by 
Part of the problem with the labels that people in the abortion debate apply to themselves is that they are somewhat fluid. Not so much that their definitions change, but that the connotation behind the word causes people to want to take the words and apply them to themselves.
When it comes to the label “Pro-Choice”, not many have a problem with adoption or child birth, but it’s the “option” of abortion that really is the difference—hence the reason I equate “Pro-Choice” with “Pro-Abortion.” On the other side, people that would personally not abort their own baby in the womb but support other’s rights to do so believe that they are “Pro-Life” personally, but “Pro-Choice” for everyone else.
What’s Behind the Label
The key, I believe, is always what’s behind the label. In the case of “Pro-Life”, what is behind the label is a certain belief about that life in the womb. The foundation of the movement is that life starts when fertilization occurs, and that it is wrong to take away that life.
When someone says they’re personally “Pro-Life” but “Pro-Choice” for others, they are logically inconsistent. Why? Because if they are “Pro-Life” personally, why are they “Pro-Life”? Why don’t they too have a choice?
The point is, just as I could go around saying that I was “Pro-Choice”—just not for abortion, when someone says that they are personally “Pro-Life” they are also logically inconsistent and not using the terms in a guileless manner.
So What’ll It Be?
This is why I encourage you to label yourselves as what you are—don’t seek to do anything else. If you have a problem labeling yourself “Pro-Choice” because you’d personally not kill that baby in your womb, then it’s time for you to do some serious introspection to find what you really believe about life.
How about I say I’m pro-choice, and as such, I choose to be pro-life. It’s appalling to me that people want to abort their own babies.
But I started from a choice, and regardless of what direction I went in, I respect other peoples’ choice to go down another path. Doesn’t mean they’re not Christians, or that they’re bad people – Murderers.
Just means that everyone needs to work harder to educate children about these things, and hopefully, one day soon – everyone will be ‘voluntarily’ pro-life.
The problem is that your statements are inherently contradictory. Why is it appalling to you that people want to abort their babies? What is it that you believe about the baby that makes it wrong or distasteful for you to kill your child?
If it’s that it is a baby and it is alive, does that change simply because it’s another person’s baby inside of another person?
It’s like saying, during the time of the Civil War, that it’s ok if the South had slaves and you have a servant. You made one choice and they made another.
Was slavery ever right?
What do you call a person that kills another if not a murderer?
They don’t really consider they’re murdering a live person. And there’s billions of people on the planet who share this belief. You cannot just ignore the values (or lack thereof) of such a big part of humanity.
Only way to end this argument is to accept that you have to work with them to reduce the scale of the problem. And branding them as murderers is not really a constructive way to start bringing people over to your side.
The question is a question of perspective. I’m asking what you believe, not what they believe. Obviously they don’t believe they’re murdering a live person– but if you’re “personally pro-life” then you do. I’m attempting to make the point not about what they believe, but about what you believe. If you believe that life begins at conception, then you can’t be “pro-choice” because that means favoring choice. If you’re working toward having fewer abortions because you believe that it’s murder, you’re pro-life (promoting life), not pro-choice (promoting having the choice for abortion.
Solving the problem does not mean encouraging the problem to continue, but it’s a whole different topic than what a person believes.
@Ling
Just because one doesn’t believe they’re killing a human being, doesn’t make it any less true. It’s either a live human being or it isn’t. Let’s say I show you a pot of boiling water. But you say, “I do not believe it is boiling,” (despite the fact that the water is bubbling, there’s steam rising, etc.) You can be as sincere and rooted in that belief as you want, but it would NOT alter the truth one iota. The water is boiling, case closed. It’s a fact, not an opinion.
This is an EXCELLENT article that it explains it much better than I ever could:
http://bluewavecanada.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-pro-choircers-argue.html