Why use the term pro-life to describe foes of abortion rights? They are typically not always pro life, as many of them support anti-life things like the death penalty and invasions and occupations of other countries, using bombs, missiles, and guns, none of which can be described as pro-life. They are anti-abortion, which I realize is a few more syllables, but a much more accurate description.

I use the term anti-choice. I think it better describes it.

Smart thinking, we should start spreading the term anti-choice around. It might actually change which side some people are on.

Yes, I'm being 100 percent serious. The reason they are called "pro-life" is because they chose the name, and its really a smart name. Think about it, if you're not "pro-life" then what are you? I'm 100 percent sure that many in this country chose to side with anti-choice when they heard that the anti-choice people were "pro-life".

good point!

shusaku, the banana industry calls bananas "quite possibly, the world's most perfect food" (and they even trademarked that term). As you may have noticed, the rest of the world still calls them bananas. So the anti-abortion forces want to be called pro-life, just like the people who write laws to allow increased levels of pollution call their legislation "clear skies". Why does the media have to go along with this kind of misrepresentation (I'm being generous)? Aren't they capable of filtering disingenuous (generous again) PR?

The people who want to stop babies from being born into horrible lives are free to call themselves pro-life. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to go along with them. We'll understand Palin's position on abortion clearly if she is referred to as "anti-abortion".

So 'pro-choice' people didn't deliberately choose that name because it sounds good either?

Go ahead and start trying to spread around 'anti-abortion' as a replacement for 'pro-life.' I'll see you and raise you to replacing 'pro-choice' to 'pro-vacuuming-out-and-destroy­ing-fetuses.'

For the record, I am in favor of safe and legal abortion. But you guys seem to be accusing only the pro-life movement of using marketing strategies to make themselves sound good. Everyone does that.

Personally, I've always been fascinated by the conspicuously-truncated "woman's right to choose."

To choose what? Socks?

Pro-choice: that means pro-murder. Let's call it what it is. A baby has a heartbeat after 2 weeks. A woman is murdering her baby; if she was pregnant and murdered, the criminal would be charged for 2 murders so why is it ok for the mother to murder her baby. If the husband didn't want the baby and murdered the wife, the Democrats would be outraged and call it murder but still it is ok for a mother to murder her unborn. No one has the right to take that unborn life and it is still life even if it isn't living outside of the body yet. The majority of abortions are done as birth-control. Why can't a woman use her intelligence and practice birth control instead then she wouldn't be faced with the dilema of murder. The Democrats need to set up programs to help with birth control and distribute birth-control instead and stop murderering innocent children. Some women don't want to face the consequences of their sexual escapedes; their thinking is well I'll just murder the baby and then off they go again till they get pregnant again. And before you get hostile, I'm not talking about women who are raped; they are not given the choice if not getting pregnant but it is also not the baby's fault. Either keep the baby to full-term and keep it or give the baby for adoption. There are many women who would love to have a baby. Just don't call abortion pro-choice. The baby is not getting a choice; it is being murdered.

Apparently God doesn't think so.

In Exodus 21:22-25 we read that if a man accidentally kills a pregnant woman, that man should be condemned for committing murder. However, if he only kills the fetus - that is, if she miscarries - he is not condemned for murder. Clearly, then, God does not consider the pre-born fetus as being the same as a human being, in which case the Commandment of "Thou Shalt Not Kill (a human)" does not apply.

Yes, the ideal "choice" would be adoption and birth control. We, as a country should make every effort to educate women, as well as men, on the consequences of sex. We should also creat programs for distributing birth control...but I think we already have a program like that. It's called Planned Parenthood. Yeah they perform abortions, but they also educate.

You are misreading the verses; it says if men are striving with each other, that means fighting, and an innocent woman with child gets hurt and loses her child, then they won't be tried since it is is an accident. Women who abort or murder their children outright aren't doing it accidently like a miscarriage, but are intentionally chosing to murder that baby. These woman are making a decision for themselves only; they are not doing it for the baby. As I said, most of the abortions if you check the statistics, are for birth control purposes. I used to feel differently when I was young and naive, that I had a right to do with my body as I saw fit but I Cor. 3:16-17 say differently; your bodies are a temple of God and the spirit of God lives in you. If anyone defiles or destroys God's home, God will destroy him/her for God's home is holy and clean and you are that home. Verses 18 and on states to stop fooling yourselves and think you are more intelligent than God. God's uses man's 'own' brillance to trap him and he falls on his wisdom and fails. God knows full well how the human mind reasons and how foolish and futile it is. God has you in mind even before you are born and he creates all life.

Mankind likes to think they know more than God but they don't. When they face God in judgement and all mankind will whether saved or not. I don't want to have to answer for murder, whether an innocent baby or anyone else. I am far from perfect as all humans are; all people sin. I ust won't have a murder of an innocent child on my hands.