Mistaking the Qualified for the Absolute
While it is true that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, this is never an absolute statement. Water boils at this temperature at sea level—not so at other altitudes. "Exercise is good," is an unqualified statement. If one is recovering from triple bypass surgery, certain forms of exercise are not good.
Similarly, choice—the most effective ploy in the pro-abortionists arsenal—is a notion that is taken as absolute but needs qualification. Even pro-choicers are not pro-choice about domestic violence, slavery, racism, or driving under the influence. Mothers Against Drunk Driving are a case in point. They do not advise, "Don’t drink," but "Don’t drink and drive."
In a New York Times editorial, Faye Wattleton, former president of Planned Parenthood, stated, "The right to abortion . . . shouldn’t be a political football that candidates can kick around at will." But choice, she seems to forget, is an act of the will. If women can choose abortion, why can’t politicians (and voters) choose to make it an election issue? Ms. Wattleton tries to qualify choice when it comes to politics, but not when it comes to abortion. In the final analysis, what does being "pro-choice" really mean?
It means nothing.
It's a way of camouflaging what "pro-choicers" are really for:
They decry the lack of access. They worry that women will not be able to get them. They denounce anyone who criticizes abortion. They cover any negative reaction to it.
But they don't have the guts to say that they're really pro-abortion.
Instead, they use another logical fallacy to say that if they were to call themselves "pro-abortion" it would sound like they're for abortion in every case.
As if being pro-anything commits you to being for it in every case. Does being pro-death-penalty mean you support capital punishment in every case? No. Does being pro-vaccines means that you think everyone under every circumstance should get them? No.
It sounds like they're just afraid of what they're advocating.