abortion. Indeed, some who are pro-choice consider themselves opposed to some or all abortions on a moral basis, but believe that abortion bans imperil women's health. Some argue that while they would not advocate an individual case of abortion, a general right to abortion is a principle that must be defended in a liberal democracy. Others have a practical acceptance of abortion, arguing that abortions would happen in any case but that legal abortion under medically controlled conditions is preferable to illegal back-alley abortion without proper medical supervision. Many pro-choice campaigners also argue that pro-life policies would deny women access to comprehensive sex education and contraception, thus increasing, not decreasing, demand for abortion. Proponents of this argument point to cases of areas with limited sex education and contraceptive access that have high abortion rates, either legal, illegal or de facto exported (i.e., where a high proportion of abortions from a state occur outside that state in another country with a more liberal abortion regime). The Irish women who visit the United Kingdom for abortions are one example, as were the Belgian women travelled to France (before Belgium liberalised its own laws).[3] As with many issues involving political framing, these claims are controversial. Pro-choice campaigns worldwide
Image:March.jpg Pro-Choice activists before the Washington Monument in Washington, DC, at the March for Women's Lives in 2004. United StatesPrior to 1973, abortion was not subject to United States constitutional law, but was purely a matter for the individual states in the United States, all of whom chose to apply some nature of restriction. The first legal restrictions on abortion appeared in the 1820s, forbidding abortion after the fourth month of pregnancy. By 1900, legislators at the urgings of the American Medical Association had enacted anti-abortion laws in most US states.[4] In its landmark 1973 case, Roe v. Wade where a woman challenged the Texas laws criminalising abortion the US Supreme Court reached two important conclusions.
Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America are the leading pro-choice advocacy and lobbying groups in the United States. Most major feminist organizations also support pro-choice positions. In the United States, the Democratic Party's platform endorses the pro-choice position, stating that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare".[6] Not all Democrats agree with the platform, however, and there is growing support in Congress and among rank-and-file members for Democrats for Life of America.[7] Although the 2004 Republican platform is pro-life, advocating a Human Life Amendment to the constitution banning abortion,[8] there are several nationally prominent Republicans who identify themselves as pro-choice, including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, New York Governor George Pataki and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Image:Psraborto.jpg Revolutionary Socialist Party poster from Portugal. Translation: "Neither the Pope, nor the judges, nor the police; the women will decide - free and gratuitous abortion." EuropeIn the United Kingdom, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are predominantly pro-choice parties, though with significant minorities in each either holding extremely restrictive definitions of the right to choose, or subscribing to a pro-life analysis. The Conservative Party is more evenly split between both camps. Most states have legalised abortion (in at least some cases) either through laws (the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, etc) or through court rulings (eg the Republic of Ireland,[9]). Russia, which has one of the highest rates of abortion in the world, legalised the procedure in 1955.[10] AfricaSouth Africa allows abortion under its Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1996. Most African nations, however, have abortion bans except in cases where the woman's life or health is at risk. A number of pro-choice international organizations have made altering abortion laws and expanding family planning services in sub-Saharan Africa and the developing world a top priority.[11]
WorldwideImage:AbortionLawsMap.png International status of abortion law Legal on demand Legal for rape, maternal life, health, mental health, socioecomic factors, and/or fetal defects Legal for or illegal with exception for rape, maternal life, health, fetal defects, and/or mental health Illegal with exception for rape, maternal life, health, and/or mental health Illegal with exception for maternal life, health, and/or mental health Illegal with no exceptions Varies by region No information The issue of abortion remains one of the most divisive in public life, with most political parties in democracies divided on the issue, and continuing battles to liberalise or restrict access to legal abortion. Pro-choice groups are active in all states, campaigning for legal abortion with varying degrees of success. Few states allow abortion without limitation or regulation, but most do allow various limited forms of abortion. Pro-choice campaigners themselves are frequently divided as to the types of abortion that should be available, and whether the right to choose should be unrestricted or restricted, and if the latter, then to what level.
Term controversyPro-choiceThe Oxford English Dictionary lists the usage of "pro-choice" at least as early as 1975, around the time when the question of the legality of abortion became increasingly discussed after Roe v. Wade (the term "choice" is used to describe options towards abortion in the case as well). Pro-choice vs Pro-lifeBoth "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are examples of political framing: they are terms which purposely try to define their philosophies in the best possible light, while by definition attempting to describe their opposition in the worst possible light ("Pro-choice" implies the alternative viewpoint is "anti-choice", while "pro-life" implies the alternative viewpoint is "pro-death" or "anti-life"). Similarly each side's use of the term "rights" ("reproductive rights", "right to life of the unborn") implies a validity in their stance, given that the presumption in language is that rights[12] are inherently a good thing and so implies an invalidity in the viewpoint of their opponents. Pro-life and pro-choice individuals often use political framing to convey their perspective on the issues, and in some cases, to discredit opposing views. Pro-life advocates tend to use terms such as "mother", "unborn child", "unborn baby", "pre-born infant" or infanticide.[13] Pro-choice advocates tend to use terms such as "zygote", "embryo" or "fetus". References
Sources & additional readingBooks
Articles & Journals
See also
|
Sites |
Searched sites for "Pro-choice" |
|
No sites found. |
Sorry, no matching site records were found. |
Want your site listed here?
|
||||||||||||||
