Oh, so sorry if I offended the legions of pro-gay, pro-birth control, pro-sex outside of marriage, anti-abortion people. Sheesh.
Gomez
Since the thread is clearly discussing the context of abortion, the same common sense which allows us to know that “pro-choice” refers to being in favor of a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, “anti-choice” means being opposed to a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy.
It hardly appears that it’s a minority, small or otherwise, that includes opposition to reproductive choice in the larger context of a reigious outlook on the world which includes opposition to the things I previously mentioned. But even if one’s opposition to abortion stands completely independent from the other issues I mentioned, “anti-choice” is still appropriate to describe them in the context of the abortion debate.
So why do pro-choicers object to the (admittedly extremely insulting) pro-death within the 'context of the abortion debate? Why is ‘pro-life’ inaccurate 'within the context of the abortion debate?
Because, once again (and we just went through this, didn’t we) we aren’t pro-death or pro-abortion. We are pro-CHOICE. I find it disgusting that anyone be forced to carry a preganacy to term. Preganancy is very difficult, possibly life threatening and certainly life changing. I’m MORE disgusted by the thought anyone would be pressed to have an abortion she didn’t want. Therefore, believing that only the pregnant woman is in the position to make that CHOICE, CHOICE defines my position. I’d rather see children born into loving homes, meaning my preferred CHOICE for an unwanted pregnancy is adoption, but having first hand experience with the pain of adoption (adoptive mom, good friends with a few birthmoms, daughter of an adoptee, mother (obviously) of an adoptee, involved in several adoption communities), I can’t make that CHOICE for anyone else either.
If I were say, the Chinese government, I’d accept the pro-Abortion label.
I’ll give you an example. Let’s pass a law that four out of five years abortion is illegal - no choice - every pregnancy is carried to its natural end. But in years ending one or five, every pregnant woman MUST have an abortion - no choice. With one in four pregnancies ending in abortion - pro-lifers get a net gain with this proposition, but I bet you think it as obscene as I do.
The point I was trying to make was that if anti-choice is an acceptable label “because we all know what we’re talking about within the context of this debate” - then surely pro-life and anti-abortion are acceptable terms because all one has to do is apply a modicum of common sense to see which labels apply to whom. If we are allowed to employ common sense to make the connection between ‘anti-choice’ and those who want to stand up for the rights of a fetus then surely the same common sense should be used to connect terms like ‘pro-life’ or ‘anti abortion’ to people who are more vocally opposed to the practise.
“Ah” you may reply “Everyone is ‘Pro-life’ to a degree” so pro-life is an inaccurate label. True, but everyone is anti some choices as well. Yet anti choice is, for some reason, OK because “in the context of the abortion debate” everyone knows who that refers to. Since the same is true of “pro-life” and “anti-abortion” I see no reason why those terms aren’t appropriate descriptors “within the context of the abortion debate” because everyone knows to whom those labels refer.
“Woman’s right to choose whether or not to terminate pregnancy” just won’t fit into too many headline spaces.
Simple.
Actually, I’ve never really see that “woman’s right to choose” phrase much outside of quoted material. Because that’s kind of long for a headline, too. “Abortion rights” or “reproductive rights” are much more common.
Sincerely,
–the Mainstream Liberal Communist Democrat Pro-Gay Anti-God Pro-Abortion Anti-Gun Tree-Hugging Media.
(I take these labels from the letters our dear readers send us. If you read it in a letter to the editor, it must be true.)
Well it’s a cute way to attack the credibility of concerns about media coverage of the issue. Rather than respond to the ramblings of crack pot letter writers, care to respond to the David Shaw piece in the LA Times I cited earlier?
**
If “pro-” in your list equates to “things that are NOT legitimately any of my business,” than I do fall into this crowd (whether or not there are legions of us). Somehow I’m not feeling any real love in your apology, however.
Gomez, I think, did a nice job of covering this earlier (anyone who describes me as a prominent member of this board clearly has sound judgment at the start). There ain’t some monolithic, uniform pro-life philosophy anymore than there is one for the pro-choice side. Otto, you may argue for the aptness of descibing this side as “anti-choice” all you like, but that seems discrepant with your “common sense” argument for using the term “pro-choice”–i.e., everyone understands what this name refers to, and any other argument around it is politically motivated nit-picking.
Be consistent in the standard you apply. If you want to argue semantics and parse words and project statistics as to what is or isn’t a majority on the pro-life side, then it’s fair game to do so on the pro-choice side.
