“Choice”: The Word’s Meanings and (Mis)uses

Posted on September 16, 2025 By Rachel MacNair

by Ms. Boomer-ang

Society has developed the habit of calling people who support abortion “pro-choice” and people who oppose abortion “anti-choice.” But “pro-choice” is too narrow a term for abortion supporters, and “anti-choice” is too broad a term for me.

”Anti-choice” means a woman has no choice on whether to carry a pregnancy to term, and she must obey orders to abort as strictly as orders to keep the pregnancy. An example of pro-abortion “anti-choice” are supremacist groups that require women to carry to term all healthy babies of purely the “right” race but requires them to abort all “flawed” or “racially impure” babies. By calling me “anti-choice,” they are lumping me with these groups. Some groups might also require all women to abort their first pregnancy, to show they are willing to sacrifice.

Meanwhile, we hear people who call themselves “pro-choice” advocating unrestricted baby-killing but not unrestricted baby-sparing.

If laws and customs were really “pro-choice,” then:

Any law enshrining the “right” of a pregnant woman to abortion would also enshrine the “right” of a pregnant woman to carry her pregnancy to term.

Any law specifying the “right” of a dependent to have an abortion against the wishes of her parent or guardian would also unambiguously specify her “right” to carry a pregnancy to term against the wishes of her parent, guardian, or social worker.

Any law or ruling giving a woman the “right” to abortion against her husband’s will would also unambiguously give her the right to carry a pregnancy to term against her husband’s will.

Any law or ruling requiring doctors who refuse to abort to give women a list of doctors who will abort her baby would also require doctors who perform abortions or recommend abortion to give women a list of doctors who will support her carrying her pregnancy to term.

Any law or ruling requiring crisis pregnancy centers to post lists of abortion facilities would also require abortion facilities to post lists of crisis pregnancy centers.

All measures making things hard for crisis pregnancy centers would make things equivalently hard for abortion providers.

Any law criminalizing (in some specific circumstances) trying to dissuade a woman from having an abortion would also criminalize (in equivalent circumstances) trying to pressure her to have an abortion.

Voluntarily carrying to term a pregnancy conceived by an enemy soldier in rape would not be considered treason.

Treatment to reverse abortion pills would be legal, at least for woman who have been given that pill by fraud.

Women and girls would not be given abortion pills or morning after pills without their informed consent. Policy Analyst Leslie Corbly observes that “protecting broad open access to abortion pills” protects not choice but coercion.

Schools, employers, and social service providers would not require women and girls to take morning after or abortion pills. Nor would they allow ridicule of those who refuse them.

Preference in awards, job promotions, and job hirings would not be given to women who have had abortions and their spouses.

Any policy providing free abortions would also provide free pre-natal care and free birth for those planning to spare their child’s life.

Health care providers would not be allowed to electronically sign a woman’s name requesting or agreeing to an abortion without the woman’s knowledge and consent. At least once, when a woman refused to abort a “flawed” baby, an obstetrician called her in for an emergency appointment and presented her with documents agreeing to an abortion, with her signature already added to them, as a fait accompli. (This has implications beyond the abortion issue. Adding signatures electronically without the signer’s knowledge warrants an essay of its own.)

Women would be able to place babies for adoption, without requiring permission from the biological father. And once finding out about the baby’s birth, the biological father would not be able to get the adoption annulled and make the woman take the baby back.

Women would not be punished, sued, or criminally prosecuted for carrying pregnancies to term.

There would be no laws or policies summarily condemning any group of babies to abortion (or infanticide). A September 2025 Google search ran into Artificial Intelligence (AI) claiming “no government or legal system has a policy that forbids a person from carrying a pregnancy to term.” Though this is encouraging, it is not clear if it meant only national central government, regardless of local governments. It is common knowledge that over the past half century, for varying periods of time, some countries had laws and policies against having more than a certain number of biological children or having deformed children. AI claims that (fortunately) maximum family size measures have been rescinded in specific Asian countries, but it acknowledges that some states in India deny or are considering denying government jobs to women who bear more than two children and husbands who stay married to them.

In the US, no state (yet) has a law directly summarily condemning certain babies to abortion, but forced abortions occur on a case by case basis.

In addition, the policies of privately supplied essential programs and services can have feel de facto like laws. Furthermore, identity groups have their own acceptance policies.

Moreover, social pressure is powerful. Legalizing takes away stigma, and taking away stigma increases pressure. In Iceland, pre-natal screening “tests are optional,” but almost 100% of babies found before birth to have Downs Syndrome are aborted. In Denmark, the percent is 98. In the United States, the percent has been reported as only 67% by one source and about 80% by another source, and that might be partially because non-conformity is tolerated more here.

Whose choice do those calling themselves pro-choice want to prevail? The pregnant woman’s always, when she wants to abort, but only sometimes, when she wants to carry the pregnancy to term? Regardless of her financial status, abilities and disabilities, IQ, age, genes, medical needs, family members’ needs, number of already-born live children, and other demographics? Even if she cannot prove long-term devotion to a religious denomination that opposes abortion? Are there cases when they would go along with requiring the woman’s significant others, the biological father, his significant others, social workers, sponsors, and guardians to approve before she can carry a pregnancy to term?

Could the word “choice” be heading to mean the authority to condemn another individual to death? (Even if more than one person has the “right of choice” over the same individual?) The possibility is a reason to use the word cautiously.

Rather than use the word “choice,” one should use more direct descriptions like: “pro-abortion,” “pro-abortion, but only if voluntary,” “pro voluntary and mandatory abortions,” “pro-abortion only when mandated or expected,” “anti-abortion,” and “anti-abortion, while pro giving women support, to help them and raise their children.”

=========================================

See more of our posts reflecting on the meaning of the word “choice”:

When “Choice” Itself Hurts the Quality of Life

No Combat Experience, No Opinion: Parallels in Pro-bombing and Pro-choice Rhetoric

“Trust Landlords”: Pro-Choice Candidate Supports Eviction Rights

Misleading and Distracting Language on Abortion

Is an Embryo More Important than a Woman? /