Pro-choice pro-abortion pro-life, whatever

Great Debates
1

In a recent thread, I contrasted the OP’s use of the term “Pro-Life” with “pro-abortion”. This provoked something of a reaction. The OP took offense, saying “If they aren’t going to show us the courtesy of using the term we prefer” etc. and another poster called it “discourteous”. In a current Pit thread, an (apparent) pro-lifer objected to the term anti-abortion saying “The pro-choicers do not like to be called pro-abortion, and the pro-lifers do not like to called anti-abortioners”. Without getting into the exact specifics of these cases, I have a general point about labels and a specific discussion of the ones that apply to the abortion issue.

It would seem to me that there is a clear distinction to be made between groups that have true names on the one hand, and descriptions of a group’s characteristic or positions on the other. In the case of named groups, the names are used as, well, names. Use of names should be purely a matter of courtesy and the holders of these names rule the day. Just as you would not address someone who wants to be called William as Bill, so too you would not call a group by a name that they dislike. If Chinese people wanted to be called Igharis (or whatever), courtesy would require that one call them by this name.

In the case of holders of a political position, the name is not a name, it is a direct description of the group. The words chosen to describe the group are those that are believed to best fit the group. No one has a right to demand that their position on issues be described in any given way. There is no courtesy issue involved here at all, as far as I can see, and suggestions otherwise are, I think, misguided.

This does not mean that members of a group cannot demand that they be referred to in a certain way. Merely that the grounds are different. In the example given, many people who oppose restrictions on abortions prefer the term “pro-choice” over pro-abortions. There is a justification for this, in that many such people feel that the term pro-abortion implies that they desire more abortions, while in reality they merely favor having that choice available. This is legitimate grounds for such a demand (in the thread discussed, one poster did announce a preference for “pro-choice” on such grounds). But it is true only to the extent that the positions actually are more accurately described thusly.

In the specific case of abortion, I would think that pro-choice and pro-abortion differ only marginally, if at all. Reason being that I don’t think anyone actually interprets the term pro-abortion to mean that the person favors an increase in abortions. There are numerous examples of this in the political lexicography. A person who is pro death penalty is not in favor of it in every instance - most people would probably rather keep the death penalty available but rare (IOW, keep the need for it down) exactly as is the case with pro-choicers. But everyone understands that the crux of the issue regarding the DP is whether the death penalty should be given in certain instances, and the “pro” and “anti” are correctly understood in this context. So too, the term pro-abortion is correctly understood to mean that the person is on the pro side of what happens to be the issue in this case - should abortion be legal. I think the objections to the term pro-abortion are in reality a political ploy - a means of shifting the debate away from the fetus and towards the woman - this is the winning part of the debate for the “pro” side.

The term pro-life is even worse. Everyone is pro-life. The term anti-abortion is a far better descriptive of the actual positions espoused by this side of the debate. I am convinced that the term pro-life is purely a PR gimmick and has no legitimate purpose.

Having said all that, I don’t think there is a purpose in needlessly aggravating people who are convinced that all of the above is true (misguided as they may be :D). So the preceding is directed at those who would demand this or that term for themselves, rather than at those planning to address a group by a name they despise.

2

One could argue Pro-Abortion-Legalization would be an apt term. Pro-Abortion doesn’t appear to represent the position correctly. Anti-Abortion does seem to fit, as those who consider themselves Pro-Life in this respect are against the act of Abortion. Pro-Choicers aren’t trying to lobby for Abortions, but for the option.

In regards to Pro-Death-Penalty, it can be argued that overall those in favor are looking to increase the number of folks put to Death for their crimes. Pro-Choicers aren’t looking to increase the number of Abortions, and are more often interested in reducing them (through education, etc.).
On the other hand Negative Population Growthers who are not Pro-Life could be argued as holding a Pro-Abortion position.

=)

3

Well that is relative. Compared to anti abortionist a ‘pro right to abortionist’ would like to see an increassed abortion rate.

I think the term pro-abortion brings to mind ripping babys out of mothers in pieces - who wants to be associated with that? They (understandably) would like to remove such images in favor of a right of a person.

I personally hate the term pro chioce as:
1 the baby has none
2 IMHO and from my own personal experence that people who are pro choice are against choice in a lot of other non-related political matters.

4

well Izzy there you have why the trouble with the names.

5

FWIW, the reason why I prefer my views to be referred to as pro-choice rather than pro-abortion is that I support maintaining abortion as one of the options available to pregnant women.

I am just as vehement in supporting a woman’s right to choose to carry a baby to term in the face of community or medical opinion that she should terminate a given pregnancy, and just as passionate about providing adequate support for women who choose adoption. Abortion is only one of the choices I support - it’s not the totality of the choices I fight to maintain.

