« Australia: China’s Fears About Its Students
PART TWO OF THE NEEDLESS CELIBACY OF ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS »
Pro Choice vs. No Choice
Jun 3rd, 2009 | 15 responses
As I’ve been hearing about the doctor who was recently murdered for performing later term abortions, I realized for hundredth time how cleverly the self-proclaimed “Pro-Life” people have outwitted the Pro-Choice people when it comes to using language to advance their cause.
Dr. Tiller was referred to over and over again on the news as an “abortion doctor.” He wasn’t. He was a gynecologist, one of whose services (a relatively minor one) was to perform abortions. And the people who mourned his death were labeled (for the hundredth time) “pro-abortion.” An amazingly stupid and inaccurate designation, even by the standards of the American media, because these people never advocate abortion, they simply advocate the right to chose to have one if that is what a pregnant woman desires.
The other side of the abortion issue is still always referred to as the “pro-life” side, a cunning little phrase that in and of itself suggests that people who oppose their views are anti-life. Which if actually true, would mean that they probably wouldn’t exist, having killed themselves by virtue of being pro-death.
Personally, I think debates about abortion, like all debates, should be conducted using a level language playing field. But since pro-lifers have chosen to play dirty linguistic pool, let me offer the following terminology that might benefit pro-choice people. Since you are pro-choice, start referring to those who oppose you as “no-choicers.” This term has the advantage of being absolutely correct. For while pro choicers don’t advocate what choice a pregnant woman and her doctor should make, pro-lifers only advocate one choice. Their own.
Pro-choice or no-choice. The right terms to use in order to make one’s own choice.
15 Responses to “Pro Choice vs. No Choice”
The euphemisms are from both sides.
The previous terminology, for those of us old enough to remember, before 'pro-life' was 'anti-abortion'. I never knew why that was considered a toxic term, as it is actually a more accurate description, but it was.
Then again, 'pro-choice' was a term used to replace 'pro-abortion', because very few wanted to be thought of in those terms.
So let's use those two old terms, and take away the prettified descriptions from both sides.
What nonsense, AR. “Anti-abortion” is just as ideologically freighted and factually inaccurate as “pro-abortion.” Both words are obfuscations, because neither describe the respective position honestly. It's not “abortion” I support as a pro-choicer — it's the choice to have one. And obviously, the choice to have one HAS to include — by definition — the choice NOT to have one, otherwise *it's not a choice.*
And it's exactly the same principle for the term “anti-abortion.” People who believe there is no right for a woman to have an abortion — who believe abortion should be illegal — are not “anti-abortion” per se, any more than people who do believe in a woman's right to have an abortion and who believe abortion should be legal are “pro-abortion.” The abortion procedure is NOT what the two sets of beliefs turn on. It's the concept that there is a constitutional right to abortion that the two sets of beliefs turn on. It's the concept of a woman's choice to end or continue a pregnancy that the two sets of beliefs turn on.
Actually, I've heard it said that pro-choice people are more compassionate towards life in general. The reasoning is that the unsavory and difficult choice [as it always is] to have an abortion is actually a choice not to bring a life into a situation that might be emotionally or psychologically torturous to a young child. The “pro-life” crowd believes that a child must be forced into any situation, savory or unsavory and without descrmination.
I like the term “pro-life” just as it is, since that term is laughably ironic coming from the very same people who think nothing of supporting the death penalty for that same unwanted child, raised in torturous conditions to the point of adulthood, who, via acquired psychological/physical wounds has become anti-social. Monkey see, monkey do. And having become a criminal from those conditions and commiting a crime heinous enough to warrant the death penalty, the same “pro-lifers” line up to watch him/her put to death, in full support.
Quite a long time ago I came up with a solution to the problem. I'm sure I'm not the first to have thought of it either. Since “pro-lifers” are so adamant, so righteous in their position, they should put their money where their mouths are. There should be a “pro-life” tax. Everyone who gets a driver's license should sign a statement [God is watching!] saying whether or not they are against choice. Those who sign this way should have an automatic annual surcharge they need to pay in order to maintain their license. These funds go into a general pool to support the rearing, education, provisions and counseling of all children unwanted and born from women whose choice was removed. Also this fund should pay for prisons since, statistically, most people in prisons can trace their roots back to a troubled childhood where stressed out parents really didn't want or need another mouth to feed and personality to manage when they could barely manage their own.
Just some thoughts…
I agree with you, Kathy, and with Michael. As one of those here who regularly argues the “pro choice” position, I believe it is the right of every living American citizen, pregnant or not, to choose any and all medical care that affects his or her health. The “anti-abortion” label doesn't work, AR, because many in the “no choice” camp also oppose hormonal termination of pregnancy (RU486), the morning-after pill (to prevent implantation), and even contraception.
The simple fact is that the Constitution, at its very core, protects the right of any “natural born or naturalized” citizen to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” There is not a single case in which you can be compelled by Washington to make a medical decision that is averse to your health or life, on behalf of another citizen. Parents are not required to give a kidney to their child, even if the child will die without it. They are not even required to give blood. The idea that an actual, current, living citizen should have her rights subordinated to a potential citizen, is outrageous. There are many reasons a fertilized egg might not become a viable fetus, or a fetus become a live-born citizen. The idea that a woman could be forced to risk death or permanent impairment to continue a pregnancy that might not be successful anyway, is completely unconscionable.
