furt
What is inaccurate about referring to people that are against choice as “anti-choice”?
Come on. Do you seriously believe that there is anyone who is opposed to choice itself?
Admittedly, there are people who are opposed to abortion as a choice – just as there are people who oppose rape as a choice, or election fraud as a choice, or gaybashing as a choice. I don’t think you’ll find anyone who thinks that choice itself is inherently right or wrong.
In other words, calling someone “anti-choice” is another blatant misrepresentation of that person’s views.
Indeed, as VarlosZ correctly surmised (unlike my gender) I was comparing the feelings of the singled-out students with those of homosexual (and Wiccan too, I suppose) students.
Although I think religious-based prejudice against gays should continue to be challenged, I disapprove of the method employed at this particular event.
So what am I supposed to call them? “Pro-life”? Is there anyone who is actually pro-life? Who refuses to take antibiotics because that would kill bacteria, and they’re “pro-life”? I think that it was quite clear that I was speaking about the term within the context of abortion. I don’t see anything inaccurate about saying “X’s position on abortion is anti-choice” if X does in fact oppose women being allowed to choose abortion.
Well first of all, you’re the one who insisted on the accuracy of “anti-choice.” You’re not going to prove your point by attacking the accuracy of other terminology.
You’re conflating two different issues. Yes, you were talking within the context of abortion; however, that doesn’t address the question of whether ‘pro-choice’ and ‘anti-choice’ really are accurate terms. Insisting ‘But I was talking about abortion!’ only reflects your own mindset, and it does not address the accuracy of your verbiage.
I, for one, don’t insist that each term must be absolutely, meticulously precise, leaving no room for exceptions. For the most part, I accept the term ‘pro-choice,’ even though I think fails to accurately present the so-called ‘abortion rights’ position. However, I do complain to terms that are obvious attempts to stifle and mischaracterize other people’s positions – hence my objection to terms such as ‘homophobia’ and ‘anti-choice.’
“Pro-life” is a term created not to define those who are against abortion, but to suggest that those who support the rights of women to have abortions are “Anti-life.”
Well then, you should have no objection to being called “pro-death.” After all, it shoudl be quite clear that we are speaking about this term within the context of abortion.
Y’know, I knew you were a theophobe and a conservophobe, but I didn’t know you were pro-death as well.
BTW, lest any latecomers misunderstand, I don’t seriously consider The Ryan to be “pro-death,” nor would I normally use terms like “theophobe.” I’m only using these terms to illustrate the logical implications of affirming terms like “anti-choice.”
Exactly so, just as “pro-choice” is a term created not to define those who support abortion rights, but to suggest that those who oppose legalized abortions are “Anti-choice,” opposed to all forms of autonomy.
Both terms were contrived for their PR value and ability to make the other side look bad, not from a desire for accuracy … just as “Homophobia” is used on anyone who opposes homosexuals on an issues.
I have very strong negative feelings for the New York Yankees, grapefruit juice, Bette Midler, and political extremists of all types. Are these phobias? No, but if I were to say I hate gay people (I don’t) I would automatically be “homophobic.” It’s not accurate, but it makes me look bad.
Is there even a remote chance we can abandon this semantical hijack and actually discuss the OP’s question? I would be very interested in more opinions regarding where the acceptable boundaries are for “moral” teaching in schools, which is what I though JTC was asking for at the start.
::drives slowly past massive car-wreck, craning neck to see dead bodies, blood, personal items strewn poignantly across carriageway etc::
::unsurprisingly, tail-ends car in front and becomes part of said wreck::
I must admit that the question that comes to my mind while reading this thread (apart from “hey! which of you is going to pay for my car!”), was more to do with the issues that people define as having to do with “morality”. There was a distinction made earlier on between those who oppose the teaching of “morality” in the classroom, and those who favour it. My reaction from the off was the same as mswas’s: “It’s a pity this is even an issue”.
I can see how the teaching in public schools of any partisan brand of “morality” is objectionable. I can also see how those whose personal moral code is derived from a religious source (for example) may feel that since their own code tells them that “homosexual behaviour is immoral”, then for a school to include any mention of such beahviour as acceptable would constitute the teaching of a discrete “morality” that was in opposition to their own.
However, I think most of the people who have no objection to school health classes dealing with homosexuality in the same context as advice about heterosexual acts (e.g. take care, use condoms etc.) simply do not see such teaching as having a moral component in reference to the orientation of the sex. So when someone says “You’re imposing your morality on my kids because you’re teaching them about homosexuality,” they respond, “Huh? This has nothing to do with morality. I’m just trying to make sure non of your kids gets syphilis lady.”
Furthermore, “pro-homosexual” (btw, doesn’t this make anyone else think of pro-celebrity golf matches?? 
) teaching which is aimed at stamping out the ostracisation or bullying of students would seem to be part of a “morality” which favours considerate and kind behaviour in general and not simply a tactic to get children to put away their belief that homosexuality is a sin (even if that’s a nice idea too… she said, revealing her innate, cosy, liberal, brainwashed take on the issue…).
One of the problems in this debate (apart from the etymological diversion) is that of arguing at cross purposes: “You’re imposing your morality by teaching moral lesson A!” “There is no moral lesson A. This is a moral lesson B thing.” “Well naturally I agree with moral lesson B, but why aren’t I allowed to teach moral lesson C then?”
When Moralities Collide. Yipes.
Hurry up and call the breakdown van!
Embra
Absolutely. The idea of “value-free” morally neutral education is absurd. It’s utterly impossible to teach history or literature without implicitly conveying values and morals, let alone sex education.
