The Power of Words: terms for the abortion debate

[Hasty Ent]

I don't believe that pro-choice means pro-abortion. In my opinion, I've always thought it meant the freedom to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

[Rían]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Eh? Not necessarily. The effect of the emergency contraceptive can act in two ways: firstly, to prevent the egg from attaching to the uterus, and secondly, to prevent an egg from being released from the fallopean tubes. In both cases, there is not necessarily a fertilised egg, and so, can't be considered to be abortive. (kinda goes without saying with the fallopian option.)

Botox, a form of botulism, is used in cosmetic procedures to remove/reduce the "frown line" between people's eyebrows. If someone injected a lethal amount of botox in a person, with the intent to kill the person, would you just think "ah well, they just wanted to make them look really pretty - after all, it's a drug used for cosmetic procedures!" ?

It's the INTENT that's important.

In the same way, yes, there may not always be a fertilized egg, but one of the INTENTS of the drug is to CAUSE an abortion of a fertilized and implanted egg, IF that situation happens to be present.

[Elfmaster XK]

I bet the person who wrote that list of terms doesn’t feel so strongly about killing all things, and things that I believe are more alive than any group of cells at a week old. For example, I bet they are quite happy to eat fish, and don’t go around saying you can’t say ‘fishing’, you have to say ‘snatching living creatures in a net and leaving them on a boat deck to almost suffocate before bludgeoning them to death.’ These people aren’t pro-life. They’re pro-human life, because somewhere along the way people came up with this idea that they have more right to life than anything else.

originally posted by RÃ*an
That's why, IMO, pro-choice people should be allowed to choose their terms, according to their beliefs. And pro-lifers should be allowed the same courtesy, IMO. And the media, which purports to be fair, should use the terms that each side prefers, in order to be fair. Do you agree?

I agree with what you say, but then in a debate like this words are indeed powerful because they are the greatest tool against each other. What people chose to say is intended to be positive for whatever they believe in order to get support, so whatever would be fairer doesn’t matter. I prefer the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion because that is what it is really about, IMO.

If you (not you particularly RÃ*an )are anti-abortion then what do you suggest people do? Just have the baby and then resent it, or give it away, or give it a sub-standard life because you can’t afford it? Because according to the list kindly posted by Mercutio giving a baby away is “calloused.â€�

Place baby in a // Give her baby away
pair of loving arms
To "give her baby away" sounds negative, almost calloused.

Though I don't believe all anti-abortion people will agree with the things said on the list.

[Valandil]

Elfmaster, on Merc's list, I believe they're saying to avoid using the terms on the right - and to instead use the terms on the left - if you're pro-life. So to say that 'giving up the baby' sounds calloused is saying that the terminology makes adoption sound like a bad idea. Pro-lifers are strong proponents of adoption - esp as an alternative to abortion. There have historically been long waiting lists for adoptions in recent years.

If you want, you can think of the side as 'pro-human-life' - but it gets kind of wordy. And I don't see anything to be ashamed of in the term, if you meant it that way. One does not need to be a strict vegetarian and animal-rights activist in order to perceive humanity as a higher creature than the animals... and to care more about preserving each human life than each animal life. Besides... we're talking about our own kind, aren't we?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by Elfmaster XK
I bet the person who wrote that list of terms doesn’t feel so strongly about killing all things, and things that I believe are more alive than any group of cells at a week old. For example, I bet they are quite happy to eat fish, and don’t go around saying you can’t say ‘fishing’, you have to say ‘snatching living creatures in a net and leaving them on a boat deck to almost suffocate before bludgeoning them to death.’ These people aren’t pro-life. They’re pro-human life, because somewhere along the way people came up with this idea that they have more right to life than anything else.

you could also say pro eating meat/pro keeping animals in cramped living conditions, before murdering them, and gleefully eating the remains

[Valandil]

I have been restraining myself greatly, because this is an issue I'm quite passionate about - for the underlying philosophy, for the methods used and for the sheer volume of numbers involved. Still I'll refrain a bit from all that.

