Good point, jsgoddess , and I’ll sign on to that as well.
I recognize that argument, and I know it’s a pretty common one, but it’s not one that I find persuasive. I find the embryo’s lack of qualities that I consider necessary for the assignation of rights to be extremely persuasive, though, so that’s the argument that I focus on :).
And yeah, I like to distinguish between “moral object” and “moral actor” because nearly everyone recognizes some beings that are moral objects without being moral actors (e.g., 2-month-old infants, people in a reversible coma, etc.)
“Anti-abortion” doesn’t work, Mr. Moto, because there’s a large number of people who are pro-legalization and anti-abortion. I recognize the difficulty of coming up with a simple, non-inflammatory term for either side, but “anti-abortion” isn’t it.
Daniel
I find your argument persuasive but unnecessarily complicated considering the way our other laws are set up. To me, the simplest argument is that no one has the rights that the anti abortion rights proponents are trying to give to embryos.
Now, I’ll admit that my argument would have to change somewhat if laws about organ donation changed. I’d still say my position is right, but I wouldn’t have the obvious parallels to compare to.
Mr Moto, I said in my first post that I’m anti-abortion. However, I am pro-choice. I can’t imagine anyone who is pro-abortion. Who wants to push abortion?
I can see it now:
Young woman goes into her OB/GYN and there’s a guy out front with a picture of Venice on a poster board yelling:
“Hey lady, have an abortion, and you’ll be able to afford a nice trip to Europe!”
Her, elbowing past the growing crowd, who are carrying posters with pictures Lexus cars, and college diplomas, screaming: “Leave me alone you creeps! I intend to have this baby!”
The crowd moves to block her access to the OB/GYN, refusing to let her get the pre-natal vitamins for which she came; chanting: “You could have a better life, if you just waited until you were older, and married!”
Her, refusing to be cowed: “I am married, and it’s *my * choice!”
A single young man emerges from the crowd on the verge of tears, refusing to give up: “But you’re too young to married!”
Pro-abortion, the idea makes me chuckle.
For one thing, when I need an organ, it’s almost never the case that you’re directly responsible for me needing an organ. For a second thing, when I need an organ, I don’t just need it for nine months: I need it forever, and you’ll never get it back.
I don’t see that parallel as being very convincing, because it differs in too many relevant aspects from pregnancy.
Daniel
I could be responsible. I could stab you in the kidney, causing irreversible damage. I’ll get sent to jail, but they won’t take my kidney and give it to you.
Even if I poison you and you require a blood transfusion, I’m not required to donate blood even though I will “get it back.”
Even if I were your mother and I allowed you to be exposed to radiation that caused leukemia, I wouldn’t be forced to donate my bone marrow to you.
There is controversy about whether a state should be able to force organ donations after you’re dead, so even when there is no longer a person to affect, we still have a sense of bodily integrity.
Everything does. Pregnancy is a unique state.
But our laws don’t require you to make even minor donations of your body, even to keep someone else alive, even if you’re the cause of their need, even if the loss is replenishable, even if it’s your child.
I do.
I could be pro-life…when we start considering mandatory organ donation and mandatory registration with bone marrow banks.
Well, here’s one who shares the opinion, for what it’s worth.
My rarely agreed-with opinion on the subject: people who are arguing that “when life begins” is relevant are arguing an ascientific position; life is continuous. There is no spontaneous generation in pregnancy; a better question is whether “this clump of cells is alive” is relevant, not whether it is true.
I think jsgoddess has really offered the best solution to the name problem, but I wanted to explore this a second.
Why doesn’t “anti-choice” work? The question at hand is:
Should women have the choice to abort an unwanted fetus even absent rape/incest/life of the mother issues?
One side says yes and is therefore “pro-choice”. The other side says no and is therefore against choice or “anti-choice”.
I think the unique status of pregnancy means that analogies to other aspects of our legal system breaks down; furthermore, I’m not sure I agree that a criminal who stabs me should not be required to donate the blood I need to survive. But I think that discussion takes us too far afield from the OP; and given that we agree substantially (i.e., that abortion should remain legal), perhaps we should drop the disagreement about the reasons for our agreement :).
It’s wholly adopting one “side”'s position about the nature of the argument. Basically, it’s an attempt to pull the rhetorical rug out from under the other side by defining the things they think are central as tangential to the central question.
It’s a very effective rhetorical trick when people can pull it off, because a lot of people don’t seem to see it; if the terms of debate are framed in such a way that one side has to put their arguments in terms of the other other side’s axioms, that side has pretty much lost, because they can’t express their position effectively.
One of my big political things is pointing out that a lot of my allies sabotage themselves by using their opponents’ terminology, and trying to encourage a reclaiming of territory in the realm of political language. Also, I consider the terminology-reframing techniques to be . . . tssh, sleight of hand? Can be tremendously effective, but if someone knows how to spot the substitution, they lose their magic. Long-term political change with that as primary technique requires having control over the language for long enough that opponents can’t frame their arguments in their own terms; for something like abortion, with two sets of deeply entrenched terminology, that’s not going to happen. (It would require one side to flat-out surrender the explicitly contested language terrain, and very few people are that inept.)
