The Power of Words: terms for the abortion debate

[Rían]

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

Do you believe that people have the right to go out of their way to insult others?

IMO, you are the one that got out of hand on this thread first.

I thought that the "21 ways" thread was purposefully insulting under the cover of humor, too (a very cowardly approach), and those that it was aimed at restrained themselves very well, in spite of the unfair and ridiculously overstated accusations, and in spite of having no chance to defend themselves.

Now as the thread starter: please, everyone, let's drop the insults. There's some good material for discussion here; let's hold it up to the group and examine it in the light of different opinions. Let's appreciate different POV's and try to learn.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Nerdanel
You made things clear, RÃ*an!

Good! Now you stop making trouble, you rabble-rouser!

(NOT! )

[Rían]

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.

Do you believe killing a fish is morally equivalent to killing a person?

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.

EXK, look what you just said - "whatever would be fairer doesn’t matter."

Do you really mean that? You think it's right to NOT be fair? Could you please explain that to me? Why should we NOT be fair? This really concerns me.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

[Beruthiel's cat]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
EXK, look what you just said - "whatever would be fairer doesn’t matter."

Do you really mean that? You think it's right to NOT be fair? Could you please explain that to me? Why should we NOT be fair? This really concerns me.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

Well, I think what EXK is saying is that often the words chosen by those one one side of an issue are selected to make their side look better than the other side (look at political campaigns...). In those cases, objectivity goes by the wayside, as arguments based on opinions become stated as facts. (hmmm...what does that remind you of...certain posters, perhaps...or any number of political campaigns, past, present and future??)

In those cases, fairness and objectivity are not important to the participants. I don't think EXK is saying that it is the right approach -- just that it is often what happens in those situations.

Am I making myself clear here??

[Elfmaster XK]

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.

Oops. Sorry, my mistake. Thanks for pointing that one out, I guess I just read it the wrong way round.

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.

It is a bit wordy I suppose yes, but in terms of saying what we really mean then that is it. I didn't mean people should be ashamed of being pro-life; they should not for it is their opinion.

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

Yes you could, though I would be anti eating meat as I'm vegetarian. But my point was people wouldn't say that because they don't see it as an issue. It's because they think abortion is such a big controversial topic and because it's about people that all these terms exist, and that the list Merc posted exists.

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

You don't believe women have the right to kill a life? Do you think men should be able to decide that for them? I had a friend who got pregnant and when she went to tell her boyfriend he told her to "get rid of it." They fought about it for ages and he forced her to have an abortion. Thankfully she escaped that relationship. But don't think that it's just women who want to make the decisions to "kill a life."

Do you believe killing a fish is morally equivalent to killing a person?

Morally, yes I do, if we are talking about taking a fish in one hand and a person in the other and just killing them. A person and a fish are different kinds of creatures, but both are living and feeling, both think, both feel pain, neither has any less right to live in this world. (However, I recognise that people kill fish for food, because we need meat to live, and that is why most fish are killed so perhaps I picked a bad example.) But if you can tell me why I am wrong, and that it would be okay to kill the fish, but not the person then please do.

EXK, look what you just said - "whatever would be fairer doesn’t matter."

Do you really mean that? You think it's right to NOT be fair? Could you please explain that to me? Why should we NOT be fair? This really concerns me.

In those cases, fairness and objectivity are not important to the participants. I don't think EXK is saying that it is the right approach -- just that it is often what happens in those situations.

Thanks Beruthiel, you're pretty close to what I meant.

Let me clarify what I meant. I didn't mean that unfairness is right. Quite the contrary, I think that being fair is very important, which is why I believe that the words in this argument should remain pro-abortion and anti-abortion. What I meant by saying whatever would be fairer doesn't matter is that when you are on one side of a debate you have to strongly beleive in your opinion, and you will chose how best to represent your side. Because you do this, and your opponent will do the same the fairest representations won't necessarily be the ones that are used.

I don't think this is right at all, all I meant is that it isn't something that is important to the people who are trying to put forwards their campaign, so you get the kind of unfair representation you find with the pair pro-choice and anti-abortion. Was that clearer? I hope so.

And since this thread is about words, I wonder what do people think of modern day gender representation and the equality/inequality of that?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by Elfmaster XK
Yes you could, though I would be anti eating meat as I'm vegetarian. But my point was people wouldn't say that because they don't see it as an issue. It's because they think abortion is such a big controversial topic and because it's about people that all these terms exist, and that the list Merc posted exists.

i also am vegetarian, i don't agree in taking sentient life

[Rían]

Originally posted by Beruthiel's cat
Well, I think what EXK is saying is that often the words chosen by those one one side of an issue are selected to make their side look better than the other side ... In those cases, fairness and objectivity are not important to the participants. I don't think EXK is saying that it is the right approach -- just that it is often what happens in those situations.

Oh, OK - I misread her post.

I thought she was saying what I've heard some other people say, and I wanted to address it. (but I'm glad she wasn't saying that!)

Many people (not really much on the Moot - mostly people I've seen elsewhere) seem to think that "all's fair in love and war" - AND discussions, including deception and unfairness and lack of courtesy. The thought seems to be "If I can get away with it and it helps my side, then great!"

I VERY strongly disagree with that attitude. To me, discussion on issues should be - Go for it passionately! but honestly and with respect for those involved. (rather like the new line in my sig...) IMO, if you can't persuade people to your position on its merits, then you certainly shouldn't try to deceive people into taking your position.

[Beruthiel's cat]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
To me, discussion on issues should be - Go for it passionately! but honestly and with respect for those involved. (rather like the new line in my sig...) IMO, if you can't persuade people to your position on its merits, then you certainly shouldn't try to deceive people into taking your position.

