"Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both stupid expressions

Great Debates
1

This is NOT meant as a debate about abortion, (although it teeters on the edge of the cliff and probably will fall into an abortion controversy in the course of this thread.)

It is a debate about the proper use of words. Our society seems to have settled on “pro-life” and “pro-choice”. I submit both expressions are stupid, self-serving and designed for propaganda purposes.

“Pro-life” is a namby-pamby, stupid expression. It is simply an attempt to avoid using “anti” in the label.

I would argue first that “anti-abortion” is a perfectly apt and accurate description. If you regard something as an evil, you should not be afraid to say you are against that evil. The Anti-slavery Society regarded slavery as an evil. It did not call itself he “pro-freedom society”. The Anti-Vivisection Society did not call itself the “freedom from torment” society.

If you regard abortion as an evil, then your goal is to ensure that there are zero abortions.

Now, this may seem unfair of me, but I do NOT believe it is accurate to turn around and call the other side “pro-abortion”.

This is because the other side does not want abortions, per se.

The anti-abortion people want as few abortions as possible, with zero being the only truly acceptable number. They work towards a day when % of prenancies will be terminated by medical intervention.

But the other side does not want as many abortions as possible. They do not work towards a day when 100% of pregnancies will be terminated by medical intervention. THAT is why the term “pro-abortion” does not make sense.

Look at this hypothetical situation. Imagine a country in which abortion is legal and available. But in a given year EVERY SINGLE PREGNANT WOMAN decides she wants to carry her pregnancy to term. It may be for religious, or personal reasons, or whatever. But not a single abortion is requested that year.

Would the anti-abortion side be happy with that news? Yes, although they would still probably like to see the law allowing abortion repealed.

But ironically, the “other side” would be perfectly happy with this situation. If abortion is legal and available and NOT ONE WOMAN CHOSE THAT OPTION, the other side would consider that perfectly all right! Can somone be “pro abortion” if the complete absence of abortion does not bother them one bit, as long as abortion is legal?

So what do we call the “other side” if we call their opponents “anti-abortion”?

It seems to me that these people are “pro-abortion-rights”. It is a little longer than “pro-choice” but in my opinion it is accurate.

What do others think opf this idea? Any other suggestions?

2

I agree with your post. But you don’t mention why “pro-choice” is a “stupid expression”. You make great arguments against “pro-life” and “pro-abortion”, but you forgot to address “pro-choice” or tell me why it’s inferior to your proposal, “pro-abortion-rights”.

3

This anti-abortion site tells people "do not accept the negative term “anti-abortion” and to call the other side “pro-abortion.”

My head hurts reading those two statements, never mind the bullshit in the rest of it.

4

Valteron has valid points, and I have argued in favor of and used the terms pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights before on this board.

However the polarized and unsatisfactory terms preferred by both sides are ingrained in culture and debate. The question of proper names for opposing factions is a ship has sailed, gone aground and blown up long ago.

5

As a pro-choice person, I would be perfectly happy if no women ever chose abortion. I see it as a necessary evil, not a good thing. I’m pro-choice because the alternative (no choice) is even worse.

6

I’m pro-choice/pro-abortion, and I don’t see it as an evil at all, “necessary” or otherwise. Like I said in Lib’s thread :

7

But they are only stupid if you juxtapose them as though they are the opposite sides of the same argument. But of course they aren’t.

“Pro-life” is a moral or ethical position assuming the existence of life at some certain point and then asserting the rights of the entity as a person.

“Pro-choice” is merely an unarguable legal position that asserts the rights of one individual over what may be another.

8

“the rights of that entity as a person” do not and should not include the right to use another person’s body without permission. This is not a right any other person has, yet the anti-abortion group wants to give it to a fetus.

I cause an accident that ruins both your kidneys. Without a new kidney you will die. I am a perfect match to donate a kidney to you. No court in the country can make me give you a kidney to save your life.

9

Fair enough, but there are a fair number of people who are pro-choice who don’t agree with you, and so it would be incorrect to call the faction as a whole “pro-abortion”.

Similarily, I think that many common recreational drugs should be legalized, simply because I think the damage done by the war on drugs is far worse then the damage done by the drugs themselves. But I’ve had friends who’ve had problems with drug use, and don’t really think that people should use them and wouldn’t want my family members to be users. So I wouldn’t say I’m “Pro-drug” but I am “pro-legalization”*

*not trying to hijack into a discussion of US drug policy, just pointing out what I feel is a somewhat analagous case

10

I’m fine with both terms, for two reasons:

  1. They are idiomatic, and as such, should not be examined too closely; many idioms break down under close observation, but without such close observation, they function perfectly well as tools of communication. Everyone knows what the two terms mean; they work well as linguistic tools; they ain’t broken; stop trying to fix them.
  2. Any alternative terms will not be idiomatic, at least not in the beginning, and therefore they will invite close examination. And I’ve not encountered any replacement terms that are both mellifluous and accurate under close examination.

