Why "Anti-Choice" is an Imprecise and Inaccurate Term when Debating Human Feticide

The reason some oppose the choice of human fetal abortion is not because they oppose choices; it is because they oppose feticide. If one opposes the choice of a man to hit his wife, is that person “anti-choice”? Of course not. The essence of opposing the choice of a man to hit his wife stems from an opposition to violence, not an opposition to choices. Likewise, the essence of opposition to feticide is not an opposition to choices, but an opposition to feticide.

By definition, someone who is "anti-choice" would be opposed to ALL choices whether they be about feticide, stealing, or eating food.

The core issue is not about choice any more than murder, slavery, and stealing are about choice. It is about what we do with living unborn human fetuses biologically developing inside and dependent on another human. Do these fetuses have rights and if so, what are they? Does the mother have rights and what are they? What do we do when these rights conflict? Do some rights take precedent over others? These are the significant questions.

Lastly, even the term “pro-choice” is misleading. It isn’t that those who are “pro-choice” support all choices (surely they don't support domestic violence); it is that they support the choice to abort a living human embryo or fetus. Opposing that choice isn't anti-choice; it is anti-embryocide, anti-feticide or pro-human life rights. Now that is precise, logical, and scientifically accurate.

The content on this website is free for republishing on the condition that credit be given to NotAntiChoice.com and its author David R. Schmidt.

Written 3/29/2009 by David R. Schmidt. david@NotAntiChoice.com