Absolutely!!! Nor do I think a person should be brow-beaten or intimidated into taking another position. And I feel deeply that no one should be ridiculed for an opinion or belief they hold.

I know I don't see eye-to-eye with some folks here on the Moot, but I always try respect what they say (even if I personnally think they have cotton for brains... ...I'd never say that). I've also found that most folks here have pretty sound reasons for having the opinions they have and that they do a very good job of expressing those reasons.

And I think that we've all found people here that we can respect, joke with and have "interesting" discussions with without getting personal. Look at the friends you hang around with...I doubt that they agree with you all the time, nor do you with them. But you like them anyway and want to be around them. You don't always have to touch on subjects that you don't agree on because there is so much else you can discuss...just like here on the Moot!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Elfmaster XK
[B]Morally, yes I do, if we are talking about taking a fish in one hand and a person in the other and just killing them. A person and a fish are different kinds of creatures, but both are living and feeling, both think, both feel pain, neither has any less right to live in this world. (However, I recognise that people kill fish for food, because we need meat to live, and that is why most fish are killed so perhaps I picked a bad example.)

I think that just taking a fish and killing it for no good reason is morally wrong.

But if you can tell me why I am wrong, and that it would be okay to kill the fish, but not the person then please do.

Actually, given what I think to be your worldview (atheistic/agnostic and believes in evolution), I think you are quite right to hold that position - man and fish are basically equal. Now my worldview is different, therefore my opinion is different.

This should really be on the comparative religion thread, tho, where we started talking about people's basis for morality - I'll try to get my reworded question up there sometime soon.

Let me clarify what I meant. I didn't mean that unfairness is right. .... Was that clearer? I hope so.

Yes, thanks

And since this thread is about words, I wonder what do people think of modern day gender representation and the equality/inequality of that?

Could you elaborate a bit, please?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

If we are getting on to gender representation, i would like to throw this one in:

16. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which should include "banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet"

particularly the part about the banning of same sex legal unions (for lack of a better word; marriages)

[Earniel]

The power of words... when I think of that I automatically think of something out of Shakespeare's work (Romeo and Juliet methinks): "A rose by any other name still smells as sweet."

After which I immediatly think: Shakespeare never went to a political debate.

The art of using similar, but mostly negative, words for your opponent in discussing and debates is an old one.

In regard to the terminology in the abortiondebate I think if you name one side with the name they chose for themselves (prolife or prochoice) you should be fair and do the same for the other party.

In the end you might just as well say pro- or anti-abortion which is basically still the point of the whole debate.

[Mercutio]

Can we talk about abortion in this thread anyway? Or just terminology?

[Rían]

I'd prefer we don't talk much about abortion in this thread - I wanted to mainly discuss terminology, and explain reasons behind the terminology I like, and hear others' reasons behind the terminology they like. So just talk about abortion as much as needed to explain your terms.

I'm pretty sure there's a thread specifically on abortion, if you want to bring it up again and discuss the issues involved. Thanks for asking

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Eärniel
In the end you might just as well say pro- or anti-abortion which is basically still the point of the whole debate.

That's the terminology I'm most happy with (as someone who is anti-abortion). 'Choice' and 'life' are both euphemisms here - I can't think that anyone is actually anti-choice or anti-life. Personally I don't have a problem being described with a negative label (anti-) because mine is a negative opinion. I wouldn't be against abortion if it didn't exist (if you know what I mean...)

The issue is abortion, therefore any phrase which evades using that word is misleading IMO.

[Janny]

I agree. In a debate about abortion it seems the easiest way to set out your stance by saying 'I am for / against'.

[Lizra]

I'm "pro birth control, anti killing". There! I feel nicely wrapped up in a neat little package!

[Cirdan]

Abortion - A term poor people use in place of the upper class term "D&C".

I'm anti-abortion but also anti-anti-abortion law. Good luck with that.

[Lizra]

Easy! If you were a woman, you wouldn't have one (unless your life was in danger ), but you don't want to tell other women what to do, because you really don't know someone else's situation. You certainly don't think abortion should be used as birth control....but that's the catch isn't it? How can you REALLY separate the two? We need more billboards that say "Abortion stops a beating heart". Thinking of that should make any woman more careful to use birth control effectively.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Cirdan
Abortion - A term poor people use in place of the upper class term "D&C".

I'm anti-abortion but also anti-anti-abortion law. Good luck with that.

So you believe abortion is wrong, yet don't want to force your views on anyone else? I figured that out .

Some of the politicians are like that (chuch as "personally against abortion" but "wouldn't want to force that view on others," often democrats). I don't quite understand it, since governing means making decisions about issues and subsequently creating laws regulating them. Almost anything a politician/gov. official tries to do in office ends up in forcing their view on others. Example: "I want higher taxes." "I make higher taxes" which leads to the people being affected by that view. They can have that forced on them by a law. How could any politician not want to force their views on the common people?

Am I missing something here?

And in the abortion terminology, I believe each side has the right to use the words favoring their own side (pro-choice, pro-life) as long as they are still technically/medically correct.

[Cirdan]

I view all laws as dubious, except the really basic ones. I ask myself if a law prohibiting abortion would be practical or would benefit society. The past circumstances showed that it was not a beneficial law. Politicians are into making laws like crack dealers are into selling crack. It make for more business. I know freedom is sort of out-of-fashion these days, what with the patriot act, etc, but less useless laws and better enforcement of existing good ones would be a much more useful plan. Besides, I don't like the idea of a search warrant for a vagina. (PoW example)