“usually favoring “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion” simply because it’s the purest representation”

Problem with “pro-abortion” is that some people take it to mean “pro abortion as the default option in every case”. They can’t see that there’s a difference between “women should have the choice to seek abortion if they need it” and “we must get rid of all the fetuses in the world and not let anyone have any babies ever.”

I’m pleased Ms. Miers had such a good career, more power to her. Your post makes several important points, I feel, and gives much food for thought. She’s an anti though, and an unknown factor. i don’t support her at all for the post. By the same token I’d not support any of the other nominees either.

Bo Diddly – yeah, I read Trudy Camping’s statement of opposition to the ERA – one of her objections was that the ERA could eliminate protections of women (such as statutory rape laws or alimony) instead of extending them to men, too; she recommended less sweeping state laws to amend sex discrimination.

I, too, dislike the “usual” names associated with the debate, usually favoring “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion” simply because it’s the purest representation, without getting overly “wordy” (to truly portray the debate, one would have to be for or against legal elective abortion, and there’s no way to express all that in a convenient package, not to mention the first, second, or third trimester or late-term compartmentalization).

When I use the term pro-abortion, I am simply shorthanding to refer to the efforts of those who want to preserve the legality of elective abortion, and I refer to those opposed to that situation by use of the term anti-abortion.

The ERA’s problems arose from the measure being too broad to not allow for radical applications of the amendment. Certainly, on the surface, treating men and women as equals under the law would garner little, if any, opposition, but the ERA was worded such that projections of extreme complications weren’t impossible (no matter how unlikely they were). A re-written ERA that more clearly outlined its purpose (to guarantee equality in legal matters, to prohibit overt or covert discrimination based upon sex in the processes of government, and to insure that no laws are passed expressing preferential treatment of either sex) would likely pass without much quibbling, although the necessity of that amendment would be debatable considering the current expanse of anti-discrimination laws.

Also, it’s been my experience that some feminists are witches, though they’ve been quite proud of the fact. :-)

But the reasons that I oppose the terms anti-choice and pro-abortion is because they are somewhat insulting and an attempt to, in my opinion, dissemble, to frame another group as having motives they may not necessarily have. Anti-choice frames pro-life people as controlling misogynists (when they may honestly see abortion as murder, not a choice), pro-abortion frames pro-choice people as encouraging women to have abortions (when they may be more concerned with keeping women’s options open, not caring whether they exercise that option or not).

I admit I was overly general and I apologize for offense/confusion.

Why would you make such broad generalizations towards conservatives, while you’d be offended to the highest degree at someone offering any type of stereotypical characterization of women?

Is it impossible to talk about politics without casting penumbras of implication around one’s words?

That’s pretty rich, coming from the person who not three minutes earlier said conservatives don’t want women working outside the home and think feminists are witches. Talk about casting implications…