I WOULD like to ask you who are pro-choice some questions though. First, when do YOU believe life begins? Specifically, at what point is a developing human baby considered a 'life' due legal protection on its own? Is it at conception? How about when there's a beating heart? A brain? Discernable fingers and toes? Eyes, ears and nose? All those things happen remarkably early in the formation process... even before a mother knows she's expecting, in many cases. Or... when a forming child could appear to feel pain? (fetal pain having recently been ruled 'irrelevant' by a judge in striking down a law banning partial-delivery abortion) When the child could survive on its own? When it can be kept alive if born? (that latter happens earlier and earlier!)

Second, what forms your opinion on the subject? Is it true conviction, having studied fetal development (even if only to crack open a book and observe the weekly progress and put your finger down and say "here!")? Or is it just a point that's convenient for your belief in allowing abortions to whatever point? And... what if you're wrong? It seems to me that we're doing what we do on the assumption that this is not yet a life, therefore it's OK! It's just interesting to me that as medical science has been able to show us more and more just how much of a life a pre-born baby is at an earlier point, the legal system keeps pushing back the status of 'human life' to a later point.

Now - a *shocker*... I am pro-choice! I just happen to think that when there's a baby involved (pre-born included), the choice has already been made! Oh - you'll talk about rape, etc - but I believe that's a small percentage of the total. If I gave you the abortions by exception, would you give me back the ones which are essentially after-the-fact birth control? Oh - and the reasons for which we justify abortions: financial difficulties, 'unwanted', disabilities, their life 'would not be worth living' (how high and mighty of us to decide!), even convenience... we don't kill other people for reasons like that. What we're really talking about, by and large, in our society is the 'choice' or the 'right' to act irresponsibly and then try to dodge the natural consequences of our actions. But that never works anyway... we only take on different consequences (whether we know it or not).

Now - I've focused on the issue of abortion, so back to the 'word choice' issue. I don't understand how you on the pro-choice side of the argument can presume to give ANY label to those on the pro-life side. We don't control how you frame YOURselves on the issue. It sounds to me like this:

Suppose you're on a Debate Team. You have a certain side of an issue to defend in a debate contest. Just before it begins, a judge brings you two lists of words and tells you that you may NOT use the words from List A but that you MUST use the words from List B instead. You review the lists and quickly preceive that this will hurt your cause... for both lists contain emotionally charged words - but List A has all the words which you would consider beneficial to your case while List B has all the words which you would consider harmful to your case. So you ask the judge, "Who prepared this list?" and the judge replies with a smile, "Why, your upcoming opponent, right over there".

That's how we conservatives perceive wording currently in use in mainstream media in America today.

[Lizra]

Both sides are guilty of trying to influence opinions through word use. That is what people do with language! So choose your words carefully (if you care) and make your thoughts crystal clear. Much of what is "said" about hot topics is simply cheerleading....people (on either side) "preaching to the choir" for affirmation and magnification, so 85% of it goes in one ear and out the other, for me.

I see the term "pro choice" as the desire to keep emphasis on the woman having control (choice) over what goes on in her own body. (I choose to take immediate control/ responsibility of my body at a much earlier date, by practicing birth control, thus avoiding the whole horrible issue Added: If I found myself pregnant in spite of my very serious efforts to avoid it, I would grow and have the new person, I couldn't do an abortion, it would just haunt me and ruin the quality of my life ) The term "Pro life" would be clearer (in this issue) if it was "pro embryonic life"....or something That shifts thought to "how do you define life" which seems to be what the debate is more about...

Of the two terms, I find pro life to be a bit more confusing. Let's look at the opposites...pro life's is "pro death" and I don't think that is the issue for the abortion side, since they don't veiw zygotes etc as "life" yet. The opposite of choice...no choice....well?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by bmilder
...On the other hand, these activists are not "pro-life" when it comes to the woman or even a child once it is born and possibly neglected...

