Academic

By Tung Yin

A Portland resident writes in today's Oregonian:

Either Chris Dudley is or is not pro-choice. To be pro-choice a candidate for governor must support laws that assure full access to reproductive health services. Dudley says he is open to restrictions to these services. He says he is pro-choice, yet he says he opposes age-appropriate, scientifically accurate health education. Dudley is not pro-choice. (emphasis added)

Is this really how being "pro-choice" is defined, that you cannot support any restrictions on the right to abortion?  People are free to define their terms however they like, but requiring rejection of any restrictions on abortion as the definition of "pro-choice" would make an overwhelming majority of the U.S. population not-pro-choice.  According to this polling report, which includes 2010 surveys, anywhere from 60-66% of the population would be pro-life under this letter writer's definition.  On the other hand, if one defines pro-choice more broadly as supporting the right to abortion in at least some circumstances, then the picture is flipped: only 18-26% of the population would be pro-life.

It seems to me that in the rhetorical battle over abortion rights, it's better to be inclusive rather than exclusive.  Saying that nearly 4 out of 5 people are pro-choice, even if it's an understanding of choice that admits the possibility of some restrictions, sounds a lot better than saying only 30-40% of people are pro-choice.

Full post as published by The Yin Blog on October 28, 2010 (boomark / email).