I think it's unfair that they use the term "anti-choice" for the people typically known as "pro-life". "Anti-choice" can equally well apply to people who are "anti-life".
(This is supposed to be clearly tongue-in-cheek.)
(This is supposed to be clearly tongue-in-cheek.)
Everyone likes life, and everyone likes having choices. It's disingenuous to assert that that's what the debate is about.
Ironically, many advocates of life at conception also are against sexual education and universal birth control, or in favor of promoting that abstaining from sexual relations should be the solution. This context makes it more about governing how women make choice regarding their bodies (in sexual manners and in conception manners) and largely insult men from those same consequences.
Please note that the law makes not allowance for incest or rape- so if one was a victim of these crimes, they would still be required to carry and deliver the child. A child in the case of incest that is likely to be genetically mutated such to lead to a life of suffering (for the child and those caring for them).
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/vol-23-no-1-hyperbole-01557...
I would absolutely expect someone who is pro-life to describe people who oppose them as anti-life. That’s their chosen framing of the issue. Pro-life sounds good — who could be anti life?
Same with pro-choice — who could be anti-choice?
It’s the reason why you don’t see people using the term “race realists” and just calling them racists.