As beagledave has pointed out, this is not a trivial debate when we consider the legitimate power that the mainstream media can employ by virtue of the words they choose. Refusing to address the pro-life side by the preferred name, a courtesy generally extended to the pro-choice side, can absolutely erode pro-life credibility, a goal an impartial reporter ought not to have. Is there another way to characterize what is covered in the Shaw article? Like Dave, I’m interested in any thoughtful reaction. Perhaps there’s another spin?
I think this is an important Quote from Beagle Dave’s link to the Times’ study:
"Indeed, a persuasive case can be made that abortion opponents received more favorable coverage than did abortion advocates, at least on television, from 1973, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe vs. Wade, until early 1989, shortly before the court was scheduled to hear the Webster case, which the government was using in an attempt to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Because abortion was legal and under no imminent threat during those years, the abortion-rights movement was essentially dormant. But opponents of abortion aggressively sought political and legal redress of their grievances, and the media covered their efforts, especially in election campaigns."
On a side note, after reading the above article in which pro-life supporters were quoted as objecting to their presentation in the media, I recalled an experience I had at a medical center which also performed abortions. A pro-life crowd had gathered early in the morning to protest outside the medical center. A news team arrived to document the protest, also in the morning. Within no more than 30 minutes after the news team packed up and left the scene, the protesters disbanded. Would this be considered a manipulation of the media? From my observance, the protest appeared to be an event solely for the purpose of presenting their position to the media, while using the medical center as a backdrop. If the protest occurred for this sake, was it a news story?
apparently, for some reason, you left out the next couple of sentences in the article…
"That was before the Webster decision.
Times have clearly changed since then. "
Obviously, I’m discussing how both sides are CURRENTLY being portrayed by the media…since of course, that is what the thread is (at least in part) is about.
Are protests news stories? You’re kidding right? You’ve never seen protests staged to attract maximum media exposure for various causes ? I hope you’re not suggesting that the pro life group that designed their picketing to get tv coverage for their cause is somehow unique in that tactic?
“Pro-choice” as people have noted comes up in the context of abortion debates – and Guinastasia with her usual perspicacity noted that what the woman has the right to choose is not necessarily an abortion.
To me there is a very clear dichotomy being drawn, comprising far more than the abortion question:
Do we as a political majority have the right to set a code of conduct on our fellow men? (Obviously such a code needs to be in place for activities which injure the life, liberty, or property of another – this is quite simply not what is implied.) But nearly all who advocate from the pro-life stance are inclined to believe they have a handle on The Truth and therefore have the “right” to impose behavior in accord with what The Truth calls for upon others. (Note that this attitude does not necessarily correspond with conservative Christianity – how many juvenile idiots have you noted here and elsewhere advocating that “we oughta get rid of X” because it doesn’t fit their idea of how the world ought to be?)
Those who advocate the pro-choice stance in the abortion debate do need to take into account that from the point of view of their opponents, the embryo to be aborted is an actual human life and the abortion effectively a homicide in consequence. This does indeed result in a strong emotional aversion to the idea of abortion or a woman’s right to choose to have – or not to have – one. In their view it differs little from the idea of infanticide.
But the bottom line, as advocated by myself and numerous others, is that whatever their views on abortion in general, it is the woman whose body is being used to nurture this potential human being until it can live on its own who has the moral decision whether to continue serving in this role. I do not plan on ever having an abortion, but as a male over 50, my option does not count. The woman of childbearing years whose body is drafted into this role is the one who needs to make the decision. I hope and pray she will choose to carry the child to term, but I will defend her right to choose whether or not to do so, not be compelled to do so by force of law.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by beagledave *
[B
apparently, for some reason, you left out the next couple of sentences in the article…
"That was before the Webster decision.
Times have clearly changed since then. "
Obviously, I’m discussing how both sides are CURRENTLY being portrayed by the media…since of course, that is what the thread is (at least in part) is about.
If we’re going to use an article to approach this debate strictly as a current issue, maybe we should use a current source. An article that was published in 1990 which supports a view from 1973 through 1989 isn’t very out of date in context to the same article you chose to use as a source.
Some of the rhetoric being used is truly disturbing. I’m pro-choice, but certainly not pro-abortion. I don’t think I’ve ever met a person who thought abortion was a wonderful thing and should be a favored choice. It does remain a right, and as such, is a valid choice.
Hate speech goes against everything I believe to be true and good. On the other hand, free speech is near and dear to my heart. Thus I’m anti-hate speech, but pro-their right to engage in it. This doesn’t make me pro-hate speech any more than the above makes me pro-abortion.
I still think the terms pro-choice and anti-choice best reflect the leanings of the majority in their respective camps.
It would be nice if there was a more contemporary article in a “mainstream” media source to draw upon. I have yet to find one as comprehensive, that does not have ties to either the pro choice or pro life movements.