You know, since I was largely responsible for the train wreck here through questioning Jubilation T. Cornpone’s raising of the “pro-homosexual” issue, I feel a certain moral impetus (if having one of those is acceptable in Great Debates!;)) to return to the OP.
First, Planned Parenthood has an amoral agenda. My choice of words here is specific and not intended to be pejorative. I.e., leaving moral decisions to their clients and those who would serve as moral advisors to them, they make available information on matters related to sexuality and reproduction, along with means of avoiding “undesirable” consequences of engaging in these areas. (“Undesirable” here also does not have a moral judgment incorporated, but rather indicates a state contrary to the personal desires of the clients, as in, “I want to have sex but not to get/get her pregnant” – pregnancy there being an “undesirable consequence” in my usage – regardless of whether some third party may feel that immoral behavior is going on or wishing that they themselves could conceive a child.)
As such, they affirm the rights of young people who discover themselves to be gay, i.e., to have a sexual orientation towards their own sex, to not be condemned for having such an orientation. They hold that persons interested in having sexual relations should have adequate information to make informed decisions about what the consequences of doing so might be – and I’m confident that anyone who has worked with youth is well aware of the mythology that gets perpetuated on the subject. And they hold that anyone who has become pregnant and does not wish to carry the child to term should have access to safe means of terminating that pregnancy.
Obviously, several items on this list are hot-button issues for many conservatives and not a few liberals. I’ve tried to define their stance without moral judgments in order to open the door to some questions, as Gen. Cornpone originally seemed to be seeking.
Some of these might be:
[ul]
[li]To what extent may young people make moral decisions without the influence of their parents and other persons in authority over them? This appears to be the question implicit in the OP.[/li][li]To what extent should the ability to have an abortion be made available to pregnant persons? To what extent does the state’s interest in preserving innocent life supersede the woman’s interest in making decisions regarding her own body?[/li][li]To what extent is it appropriate for a publicly-funded body to take a non-judgmental stance regarding homosexual youth? To what extent is it appropriate to affirm their sexuality?[/li][/ul]
Opinions on these questions will of course differ greatly. But they are implicit in the OP’s cite.
Jubilation, have I covered the ground you were interested in discussing, in terms of defining the issues at question?
actualy, xenophobia is the fear of strangers. xeno, from the greek, means stranger. but it means the same thing.
While, yes, the education of “Tolorance of homosexuality” in public schools does most likely reduce violence, it decensitizes people to homosexuality, and promotes it. I have heard that the rateing system on movies was to reduce violence among the young and impressionable. I have also noticed that people are saying that they are gay at younger and younger ages, and many of these so called “Homosexuals” are in fact, not homosexual at all. They simply have a lack of options, or in the case of many women, hate men.
But back to the rateing system of movies, it seems to Me that decensitization works on many levels. Through music, movies, TV, school, and other media, children are being decensitized to many violent atributes of our society, and they also have become decensitised to the variations in society. Children apear to swear more than they did when I was a child, and there also seems to be more violence, is this because of decencitisation be the media? Could we not also acredit the riseing population of homosexuals to the decensitsation that our children are recieving from the public school system?
Would that be “rising population” in the sense of “rising number of people who feel that on balance coming out won’t automatically result in imprisonment and/or a kicking”? Or would that be “rising population” as in “in my day there was only one gay man in our town! Really!”
Just checking.
Ipse, I too am old enough to have noted some change. The one thing I’d agree with you on, however, is the greater instance and degree of violence. I think you are flat-out wrong on the other areas, and in particular the question of homosexuality. It’s extraordinarily rare for someone to claim to be gay in order to “fit in,” even today. What you’re seeing is people who would have remained in the closet or vociferously denied bisexual tendencies being more open and honest about their feelings. (I see Embra has targeted this issue, too.)
And frankly, IMHO the idea of being “desensitized” is for the most part bilgewater. What is happening, instead, is a greater degree of sensitization to the feelings of others within a peer group, resulting in a greater acceptance of the people who would have been marginalized or ostracized before and a greater degree of anger against social norms preventing that greater sense of freedom in all students.
As for profanity, it’s more publicly acceptable, but if you think kids swear more today than 50 years ago, you need to think back a bit more. They’re just more open about it.
In fact, the mere practice of saying “We should not teach morality within the schools” implictly contains a moral worldview – that is, that it’s wrong to each morality in a school setting!
Ditto for situations wherein the teacher presents a moral situation and says, “I want you to think about this scenario, but I won’t deign to tell you what’s right or wrong.” That conveys an implicit moral worldview as well – namely, that we should tolerate each other’s moral viewpoints, and should not pass judgment on their validity. The whole notion contradicts itself.
So one might think. And yet, Planned Parenthood is very vocal about saying that it’s wrong to restrict abortion, or to teach that it’s morally wrong. They are similarly vocal in affirming homosexual rights, and in criticizing those who criticize homosexuality.
So do they truly present no judgments on morality? They may claim so, but their own words and actions show otherwise.
There’s a grave contradiction in saying “Each person gets to decide their own morality. That’s the essence of morality.” I would hope that this contradiction is self-evident.
What JThunder said.
And sqweels - I am pleased to find my hopes fulfilled.
Is there anyone willing to try to justify what Planned Parenthood did in the instance of the OP? Or must we simply argue about semantics?
Regards,
Shodan
Well, a stance such as the one I espouse: “There is a proper ethic which all people ought to follow; however, a part of it respects the dignity and right to choose of my fellow man, and as such requires that I refrain from demanding that others follow it” would imply the same sort of issue.
Also, I concede that Planned Parenthood does make moral judgements in the areas specified.
To decide which set of standards is more in accord with the source claimed for both would truly hijack this thread, however.