This is still GQ, right? 
If “anti choice” as a descriptor was so objective and unbiased, media style guides would have no problem with its use…and you would find common usage in mainstream news stories.
What is that supposed to prove? I didn’t say “anti-choice” was objective, I’ve said that it’s polemic but accurate. How does that quote refute anything that I’ve said? I never said the term wasn’t biased, but biased doesn’t have to mean inaccurate.
No one? Are you sure?
I’m thinking of people that express dismay when someone tries to talk a woman out of an abortion…
You mean people who don’t like to see women harrassed by mobs at abortion clinics?
Where did you say it was polemic or concede that it was biased? For instance, I would be abhorrently dismayed if people described a pro-murder group as “pro-choice” despite its accuracy. In some cases, one correct term is preferred over another correct term as being more accurate.
It would be like continuing to describe George Bush as a primate and when people call you on it say “hey, it’s polemic but accurate!” No, there are more correct terms to apply to people: call people primates (or anti-choice) as much as you want but concede their subjective and judgmental overtones.
Post # 53 of this thread.
Polemic doesn’t necessarily mean distorted or propagandistic or misleading. It just means taking a side in argument. “Anti-choice” takes a side but doesn’t distort anything since it accurately denotes a specific position on a precise point of contention.
Thanks for making my point, since abortions will happen anyway will not stop abortions, the choice is still there to make - so there is no anti choice, just anti gov’t sponsered abortions - this is the issue we are talking about. I don’t hear anyone stating the position to elimiate all aboutions.
The question is do you want:
safe legal common abortions
or
rare, unsafe abortions
The issue is not choice, but the gov’t’s approvial of this procedure or not - pro abortion or anti abortion, putting choice in the matter is dishonest.
“Primate” takes a side but doesn’t distort anything since it accurately denotes a specific type of animal to which a certain President belongs.
The problem is not that calling Bush a primate is inaccurate but that it doesn’t signify anything about him. It doesn’t convey any information. I’m not even sure it could be called “polemic” because it doesn’t actually advocate anything. It’s just a factual statement about what biological order he belongs to. It’s no more polemic than saying he’s a mammal.
It’s a type of animal to which all people belong. Putting it as a descriptor adds emphasis that is subjective and can be interpreted as inaccurate and distorted. For example, everybody is intelligent to some degree or another, but when you describe somebody as intelligent you are implying they are more so than would be expected.
We are all primates, but not all primates are people. I don’t know the specific populations of various primate groups but the average primate is probably slightly less human than the average human, therefore describing somebody as “primate” is a subjective statement about their resemblance towards members of the entire group, i.e. the hypothetical composite average.
As I’ve said, the issue is about legal choice. This avenue is a non-starter.
Where are you getting this stuff about “rare” and “common?” Those are not givens. What makes you think that illegal abortions would be “rare?”
The ONLY question is whether you want abortion to be legal or illegal.
The government’s “approval” is neither here nor there. The issue is whether the procedure should be legal. That is what divides the sides. Nothing else.
Hey, I said it was like the same situation, not exactly the same situation, just like Dio said “anti-abortion” was a “little polemic”, not polemic.
But I stand by my stance that both “primate” and “anti-choice” are accurate but overly biased. They are overly biased not only in their denotation (since they are irrelevant when we are describing derivations of policy positions,) but also their connotation in that no one wants to be seen as an average primate or an “anti-” person.
Any supposed counterexamples notwithstanding, I think that the number of people who believe the developing lifeform inside the mother is as fully a rights-bearing entity as a born baby and yet also believe the right to terminate that lifeform should not be curtailed are vanishingly small.
Anyway: “The Sides”? Despite the fact that it a more polarized issue than nearly any other in this country, belief is on a continuum, rather than black and white. Some wish to block all abortions, period.
Others wish to block all abortions barring extreme circumstances. This is a varied group since the circumstances might be different.
Others wish to block abortions based on a certain maturity of the developing lifeform. This is also a varied group.
Others might wish to have all abortions legal no matter what.
So no, legality is not the only thing dividing the “sides”. There aren’t really even any “sides”.
I said “anti-choice” was " a little polemic," not “anti-abortion.”
“Anti-choice” is not meant to comment on “derivations of policy positions,” but only to designate the position itself. In that regard, it’s completely accurate, describes 100% of the people who hold that position, and distinguishes them from the other side by locating them along the precise line of contention.
“Primate” does not even have any reference to a particular issue or dispute, much less take a side in one. I think the “average primate” thing is kind of a reach. It would have never occurred to me in a million years to do that kind of math about being called a primate. Do you think it’s insulting to call somebody a “mammal?” If I call GWB a mammal, what side am I taking?
Does he flip out and kill people all the time?
Just to add the anti abort side at it’s very best sees abortion as 2 lives in and one out, and abortion is a procedure that exposes the mothers offspring to extreme risk, so on the anti abort side the options are
unsafe common legal
and unsafe rare illegal
you have streached this about as far as you can. The issu, as pointed out numerious time, e has always been about if gov’t will allow (pro) abortion or disallow (anti) abortion. Either way the choice is NEVER taken away from the mother.
Really do you think that there will be as many abortions if it were made illegal?
Exctaly my point, it’s not about choice at all, just if it is to be legal, pro abort or anti abort nothing else. The issue is about the government’s approval through law, not about choice.
But there isn’t a precise line of contention. Those who think all abortions under any circumstance should be illegal, and those who think abortions should be allowed at any time during the pregnancy for any reason, are both very small numbers. Under your black-and-white definition, it is 100% accurate to say that 90% of all people are “anti-choice”, because about that many think that a woman should not have the “choice” to terminate the pregnancy when the fetus is past viability and the life or health of the mother is not threatened.
If you’re trying to argue against the usage “anti-choice” to mean “anti-abortion-rights”, you shouldn’t weaken your case by espousing such obviously absurd usages as “unsafe” to mean that abortion isn’t safe for the fetus.
“Safe” is a standard term to describe an abortion procedure that minimizes the health risks to the woman terminating the pregnancy. The whole point of an abortion is to kill the fetus, so the fetus’s safety is irrelevant.
People on both sides of the abortion debate, if they want their opponents to use respectful and meaningful terms for their positions, need to do the same for their opponents’ position. Anybody who goes around labeling the other side as “pro-abortion” can only expect to be called “anti-choice” in return. Similarly, claiming that “no abortion is safe” when what you really mean is that it isn’t safe for the fetus serves no purpose except a little point-scoring in a self-serving game of semantics.
Which is why the fundamental issue is abortion rights, not the broader concepts of “abortion” in general or “choice” in (even more) general.
Maybe. Abortion is illegal in most of Latin America, for example, and yet the abortion rate (37 per 1000 premenopausal women) there is higher than in the US where abortion is legal (21 per thousand). In turn, the rate in the US is much higher than in the Netherlands and Belgium (7 per thousand), where abortion laws are much more liberal.
So no, I think you’d be very unwise to count on the notion that legally banning abortion in the US would automatically make it “rare”, or even significantly more rare than it is now.
As long as many pro-life people refer to me as “pro-abortion” and “anti-life” and even “baby-killer,” I feel entitled to say that they are “pro-mandatory childbirth” for every pregnant woman. Considering that prohibition will not stop abortions, the pro-life folks, if they succeed, will be “pro-back-alley butchery.”
I believe that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Every child a wanted child.
Oh, and Malacandra, did you stop beating her?
Thanks** Kimstu ** for putting the final nail in the coffen of DtC, the issue at stake is not choice, but if our (US) govt should be for or against abortion, pro abortion or anti abortion is the issue, choice is no