Be that as it may, I’m not sure that much has changed in the federal political landscape (major court decisions) since Webster…and I’m not sure much has changed in the media coverage. The phrase “reproductive rights” still carries more weight in the reporting than “pro life” or “right to life”.
In spite of the coverage from 1973 through 1989 (when pro choice folks did not feel as much need to protest and lobby as pro life folks did, because of the law of the land), the main thesis of Shaw’s series still stands
“Responsible journalists do try to be fair, and many charges of bias in abortion coverage are not valid. But careful examination of stories published and broadcast reveals scores of examples, large and small, that can only be characterized as unfair to the opponents of abortion, either in content, tone, choice of language or prominence of play”
Of course a political majority has the right to set, through democratic action, a code of conduct on our fellow man. And of course the pro life movement, like the abolitionist movement (and other movements) before it, thinks it has a handle on “The Truth”. Those who advocated for emancipation of slaves believed that they had a handle on “The Truth”…that there was a moral imperative to free the slaves. Indeed, that belief was, over a period of time, “forced” on slaveowners. You seem to be singling out the pro life community for having this attitude of moral righteousness…and imposing that on others who may or may not share that same moral vision…when a fair portion of societal laws involves the imposition of regulations on people who disagree with the laws. From slave owners, to owners of sweatshops employing child labor, and other social concerns…many people have had governmental edicts imposed on them.
It IS fair to note that the abortion situation is unique in the relationship of the fetus to the mother. And it IS relevant to ask (like in other governmental decisions) if the regulation/law is too much in comparison to the desired outcome.
But to talk of this notion of the pro life community having “a handle on the Truth” (and you seemed to use that term in a perjorative fashion) seems to not recognize that this is a not un-common stance for those fighting to protect (what they see as) the marginalized in society
[/quote]
And of course, from the pro life view (as has been articulated by me and others in other threads), there is no “potential-ness” about the embryo/fetus being a “human being” (other, than of course the “potential” that is in all living organisms to grow and mature…I hope I have “potential” )
With the exception noted, I disagree. For example, if a majority of non-religionists determined to ban all churches (synagogues, mosques, etc.), would the Christians (Jews, Moslems) have no rights as against this? If it was determined by the appropriate majority that only pro-choicers (or pro-lifers) have the freedom to express their views, would you consider this as appropriate.
Quite simply, the “code of conduct” towards which America seems to be moving, in legal terms (as opposed to social custom, “political correctness,” etc.) is one which says, in general terms, “Do nothing which injures the life, health, liberty, or property of another, and do anything you care to which does not act to so injure another.” And I applaud this: it is Liberty, as our forefathers envisioned it. (For each person, his or her liberty may be constrained by his or her own moral views – a vegetarian may choose to eschew animal products, but not impose that view on others; a Christian may follow the commands of the Bible, or his/her faith’s selection from them, but may not impose them on others.)
I realize my previous post lacked a little in clarity. However, I attempted to set a hypothetical situation in which someone completely distinct from the pro-life movement was attempting to expect the world to operate on “the Truth” as he/she understands it. It was, sir, not my intent to denigrate the pro-life POV, but to class it in with that group of people who operate on the belief that they are privy to information not accepted by all and must act in accordance with it. As you note, this has often led to “good” results (from the contemporary consensus POV) as well as “bad” ones.
It is worth noting that abolitionists operated within the context of the “acceptable code of conduct” defined above – on the assumption that a slave is in fact a human being of equal rights and dignity with other men and women – something even Chief Justice Taney was not willing to concede at the time, but virtually the unanimous holding of all people today.
I suspect that you will, quite simply, assert the humanity and dignity of the unborn child as worthy of protection in the same context, and I am not about to disagree. But you must employ caution in not depriving the pregnant woman of the same humanity and dignity in defending the unborn child.
Point taken. May I suggest that it is very rare for a pro-life person to ever concede that the potential mother has rights vis-a-vis the child she is carrying? Your statement has strong relevance – but a “no abortions” (with perhaps exceptionally rare exceptions) law or regulation is considered by a large majority of Americans to be “too much in comparison to the desired outcome” (if I am reading you correctly, with your statement functioning as a parallel to the “personal rights” vs. “government interest” weighting often used by the courts in determining whether a regulation unduly trammels some person’s rights).
Me too!! “When we stop growing, we start dying.” But I would like to suggest to you that “humanness” is a state achieved by process, not event. My five-year-old buddy is quite a wild and woolly little boy, and clearly fully human in the best sense – but he does not have the right to decide to move to California, drop into the bar and drink a few beers, or even choose whether he will attend school. He is too young to make such decisions.