In the cold light of day, abortion is safer than pregnancy, and a woman choosing not to take the risk is within her rights, in my opinion. Her rights cannot be legitimately subordinated to a fetus. On what basis could a court decide otherwise?
Michael — The Pro-Choice movement is very aware that the other side has indeed won the war of terminology on this issue. Most pro-choice people call the other side “anti-choicers” — close enough to your “no-choicers”.
They've also painted abortion as “tragic”, which has stuck incredibly well, but abortion as a procedure isn't “tragic”, even if the situation that leads women to such a procedure can be. Having debilitating heart disease is tragic — a triple bybass isn't.
Anti-choice advocates have also slandered the women who get abortions as cheap floosies, as women who don't “take responsibility” for their actions, as women who are looking for a quick “out”, as irresponsible, as sluts, as child-haters, as baby-murderers, as un-Christian, as morally defunct, as not “good girls” in some way. There are often racist and classist overtones to all of this as well.
As you mention, Dr. Tiller was over and over again referred to as an “abortionist” or a “partial-birth abortionist”, when he is an OB-GYN. It would be like calling a pediatrist a “Wart-ist”.
One of the other big ones: referring to a weeks-old embryo as a “baby”, and extending that to try and push for embryo citizenship. In the case of a wanted pregnancy that goes wrong, referring to the zygote/fetus/embryo as a baby can certainly be appropriate. Not so much for a first-trimester cluster of cells.
So yes, Michael, the anti-choicers have definitely used their language to skew the issue.
kathykattenburg
Thanks for articulating the real issue here. Those who wish to disguise this question as anything but a matter of choice ignores what legally is at stake.
Anti-choice advocates have also slandered the women who get abortions as cheap floosies, as women who don't “take responsibility” for their actions, as women who are looking for a quick “out”, as irresponsible, as sluts, as child-haters, as baby-murderers, as un-Christian, as morally defunct, as not “good girls” in some way. There are often racist and classist overtones to all of this as well.
Just curious then, roro, as to how you believe the woman who “chooses” abortion should be appropriately described in situations not involving rape, incest or medically certain health risk.
The usual required disclosure to keep the dialogue on point……..I have numerous posts in the archive to the effect of a woman may choose to do whatever she wishes so long as it does not infringe on my rights or my pocketbook.
Casual — See, I don't operate from the starting point that women who have sex are bad or slutty or cheap. The fact that you obviously do means that my feeling that sex is actually a good, healthy thing and that abortion is morally neutral and shouldn't mean anything about the woman who has one might not compute.
Dr. Tiller was referred to over and over again on the news as an “abortion doctor.” He wasn’t. He was a gynecologist, one of whose services (a relatively minor one) was to perform abortions.
Both of those descriptions are accurate. Right now the first is probably more pertinent to the current news of his murder.
But it's really kind of a false argument. It's like saying Hank Aaron was not a “home run hitter”, he was a baseball player who was great at hitting, running and fielding.
De-humanizing your opponents has been a common partisan tactic for awhile now.
Anti-choice isn't the essence of the right's position. Nobody gets riled up about choices in the abstract.
But they're not primary about saving lives, either. Millions of embryos are lost spontaneously because of conditions in the womb that are to some extent under our control–the mother smoked or was under stress, for example. Ask a pro-lifer how hard they'll fight for stress-reduction programs and other social changes needed to save a few million of these lives, and I can promise they won't even understand the question. “How can you even compare those?” they'll say. “It's like comparing involuntary manslaughter to first-degree murder.” Of course, if their only concern really was the number of potential babies saved, a manslaughter prevented is exactly as good as a murder prevented.
No, they have a particular interest in the motive and seeing to its punishment. They're not pro-life, they're anti-sin, especially where sexual sins are concerned. Sinners must at a minimum be forced to live with the consequences of their actions.
I'm not saying that everyone who shows up to picket a clinic has worked through this line of reasoning. I think most of them have never thought through what brought them there beyond “murder=bad”, they're just knowingly or unknowingly acting on the group meme.
Well said Michael. There is indeed power in words; unfortunately that includes the deliberate misuse of language to mischaracterize others. Pro-life is a positively charged but misleading description of the people who are anti-choice. Of course everyone is pro-life. Not everyone is pro-choice however. Some people need to learn to mind their own business. They also need to learn that we are a nation of laws.
[...] See more here: Pro Choice vs. No Choice | The Moderate Voice [...]
roro, how you can possibly claim to know my position (on anything) when I merely quote you and then ask for an elaboration demonstrates you are in no position to criticize anyone else's use of a language that you yourself show no comprehension of.
casualobserver — if my interpretation of your comment “how you believe the woman who “chooses” to abort the fetus, sorry, terminate the pregnancy, should be appropriately described in situations not involving rape, incest or medically certain health risk” was incorrect, please let me know what you meant. I think anyone reading that would interpret that to mean that you think women who get abortions ARE, in fact, all or some of those things that I listed as being ways that the anti-choice crowd labels them. So, you of great comprehension skills, teach me just how you meant that statement. I will gladly apologize if there's any other possible interpretation.
If it wasn't clear from my comment, I consider women who get abortions to be people; specifically, people who don't deserve the judgment and slander of large swathes of the population, none of which know a thing about their situation, nor is it any of their damn business.