Yeah. Because we pro life folks are opposed to the very CONCEPT of choice. I don’t think you should be able to choose which flavor of ice cream to eat or which tattoo you can ink on your ass cheek… :dubious:
Yeah “anti choice” is an accurate descripter
:smack:
When folks show me the courtesy of using the preferred term (pro life) , I do likewise and refer to them as pro choice.
I realize that there are arrogant assholes of all stripes in the debate…I regard idiots who use gleefully terms like “baby killers” with the same level of contempt as the genuises who use “anti choice”
Somehow, the terms still don’t quite even out, do they?
The abortion debate (like many debates) can be framed in several ways…Framing it in terms of “choice” is just one…a way most suited to a particular vested interest in the debate. It is certainly NOT a neutral representation.
This is not real surprising though…since much of the media frames the debate that way. And no…this is not some whining conservative diatribe. David Shaw, a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter for the L.A. Times did a multi part series on how abortion is covered in the media. Unfortunately, the piece predates the LA Times website…but you can see it here
{snip}
{snip}
{snip}
More specific examples of how many in the media have framed the debate in this section of the report.
(for example… "Journalists tend to regard opponents of abortion as “religious fanatics” and “bug-eyed zealots,” says Ethan Bronner, legal affairs reporter for the Boston Globe, who spent much of last year writing about abortion.
“Opposing abortion, in the eyes of most journalists . . . is not a legitimate, civilized position in our society,” Bronner says.")
But aren’t you, in relation to this issue? I don’t see how someone using as broad a term as “pro-life” can cavil at the other “side” using a broad brush.
I also don’t think that the term “anti-choice” is all that broad. Noone thinks that we are referring to ice cream etc.
I don’t see the term “pro-life” as a courtesy–I see it as a misnomer. “Pro-birth” or “pro-pregnancy” would be more accurate descriptions. The implication in the term pro-life that is that those who do not adhere to this way of thinking are not “pro” life–but anti-life.
I am pro-choice. That does mean that I am pro-abortion or anti-life. I am also pro-choice at the other end of life–but that does make me pro-euthanasia.
The ultimate tragedy of abortion is that it will continue, with or without laws for or against. As in ages past, the well off will have access and the poor will not. It won’t stop-it will go underground and become deadly again.
How moral is that?
Huh?
Are you seriously suggesting that because one term is more offensive than the other…that the relative “lesser” offensiveness makes “anti choice” okey dokey to use?
I don’t why terms have to “even out” in order to suggets that reasonable people not use them.
If you were alive in the 1850s (assuming you had your existing ethical framework)…would you consider yourself to be “anti choice” as regards to slave ownership? Is that how you would identify your position to someone who wanted the “choice” to own slaves?
Indeed that was the argument of many slave owners…hey if you don’t like the notion of owning slaves, then don’t one. But give us the CHOICE to make our economic living the way we want, (that includes using slaves).
Even though one “could” say that you might be “anti choice in relation to the slavery issue”, you would never frame the debate that way (and indeed…no abolitionists did, right?).
Of course “pro life” (like many cultural and political descriptors) may not be entirely accurate if a broader meaning is applied to the descriptor. “Pro choice” can also be less than accurate if a broader meaning is applied to the descriptor. Does “pro choice” mean that the embryo/fetus has a choice…for example?
Anyone who is aware of the debate knows that folks who consider themselves “pro life” feel that the “life” (embryo/fetus) has a “right” to live. Many people will actually use “right to life” rather than “pro life”. I guess “pro life” is easier to say, type…but it certainly MEANS, in common parlance, “right to life” for the embryo/fetus.
A quick addendum to my post about Mr. Shaw.
I wasn’t aware of this until now, but he apparently passed away last week.
The Boston Globe does a pretty good job of covering his reputation for reporting excellence.
Pro-choice has nothing to do with being “pro-slavery”. It sounds a great deal like an inflammatory debate point used by the pro-birth “side”.
I think it’s intellectually dishonest to attempt to equate the two terms by drawing such an analogy. It is not the pro-choice folks who want to condemn a woman and a child to their unhappy (and in the case of multiple congenital anomalies, tragic and brief) lives. Some choice, eh? Don’t get raped, don’t be a victim of incest, but if you are–too bad, so sad–YOU, the woman, pay all your life. The man? Not so much (but that’s another thread). And the is Just and Right and Good–why and how, again?
And not just victims “pay” as stated above. Perhaps there is a drug or alcohol problem or a lack of sufficent funds/education/support. Perhaps the woman knows that she will not be an adequate mother–by her standards-which are ones that truly matter here. Maybe she’s a cold heartless bitch who doesn’t give a damn–it really doesn’t matter, legally.
Most women know when they are ready to have babies–and when it is best for them to do so. Sadly, not all women are able to. Fertility treatments, adoption–all of them are choices. There’s that word again. Choice. Choice in reproductive matters. It’s a great concept–and one that every woman should have a legal right to.
OK, folks. As the OP I believe I’m allowed a bit of Junior modding here. This thread was started to discuss a very specific facet of the abortion debate. Discussions of what the proper terms should be for the various camps is outside of the topic.
It could be that everything has been said that can be said about the abortion/tragedy concept, and if so let’s just let the thread die a peaceful death.