An infant requires nearly round-the-clock care and supervision. Without it, he or she dies in a short time frame.
A near-term fetus can be delivered and raised as a preemie, generally with no lasting ill effects. And so on.
At some point the unborn child cannot survive outside the womb. Prior to this, it goes through several stages that are of embryological interest but not obviously a human, as opposed to a pig, chicken, or salamander embryo. Continuing back, it is a blastula, and then a fertilized single egg cell. At some point (I think the blastula stage) it embeds itself in the uterine wall. Prior to this, it is one of a cloud of sperm and one unfertilized ovum.
Where in this sequence does it become human? If you go before the fertilization process, then clearly every human being beyond the age of puberty who is not currently pregnant or attempting to become pregnant (if female), or doing his best to assist her in doing so (if male) is guilty of homicide. (Pardon a little reductio ad absurdam.)
But how is fertilization the magic point? If the woman or girl then looses the egg, is she morally at fault? If, not realizing she is pregnant, she has a D&C for health or hygienic reasons, is she therefore having an abortion? (In point of fact it is, though nobody but God – neither she nor her gynecologist – is aware of the fact.)
Or was St. Thomas Aquinas right in seeing the time of “quickening” when the baby’s movement can be felt as the time of ensoulment and therefore the point at which the fetus becomes a person? If this is the case, then most early-term abortions are not in fact the taking of a human life, but only a life that has the potential to become human.
Where do you draw the line? And why?
Finally, by what standards do you feel you (as an individual or as a part of a society with laws in place) have the right to impose your moral views on when, if ever, an abortion may licitly be performed on a person with the same rights and responsibilities to act morally who is weighing her own values, including the fact that she has what can be her own child growing inside her, and must make the decision to carry that child to term – or not. I suspect strongly that the “carefree abortion-on-demand unwed mother” is the niece of a Wizard-of-Oz character – the Straw Man, um, er, Scarecrow.
I can fully respect your view that the organism resident in the woman’s womb is a human being with all rights and privileges attendant on that status. I urge on you the view that so is the mother, and it is her moral decision to make, not the legislature’s.
I agree that the pregnant woman is deserving of humanty and dignity…and that the biological nature of the pregnancy puts the perceived “right” of the fetus for life, sometimes against the perceived “right” of the woman to make decisions about her body.
The right to life, I believe, is so basic and fundamental to all other rights…that it in a sense trumps most cases of the woman’s rights in that pregnancy.
Hmmm I would disagree with that assessment of the pro life community. Granted, there are twits in every cause (I’ll refrain from naming names )…But Bob Cos, JubliationTCornpone, among others on the SDMB are cognizant of the rights of mothers. Like I said earlier…it IS correct to ask the question “Do these proposed laws freeing slaves, mandating child labor laws, etc…or laws concerning abortion impose too much of a burden in terms of the hoped goals?” It’s fair to ask that of ALL legislation…and in this case, the right to life being fundamental to all subsequent rights (at least from a pro life perspective)…the burden is appropriate…much like the burden on slaveowners (and it indeed WAS a burden, althogh different than that of the mother) was deemed appropriate.
I agree absolutely…a fetus/embryo certainly does NOT come with all of his/her rights at that stage in life. Concepts like citizenship, or age of majority are philosophical concepts, not biological concepts. Your five year old buddy is no less human than a 25 year old woman…so I’m not sure why you chose to use the word “humanness” to describe a continuum.
A new and unique human organism is created at the time of fertilization (yes I realize that fertilization is in itself a process of a few hours)
A loss of the egg is no more the fault of the woman than the still birth of a fetus who had previously reached your “survival” threshold in development.
At fertilization. This has been discussed by me and others in at least 3 other threads…My basic rationale is summed up here.
Further opinions on the topic from a Senate judiciary cmmte are here
(yes, I know the web site is a pro life site…the quotes are accurate and available on a variety of sites)
I (nor anybody else in this thread) never raised your Scare Crow scenario…
If the question is asking how a government can “impose” (a value laden term, of course) moral views on people…I say the same way abolition was imposed on those most directly affected by the loss of slave owners…even IF those slave owners disagreed with the notion that slaves were fully human and worthy of protection.
And why do pro-lifers constantly decide to call it pro-abortion. I have yet to meet a woman that is pro-abortion though I know plenty who have HAD abortions. No woman gets pregnant just so she can kill the child. Basically the two sides to this argument are
It’s none of your fookin business what I do to my body.
BTW, there actually have been a few people on these same SDMBs who have self-identified themselves as “pro abortion”…
But for the record, I (and certainly other pro life posters on the SDMB) don not consider a position like yours to be “in favor of getting pregnant to kill a child.”