Yes, the terms break down under close examination: pro-lifers are not Jainists who sweep insects out of their paths, and pro-choicers are not Crowleyan anarchists who object to any limits on behavior. But that’s not how language works. We know what the terms mean; we use them as efficient tools of communication; and that’s good enough.

Daniel

11

Having assisted three sexual partners in the process of having a termination, don’t think that I am an advocate for the beliefs of “pro-life” advocates. I simply understand that their ethical/moral perspective is different from yours and mine. However the argument they are making is not simply a legal argument as per Roe vs Wade.

12

I agree. The issue is really about whether women have the choice to terminate their pregnancy or carry the baby to term. I think pro-choice and anti-choice sum the matter up completely.

13

I agree with “anti-choice” as being more accurate, as it is more inclusive. Not everybody who is against abortion rights feels that way because they believe the zygote/embryo/fetus is a fully alive human - for instance, people who are against abortion rights except in cases of rape. If they were pro-life, it wouldn’t matter what the circumstances of the fertilization were, in that case their beliefs obviously have more to do with sexual responsibility than the protection of the unborn.

14

I’m finally glad someone made a thread about this. I don’t like looking like a vampire just because I’m not in the “pro-life” side. Both sides are “pro-life”, they just have different opinions about what’s good for “life” in this case. If your not on the pro-life side, that would make you anti-life? No that makes no sense.

Same with “pro-choice”. You people who think abortion is totally wrong, are you anti-choice? Do you not believe in freedom in general? No.

So why the heck do we even have these terms? life vs. choice is a very naive way to put it. Also, there are such people (like me), who don’t necessarily believe people should have complete freedom of abortion but in some cases it might be okay. My opinion is a bit more complex than complete freedom of choice on the abortion matter, and I’m sure other people feel the same. Which is why I think there should be three sides to the issue called “anti-abortion”, “moderate-abortion”, and “free-abortion”. Perhaps there’s a better way to say any one of those three, but you kind of get my idea right?

Please critique.

15

It’s an attempt to forestall the debate by identifying your own position as being in favor of something that everyone agrees is a Good Thing, and the other side as being against the Good Thing.

Life is a Good Thing, so everyone should be pro-life. Choice is a Good Thing, so nobody could be anti-choice.

Framing the debate is an excellent way to win it without much effort. One of those “let’s compromise and say I’m right” kinds of debates.

Regards,
Shodan

16

I think **Shodan **answered this, and I agree with his answer.

Yeah, and most people fall in the “moderate abortion” camp. Few so-called pro-choice people would be comfortable with a law that allowed abortion on demand at any point during a pregnancy, up to the date of delivery. They are “pro-choice” only so long as they agree with the choice.

17

Very few “pro-life” people would continue a pregnancy that endangered the health of the mother, that was a result of rape and/or incest, and insist that every embryo created in a petri dish should have to be put into a uterus whether the owner of the uterus was willing or not. I don’t know of any “pro-life” person who believes in examining the contents of every miscarriage and the lifestyle of every woman who miscarries to determine whether she caused the miscarriage by taking an asprin, having a cup of coffee, or “thinking bad thoughts.”

18

Both terms imply good things. They were self-chosen for that very reason. I have no objections calling someone what they’d like to be called out of courtesy, so long as they haven’t crossed a line that is offensive to my own sensibilities in the selection of their name. Some people probably already feel that way about the current terms, but I don’t.

I’m not an “anti-choicer.” There’s all kinds of choices I support. Others would not describe themselves as “anti-life,” I’m sure. It’s that simple. If you prefer to be called “pro-life” or “pro-choice,” respect the preference of others as well. I am pro-life and I absolutely recognize that the term was chosen because of what it implies. So was the term “pro-choice.”

19

You knock someone out, you put them on a spaceship and you both go to Mars.

While there, you have enough oxygen and food to keep both of you alive, but it would be a hassle to keep him alive, since you want to roam around and explore the planet, and you can’t since you have to stick around to feed him and make sure he gets enough oxygen.

A spaceship will come to Mars to pick the guy up in nine months, at which time, you will be free to roam the planet and do as you please.

Forget the legal requirements, do you think you have a moral obligation to help a person that you took, against their will, into an environment where they can’t live without you?

Of course, a lot of people say a fetus is not a person, and I think that is the crux of the issue, but you specifically stated that even if it were a person, it wouldn’t make a difference.

20

I agree. I didn’t mean to imply that the pro-choice side was more disingenuous than the pro-life side.