6

k2dave:

Absolutely false. I have no desire to increase the number of abortions being performed. I have every desire to decrease the number of abortions performed. I would prefer that no woman ever chooses to abort. But that is not my decision to make.

Well, no shit. That’s because those of us who believe that a woman has a right to have an abortion do not encourage abortion.

OK, this might blow your mind here. Get ready.

I am anti-abortion. I am pro-choice.

These two are not irreconcilable.

Hey, I hate the term “milkshake” when it doesn’t have any milk in it. We all have our crosses to bear.

But really, it’s obvious that the term “pro-choice” refers to the pregnant woman’s choice. Is that not clear?

I believe you are wrong. I believe you are generalizing without any fact. And I would like you to give examples. Specific ones.

7

Do you agree that there are many in the pro-choice camp who are not opposed to every abortion as you are?

8

I’ve long felt that the most accurate descriptions of the two camps are: 1) pro-abortion rights*, and 2) anti-abortion rights.

Dropping “pro-choice” would limit the opposition’s ability to bring up zygote/embryo/fetus choice, and eliminating “pro-life” for the reason mentioned above (we are all, subject to differing interpretations, “pro-life”) would eliminate a meaningless term from the debate. “Pro-abortion” implies that one is fond of the procedure and wants it to occur, which is not the case in the pro-abortion rights camp.

But I’m under no illusion that either side will tolerate being labeled with anything but its preferred term. Forcing a label on someone who views it as inaccurate or derogatory is a sure way to kill dialogue. And unfortunately, that seems to be a goal of the most zealous activists.

*yes, that’s where I stand.

9

Absolutely. But it’s irrelevant. Do you agree that there are essentially no people in any camp who want the number of abortions to increase?

10

I think it’s relevant to arguments being made here. You can’t argue against the term pro-abortion by pointing to your position and then turn around and insist on not applying the term to people who do not share your position. If you would argue that the term pro-abortion is wrong even for those who do not “prefer that no woman ever chooses to abort” then you should defend it without reference to your own position.

I don’t imagine that there are many people (if any) in any camp who would not prefer that circumstances were such that no abortions were necessary. (The same could be said for the death penalty, as noted earlier.) But there are many people who, given present circumstances, feel that the right decision for many people is to abort their fetuses, which means, as a practical manner that they want the number to be higher rather then lower.

My feeling is that when people support government funding for abortions and other such legislation they are edging out of pro-choice and into pro-abortion territory.

11

This is tricky. I would prefer to see fewer abortions, but * only if that means more effective birth control is in use * not just because I have a problem with the idea of aborting fetuses. It doesn’t keep me awake at night. At all.

Assuming that the reduction in abortion would not be because of better birth control application, but because more pregnant women are choosing to bear their children, then I would have to say no. There are way too many people who should not have kids, and I would rather see them abort than see them bring children into the world to be abused, neglected, and grow up to bring more abused and neglected people into the world.

stoid

12

If government funding is available to women to pursue other reproductive choices - whether those choices are IVF, intensive care for premature newborns, affordable accessible contraception, medical expenses for the period of pregnancy and confinement when the mother’s choice is to relinquish the baby for adoption - then it would be utterly inconsistent if pro-choice advocates did not fight for the option of abortion to be funded on a similar basis.

No-one wants to create a situation where a clinic which performs terminations is driven by financial considerations to not offer true choice - ie, where the clinic will not discuss with the patient alternative options and assist with finding appropriate resources.

In my experience very young women, in particular, as as vulnerable to being bulldozed into a termination of pregnancy by parents or boyfriends today as they were to being bulldozed into surrendering their babies for adoption 30 or 40 years ago. It’s vital that these young women have true choice in the decisions they make. It’s equally vital that they have access to accurate non-emotive information on all of their options and that they have access to support in dealing with their the physical, financial, emotional, and social impact of their choices.

The ultimate objectives of pro-life and pro-choice advocates aren’t that different. Both sides wish to see “every child a wanted child”, and both sides want to see the number of unwanted pregnancies drastically reduced; both sides largely recognise the distinction between “therapeutic” and “social” terminations of pregnancy. There’s actually a lot of common ground where we can work together to achieve those ends without any one of us having to change our pro-choice or pro-life viewpoint. Sadly, the spotlight seems to shine more often on our differences than our commonalities.

13

Here an argument for pro choice:

Abortus is legal in the Netherlands. It is the choice of the woman herself. Any reason is good enough.

This leads to these numbers:
In The Nederlands on average 6,5 of a 1000 women in the age group (15 - 44 jaar) will recieve an abortus provocatus.

From those women treated in 1997 63% was less then 8 weeks pregnant. 17.6% was more then 13 weeks pregnant.

This number is very low. Compair it with the numbers in your own country.

14

I, too, am pro-choice Dutchman, but I’m curious about the medical procedure used in the Netherlands. Your < 8 weeks figure makes me ask whether woman there have access to clinical termination of pregnancy (as opposed to surgical).

