Since abortion has been legalized, almost 60 MILLION innocent babies have died. There is no excuse for this, and America will be judged. We have God's Word on it.

Pro-life is a misleading label anyway. When abortion was illegal, a lot of poor women died horribly. There's nothing pro-life about illegal abortion.

"We should recognize that categories that are not from God are limited. Even if useful and good for a time, that usefulness and goodness may be passing." Thank you for this thoughtful comment! Labels and categories can certainly be helpful for understanding, but they shouldn't serve as the be all and end all--especially when it comes to complex issues such as abortion. Getting caught up in rhetoric dehumanizes and desensitizes, which certainly isn't what God wants for our society.

Karen, the God of Christianity is a God of truth, not a God of half-truths. The phrase "Pro-Choice" is a half truth. One half of the truth is that a person can choose, the other half of the truth (that dare not be admitted by proponents) is that the choice is to kill children at their most vulnerable. We need to be clear and precise in our language. We only propagate confusion by continuing to allow half-truths to dominate our culture. Samuel Johnson, the creator of the dictionary, decided to define words for that reason...to maintain clarity in the English language. So we can choose to lie to ourselves about abortion, or we can be honest with ourselves and each other about it.

No matter the games played with nomenclature to assuage guilt or clarify what one believes as right, wrong, godless, godly, good, evil, et cetera, God's Word and His character could not be clearer that we are to call sin sin and not equivocate. Give me an example where God equivocates delineating what sin is and isn't. Mercy from God does not cease to call sin sin. The sanctity of life is quite clear in Scripture. You shall not murder! The practice of homosexuality is an abomination to God. Man may come up with many inventions, but he cannot change God's character or transform darkness to light, no matter how many names he invents to change sin to righteousness. So I am not sure I can say hallelujah to the gist of the article, when it seems we are attempting to lighten the burden of sin, possibly because we sense we can make a relationship for the goal of evangelism. Too much evangelistic effort aims to first soft peddle sin to set the hook so to speak. Doesn't work.

@J Thomas - I disagree about it starting out as meaningless. Pro-Choice doesn't necessarily mean pro-abortion - yes, it means abortion should be protected and accepted, but it doesn't mean it should be something that should be sought out. Saying someone is pro-abortion (as opposed to saying they are pro-choice) is akin to saying someone is pro-murder (because they believe in the death penalty). (Please note that I'm both and neither; I am of the opinion that abortion is both a sin against God and a crime against humanity - but I'm also of the opinion that the first shouldn't drive laws that apply to those that don't believe the way I do, and that the latter is an opinion I have, not indisputable fact - I'll push for a constitutional ban on abortion, but while it's legal I won't support efforts to restrict it through deceitful laws and underhanded means.)

"Pro-Choice" is a term that is meaningless because it began meaningless. It's Orwellian Newspeak meant to disguise the real nature of abortion behind the guise of something everyone wants. The term never had meaning because it did not represent the true definition of the thing being described. Calling abortion "choice" is about as dishonest as you can get. It's a shame that we as a culture have let people get away with that for so long. Call it abortion. Thats what it is. Don't mute the word because you are afraid that people will see it for what it is in all of its gruesomeness. Killing a child is not "choice". It's "murder".

If I am not mistaken the terms 'pro-life' and pro-choice were considered acceptable to both camps because the word abortion made the 'choice' camp uncomfortable and the word 'anti' made the 'life' camp appear too negative. It was just rhetorical make-up, until both sides started to take their names too seriously. It was not long before 'choice' and 'life' meant much more than simple being 'for' or 'against' the termination of unborn life. I do not believe we will get rid of these or other labels, especially since more and more it is neither open discussion or truth that either side is after in these 'culture wars'. After all, war is about winners and losers, and names, like uniforms, are intended to mark the other side clearly as the enemy. It would be interesting though, to see what new names the antagonists can come up with as the abortion battle rages over the next forty years.

"Labels are for foods, not people." I'll post a more thorough comment later. I will note that many people that register as "Independent" are not, in fact, Indepenedent; many are instead Republican- or Democrat-leaning, and maintain a theoretical independence because they don't want to be lumped in with people they may later disagree with.

Karen, at the risk of engaging in rampant binomialism, may I say that I really like this post (as opposed to not liking it)? You got it right with how limited our own constructs can be, and how unlimited God's eternal ones are. Cheers, Tim (timfall.wordpress.com) P.S. to Jamie - "I'll vote for the godly man every time." Ah, but would you vote for the godly woman? ;-) Sorry, couldn't resist.