Pro-abortion meaning that the focus of the right isn't on a woman to control her own body, but rather on the right of the woman to terminate a pregnancy (ie: "right to abort").
Those would be one and the same. Unless she has the right to terminate a pregnancy, she doesn't actually have control over her own body.
No. They're not the same thing. In the same way that the right to defend yourself from injury may cover shooting and killing someone, is utterly different from a right to shoot and kill someone. Termination of a pregnancy is an action which may result from the right to control one's body and health. It is not itself a right. Because, as I thought I clearly explained above, once you define that action as a right, you get people trying to rationalize why anything which may infringe that right must be wrong (like that pesky 3rd trimester viable baby).
A right to abort would include doing so at any point in the pregnancy. A right to control one's body/health (actually a privacy right), does not. That's a pretty critical difference. And one that speaks directly to the limits placed in the Roe v. Wade decision. Specifically:
Roe v Wade wrote:
Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute, and is subject to some limitations; and that, at some point, the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.
There is, nor has there ever been a "right to abort". That the language has changed such that so many people today think so, is exactly what I'm talking about. Most people who identify themselves as pro-choice, and who hail the Roe v Wade decision, have never read it, and have no clue what it actually says. They honestly believe that it codified an absolute right of the woman to terminate a pregnancy, and argue (quite passionately) for that right. It did not, does not, and anyone arguing that it does is just flat out wrong.
When I talk about pro-abortion, I'm speaking about those who actually think that the act of aborting a fetus is itself a right. And, as I just said, the number of such (extremely ignorant) people has grown to an alarming number.
Sounds like an imaginary distinction made up solely so you can yell "Pro-Abortion!" because you don't like the optics of being against "choice".
No. It's an understanding that the law supports my position on the issue, but not the position that many others have adopted, primarily because they mistakenly think that there is an actual right to abort. Hence, why I pointed out the distinction. It's not imaginary, it's written into the freaking decision. Just read it.
"Pro-abortion" by any rational reading of the word would be someone who was actually advocating directly for abortion. Not merely for the choice to be there, but for abortion as the primary and hopefully sole choice, just as someone "pro-life" would argue exclusively for the pregnancy to be carried to term.
Interesting, so when people call themselves "pro guns", they aren't just talking about protecting the right to bear/own a firearm, but that everyone must bear and own one? Cause that's not actually true. We're talking specifically within the context of rights here (or at least I am), so when someone talks about being pro something, they're talking about the right in question. A pro-life person is talking about the right of the fetus to live. A pro-choice person is talking about the right of the woman to make choices with her own body (which in context includes abortion). A pro-abortion person is therefore talking about the right of the woman to have an abortion. Seems quite logical and consistent to me.
Pro-life doesn't mean advocating for making babies, just as pro-abortion isn't about advocating the abortion of pregnancy. Both are about rights. I get that you're trying to wedge the round peg of language into the square hole of whatever angle you're working at, but it doesn't make any sense. We're talking about rights here, not actions.