We have no legal access to clinical TOP here, and in general, a D&C is not performed before at least 6 weeks LMP, even if pregnancy has been confirmed by ultrasound. That leaves a distinct gap between the time when emergency contraception by either post-coital pill or IUD insertion could be used and when surgical termination of pregnancy can be undertaken.

What cultural things can you think of which would account for women being aware of their pregnancies early, making arrangements to have them terminated, and the procedure being completed prior to 8 weeks LMP?

Do you happen to have figures on the post first trimester 17.6%. I’d be interested to know what proportion of those pregnancies were terminated as the result of CVS or amniocentisis and at what stage of gestation they were terminated.

Also - do you have socialised medicine? Is pregnancy testing and first trimester abortion available in the Netherlands for no or little cost?

15

Without regard to the abortion debate, you ignore the fact that, in general, those who control the terms of debate in general win the debate. Each side will chose a name for themselves that place themselves in the best light, and a name for their opponents that demonizes their opponents. Demonization is a common (and invaluable) tactic in the war of words. “Pro-life” folks really call their opponents “baby-killers”, and “Pro-choice” folks really call their opponents “right-wing totalitarians”. Note that the names contain the seeds of the arguments: “baby-killers” assumes that a fetus is a person, a baby, and “right-wing totalitarians” assumes that the main purpose is to take away choice, to control the choice of women.

Good will on both sides of the debate on issues like abortion, gun control, or which flavor of pizza to order for dinner is sadly lacking in most discussions. “Pepperoni heads” and “veggie hacks” will never admit that the other side actually might have a legitimate point of view. And when PETA gets involved, well, all hope of reconciliation goes out the window…

16

Here I go again - wandering from the OP to defend what I said.

bullsheetrock. A pro right to abortionist will allow abortions at the will of the woman. Giving this right to all people means you will have more abortions then if this ‘right’ didn’t exist. saying otherwise is lying to yourself. They you get on you high horse and preach that you don’t want to see the abortion rate increase.

I understand what you are trying to say here, but you are justifing it by removing yourself from the ugly process of killing babies. I see it no diffrent they if you were to support the right to murder your children but saying you are against it.

not really - by itself it is very misleading.

Did you miss this!
Pro right to abortion groups have found their political home in the liberal party. Such party has sought to transfer rights from the person to the gov’t. YOu want an example? Look no further then my sig :wink:

17

Pro-abortion describes the family planning policy of China, which is very different from the vast majority of the pro-choice people I know.

Pro-Choice people emphasise CHOICE. They are just as irate (perhaps more irate) at the thought someone would be forced (or “encouraged”) to terminate her pregnancy against her will as that she would be forced to carry to term against her will.

Most pro-choice people I know who are active, actively work for what they will believe will prevent unwanted preganacies, which includes sex ed, easy, affordable, confidential access to birth control, and yes, encouraging abstinence (if that is the womans CHOICE).

Many pro-choice people who are activists are activists involved in making the other choices a woman has more palitable. This includes increasing (yes, increasing) the level of social programs available so a woman who decides to raise her child has some chance of providing for that child and herself. Not a real popular view right now, but if you want to decrease the number of abortions without making them illegal, it may be necessary. They also work for an increase in birthmothers rights in adoption, also not a real popular view, but one that makes adoption more attractive for women.

Pro-choice people tend to be very concerned about wrings “prosecuting pregnancy” topic - not just because, as the media would have you believe, it leads to a legal precedent of fetus as person (although that is disturbing), but because it is a movement to control a woman during her pregnancy, removing her choices. Its not that pro-Choicers want women to smoke, drink, or do drugs during pregnancy, but that they believe that a woman should be able to choose what is best for her during her pregnancy. (I think people who choose homebirth are slightly off their rocker, who needs that mess on their own mattress, but was very concerned by the case of the woman forced to give birth in a hospital against her will because some judge determined it would be best for the baby).

In short, pro-abortion is simply not accurate, and where it could be construed to be accurate, is not complete enough.

18

For the sake of accuracy, I’ll point out that I’ve never heard any pro-abortion rights advocates use the phrase “right-wing totalitarians” to describe their opponents. A quick Google search turned up no usage of the phrase in reference to abortion. “Baby-killers” got lots of hits, though.

19

All depends on the circles you travel in, I expect. I’ve certainly heard it; “fundamentalist”, and “intolerant” are others. YMMV.

20

reprise

With regards to your second post, you’ve given reasons for your belief that government funding of abortions is a good idea, not reasons for the term pro-abortion to be inaccurate in this instance

note: in the final paragraph of the OP the words “convinced that all of the above is true” should be “convinced that all of the above is not true”. I didn’t notice this error until I saw it quoted by dlb. (If a mod could fix it I’d be appreciative).