As you wish. If you prefer that opponents use these terms to thumb their noses at and demonize each other, continue to support deceptive and antagonistic labeling. Just don’t expect everyone to fall meekly into line.
Let’s suppose that anti-gay marriage proponents organize sufficiently to demand that the news media consistently refer to them as “marriage defense advocates”. I’d hope that reporters and commentators would refuse to buy into such misleading silliness.
Call your organization what you want, name your proposed legislation whatever you like - but don’t expect the media and public to regurgitate your distorted view of yourself.
That already happens. We have the Defense of Marriage Act. Do you suggest the media refer to it as something else? If so, then let’s call the Minimum Wage Act the Anti-Job Bill. If you like tilting at windmills, then make a big deal about what a group calls itself. If they call themselves the Defense of Marriage Alliance, then the media has to call them that, unless they want to editorialize.
What that means is that the media and public at large should promote accuracy and meaningful dialogue by referring generally to these groups by accurate, non-confrontational labels. If a specific group wants to call itself “Right To Life” or “Marriage Defense Guerrilla Fighters”, OK - but the rest of us when referring to the generic position can and should refer to anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage advocates, or something equally non-loaded and descriptive.
Labels matter. Simply countering with “Do not!” is not meaningful.
Nearly all the spun titles for the two sides of the abortion issue have been mentioned already, but we missed one. I say if their side gets to call us “pro-abortion,” then we get to call them “pro-mandatory-childbirth.” That’s the only option a pregnant woman will have, if their side wins.
I have a retraction to make. I got two facts wrong about the bishops; the gathering is not over, and they did have something to say about the naughty couples who use modern methods of birth control. They also said gay Catholics should have only one Catholic option, celibacy. :rolleyes:
I stand by my propeller joke, though. I’m proud of that one.
I think they’re both, really. Anti-choice may be less loaded a term, and it’s appropriate, but doesn’t capture the whole essence of the twisted thinking present on that “side”.
One thing I cannot figure out is why if they are anti-abortion, they are not pro-birth control (supposedly many of them are, but they don’t seem to get a lot of airplay or publicity). Abstinence just plain old doesn’t work. Maybe “pro-life” should be called “pro-ignorance”. Asknott -I heard a snippet of the bishops meeting on NPR yesterday. Could it get more convulated? Sooner or later, the Church will fall over due to it’s whirling dervish of spiralled reasoning.
Pro-lifer chiming in: “Anti-choice” is fine by me. In fact I’ve always been a little puzzled by its use as a term of derision. After all, it does accurately describe the pro-life position (where “choice” is shorthand for “choice to legally abort a pregancy”). What’s the negative connotation supposed to be?
You* will all excuse me if I don’t let an organization in which a woman will never reach a decision-making position to tell me what I should do or not with my body. We count for nothing in the Catholic church, except when they want to tell us how, when and under which conditions to spread our legs. TVM, but no.
Who are you refering to in the “us” category? You and I are pro-choice, but some posters here are not. Should they refer to us as “baby killers”? That’s what they think we are. Sounds to me like you are advocating a rhetoric war, and that will only distract the discussion form the salient points.
And when you say the press should only use accurate labels, who decides what is accurate? You seem to be assuming that “the press” is always going to be on your side.
For those of you who are interested, more information on what the American Catholic bishops have been discussing can be found http://www.postgazette.com/pg/06319/738380-84.stm The story’s been fairly well covered by the local paper, probably because of the large number of Catholics in my city.
John, your confusion should have been cleared up by now. Either you know what I was saying and are just being argumentative to no purpose, or you’re hopelessly obtuse.
Since I mentioned I do not like either of the terms “pro-life” or “pro-choice”, it should be obvious that those of us who do not appreciate obfuscation and confrontational terminology should use accurate labels.
This falls back into the realm of deliberate obtuseness, since I’ve repeatedly said that use of inflammatory labels inhibits understanding and rational discourse.
I expect the news media to use accurately descriptive terms to refer to members of any political or social movement without falling into the trap of using misleading labels.
Before responding, think about whether you have read this and previous posts accurately before distorting my views any further.
If you do not believe in abortion, then I think you shouldn’t have one. The logical step I can’t follow is "I do not believe in abortion. I am so right about it, that you should not have one either. I have the moral and ethical power to decide for you. Overstepping a little .dont you think.
Who put your fine ethical and moral values in charge of my life? Bringing an unwanted child into the world has always been a problem for the child and family. If they can’t afford a child and feel they are unable to raise it.,how does your morality give you the right to make that decision for them.
I’ve never understood that logic. Personally, I am not interested to much in the legalities of abortion. Regardless, I think they are morally wrong in just about every circumstance. I believe wholeheartedly that a human life is being destroyed in an abortion. If this is my belief, why on earth would I only be concerned with my own actions in this regard? You could just as easily say, “if you don’t like child abuse, don’t abuse your child, but don’t tell someone else they shouldn’t do it.” Or, “if you don’t think stealing is right, then don’t steal, but don’t tell someone else what is right for them.”
In regards to the OP, I agree with John Mace…I think it is nothing but playing politics when you deliberately use a label that describes what YOU think the “other side’s” position is, based on your own prejudices on the matter. This goes for both sides, IMO, who are both guilty of doing this. “Pro-choice” and “pro-life” are both perfectly acceptable terms, and more importantly, their meaning is more or less universally understood.
Which is a great slogan, but unfortunately translates pretty much to “My right to an abortion is founded in how much I want it”, and that doesn’t quite so dignified.