Ben, I understand that you're probably repeating what you've been told, and believe it to be true. However, I don't think this is a correct statement.

If you stand by it, on what do you base that position?

[jerseydevil]

I guess this is now just about terms used to describe abortion. I thought we had an abortion thread.

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Also - regarding the "21 reasons why Republicans..." thread that Ben closed. I agree with Valadil. It was another example of people able to take a swipe at others and would have simply have started arguments. I was not going to let those one sided comments go - regardless of whether people thought they were funny. When someone posted the "What Makes an Ugly American" list in Khamul's trip thread - like Valadil with the Replublican list - I wanted to post an opposing list - but I refrained. The fact that people see nothing wrong starting threads or posting for the sole purpose of attacking versus discussing is EXACTLY what has been wrong with this board lately.

Somehow I knew JD would still squeeze in his two cents even after the thread was closed. I have to disagree, it seems people who come to this board take things a little too seriously. What I posted was suppose to be humorous and lighthearted. Its very sad you can't post little things like this without having people cry over it. I'm a liberal, go ahead and poke some fun at that party, I really wouldn't care. If you got all defensive and angered by it, all I can say is lighten up.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ragnarok
Somehow I knew JD would still squeese in his two cents even after the thread was closed. I have to disagree, it seems people who come to this board take things a little too seriously. What I posted was suppose to be humorous and lighthearted. Its very sad you can't post little things like this without having people cry over it. I'm a liberal, go ahead and poke some fun at that party, I really wouldn't care. If you got all defensive and angered by it, all I can say is lighten up.

Maybe you and others should listen to your own advice then - and not go ape **** when I post something you disagree with. Just an observation.

Thjat just seemed very typical though of an attack thread, I agree with Valadil as I said. It wasn't a discussion thread.

[Beruthiel's cat]

My two cents, for what they are worth:

I have no problem whatsoever using the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" to describe advocates of both sides of the issue. I think both are less biasing descriptions of the positions of each side.

Like JD, I find myself more on a middle ground with this issue, though I consider myself more "pro-choice" for a number of personal reasons.

I feel that abortion should remain safe and legal. Why? Because it will happen anyway, regardless of whether it is legal or not. It has happened for centuries and will continue. Why should women who make the decision that they don't want to be pregnant (for whatever reason) have to face unsafe conditions and procedures to end the pregnancy?

When I was in high-school, abortion was still illegal in most states, including Michigan, where I lived then. One day in class, a girl I didn't know well started to talk to me. She was a little bit of a "wild" child and often talked about parties and crazy things she would do. It was not the life I led, and she knew that. I think she liked to talk to me because I was so different from the rest of her friends. And I liked her because I sensed that she was really a very nice person who didn't have a support network at home. Anyway, she told me about a friend of hers who was pregnant and wanted an abortion and wanted her to go with her to the abortionists "office" so she didn't have to go alone. The account of this visit was hair-raising, and forever changed my view on the subject. The girl nearly died and my friend was terrified.

There will always be mis-directed people like this who will choose to have an abortion because they don't have a support system at home and have not had the system of values taught to them that many of us have had. We cannot force our values on those who don't share them. That can lead to resentment.

I think that there are also certain circumstances in which abortion is acceptable. Certainly if the mother's life is in danger if a pregnancy is carried to term. Also, in cases of rape or incest, even though these cases are rare, the option should be available.

I also think that there should be a point in a pregnancy where abortion is no longer an option, as in the last trimester.

And what is better -- abortion in the early stages of pregnancy, or a woman wrapping her newborn in a plastic bag and placing it in a dumpster?

Abortion is not a choice I would make myself because I was brought up with strong values and in a loving and supportive family. I would not have had to make the decision. But others not as fortunate do have to face this decision. I don't think it is a choice made lightly by anyone facing it and I know there are some who make it that are plagued by it throughout their lives.

In the early part of the 20th century many people were living in poverty-level conditions. Birth control was unknown and families were large. Diseases that are virtually unknown now claimed the lives of many, but many families still had eight or ten children and no money to feed or clothe them. Unwanted pregnancies were often terminated by deadly means. Abortion is nothing new.

One of the things I find hardest to understand about some pro-life advocates (I understand that not all pro-lifers feel this way) is that they are also opposed to birth control and sex education. If they want to keep people from having abortions, shouldn't it follow that they should also want to keep the pregnancy rate down? Abstinance is all good and well in an environment where a strong system of values and morality exsist, but what about where those ideals are not taught, supported or advocated?

Who bears the burden of unwanted children? Adoption? Not every mother can make that decision or wants to. Should these children be raised by a parent who is unprepared to care for them and resentful that their lives were forever altered by the arrival of a child they didn't want? Not all children are adoptable, unfortunately. Should we advocate the resurgence of orphanages to accomodate unwanted, unadoptable children?

I don't advocate abortion as a means of birth control. That is utterly ridiculous. There are so many other options available in this day and age.

I don't have the answers to these questions, and I suspect no one really does. That's why I think that:

1. Sex education is vital.
2. Birth control should be discussed as part of sex education, and that it should be available to those who need it (this is another topic of discussion, I know...)
3. Abortion should remain safe and legal.

This is probably more than two cents worth, but that's what I have to say about it.

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Maybe you and others should listen to your own advice then - and not go ape **** when I post something you disagree with. Just an observation.

Thjat just seemed very typical though of an attack thread, I agree with Valadil as I said. It wasn't a discussion thread.

Most of the time when I disagree with you, I avoid posting cause I know how defensive you get over the littlest of things. I'm going to ingore your first comment because that doesn't apply to me. And correction you and Val, saw it as an attack, everyone else that posted realized it was suppose to be humorous.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by Beruthiel's cat

1. Sex education is vital.
2. Birth control should be discussed as part of sex education, and that it should be available to those who need it (this is another topic of discussion, I know...)
3. Abortion should remain safe and legal.

This is probably more than two cents worth, but that's what I have to say about it.

I feel absolutely concurrently with these points, and i think you have hit the nail on the head here.

Originally posted by Beruthiel's cat
Anyway, she told me about a friend of hers who was pregnant and wanted an abortion and wanted her to go with her to the abortionists "office" so she didn't have to go alone. The account of this visit was hair-raising, and forever changed my view on the subject. The girl nearly died and my friend was terrified

this passage conjured inages of the film 'Dirty Dancing', when "Penny" has a similar experience, trivial comparison, I know, but the only sort of experience i can suggest, from my point in UK.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by Ragnarok
.... And correction you and Val, saw it as an attack, everyone else that posted realized it was suppose to be humorous.

and very humorous the original piece was

[Nerdanel]

Originally posted by Beruthiel's cat
My two cents, for what they are worth:
...

Excellent post, BC! I totally agree with you.

[Ragnarok]

Anyways, back on topic.. I am against abortion because I don't believe women have the right to kill a life.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Ragnarok
Most of the time when I disagree with you, I avoid posting cause I know how defensive you get over the littlest of things. I'm going to ingore your first comment because that doesn't apply to me. And correction you and Val, saw it as an attack, everyone else that posted realized it was suppose to be humorous.

Hey - then let's all just start posting threads making negative "humorous" remarks about all groups on the board. I'm sure those items in that list don't represent your feelings AT ALL about Republicans - now do they?

Oh and by the way - I don't get defensive about the littlest things. It has been building up and it is the combination and unrelenting attacks and anti-Americanism that has been getting out of hand that has pissed me off. Maybe you consider it a "little" thing - but an avalance is made up of individual little snow flakes.

[Rían]

As the thread-starter, I just wanted to clarify that this thread is NOT specifically about abortion; it's mainly about the "power of words" used in things like the abortion debate and other controversial topics.

That said, I don't mind some comments about opinions on abortion, because it influences choice of words, but I didn't want this thread to be solely about people's opinions on abortion.

[Nerdanel]

You made things clear, RÃ*an!