The Power of Words: terms for the abortion debate

[Rían]

Originally posted by Valandil
Whoa there! Are you actually EQUATING a cyst with a pre-born baby?

Ditto that question!

[brownjenkins]

sorry if i my questions got a bit too direct, you did ask that this not turn into an abortion debate

on terminology, i just wanted to clairify the fact that 'pro-life' is actually just 'pro-human life'... and one could add the fact to this that many 'pro-lifers' might grudgingly accept unaccidental human death (i.e. capital punishment, innocent civilian deaths during wartime) if the reason/result was good enough

this is not meant to cloud the issue, but to point out that it is clouded by it's very nature... many 'pro-choicer's' think that in certain situations the reason/result is good enough to permit abortion

so... if you want accurate terminology, how about:

pro-life = anti-abortion

pro-choice = pro-mother's choice to have an abortion

[Rían]

Yes, I didn't want this to turn into a "regular" abortion debate, but instead a discussion of how words (and underlying beliefs which make you choose the words) affect things, and just various side-issues, etc. IOW, not a flat-out "I'm right, you're wrong" argument, but trying to understand things more by thinking about them from a slightly different angle.

So far, it's been fine with me how it's gone, and I guess from here on, it can pretty much go wherever we take it.

[Valandil]

BTW... a side note on all this:

If mooters represent a good cross-section statistically, there are probably a number of you who have actually had an abortion. Please understand that it is NEVER my intention, nor should it be the 'Christian' intention, to make anyone feel guilty.

For my part, I feel much regret and sadness about abortion. This is not directed at any individual persons though. I think it is wrong as a matter of principle, because of my love for people. That same love for people extends to not wishing any harm on those who are in favor of abortions or who have actually gone through the procedure (or even those who perform the procedure).

If there IS a goal on my end, it's to try and communicate what I believe to be true about the issue and to try to change the minds of those who think differently from me on the subject. The abortions that have been done have been done. My desire would be to see fewer of them done in the future (in an ideal world, preferably none!).

If I would change my own mind about something at some point, I would not see it as necessary to feel guilt about my prior position. I hope that those of you who disagree with me on the issue can understand that part of it, and again, understand that I'm never interested in sending anyone on a guilt trip.

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
on terminology, i just wanted to clairify the fact that 'pro-life' is actually just 'pro-human life'... and one could add the fact to this that many 'pro-lifers' might grudgingly accept unaccidental human death (i.e. capital punishment, innocent civilian deaths during wartime) if the reason/result was good enough

To me,

1. capital punishment is IN RESPONSE to a wrong done by the person; IOW, if they did NOT choose (hey, there's that word!) to do wrong, they would NOT be subjected to capital punishment.

2. innocent civilian deaths are ACCIDENTAL; not intentional, and wars are typically NOT started on a whim, but rather seriously considered and thought to be for the greater good.

is is not meant to cloud the issue, but to point out that it is clouded by it's very nature... many 'pro-choicer's' think that in certain situations the reason/result is good enough to permit abortion

What, exactly, do you (and others) consider to be the reason/result of an abortion? (the vast majority type of abortion, not the tiny percentage that are because of rape)

so... if you want accurate terminology, how about:

pro-life = anti-abortion

pro-choice = pro-mother's choice to have an abortion

I'm fine with pro-choice/pro-life or pro-abortion/anti-abortion, because that seems to be fair. What I DON'T think is fair is when I see in newspapers or magazines or on tv things like pro-choice/anti-choice, which I'm seeing more often. (I don't EVER seem to see pro-abortion/pro-life ... now why is that? Is that an indication of which direction most media leans? I think it is, which seems v. unfair.)

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
What, exactly, do you (and others) consider to be the reason/result of an abortion? (the vast majority type of abortion, not the tiny percentage that are because of rape)

Result: killing a foetus. Reason: because the resultant child is unwanted. The status of the foetus, and therefore the morality of the act, depends on its developmental stage.

Will you now answer my question about dangerous screening tests?

Would you agree to carry out a test on a newborn which had a 1% chance of killing it? If not, why would it be acceptable to carry it out on a foetus?

[Hemel]

Oopie, first time I do disagree with RÃ*an ..

Just my opinions here then ...

Capital punishment, which I call judicial murder, btw, is never justified. And while I understand the idea of 'response to wrong' it begs the question of who decides that that is an appropriate response to which wrongs.

War - depends on what greater good we're considering. One of the definitions of war I find resonates with me is that it's theft on a grand scale. I don't agree that innocent civilian deaths are accidental either - for example, the Blitz.

But they're just my (off-topic) opinions.

So then, to address RÃ*an's topic, yes, I agree about the power of words to shape the debates around abortion. The same thing applies if we use the term 'foetus' versus the term 'baby' for the unborn child. One is more emotionally distancing than the other. In my view though, it isn't just the word-forms in which the debate is couched that are influential. We've all seen the pre-birth images of pregnancies, and most are very clearly designed to suggest that this is a 'baby'. As with the 'sucking thumbs' images. There are images too of the results of abortions - such as dismembered limbs on a small coin, which again are designed to elicit the response that this is the painful killing of an innocent human (albeit tiny). The very interesting thing about these images is that they dissociate the mother entirely ... the unborn is seen as though floating in space, cut out from the body wherein it is currently living, and thereby the mother and the effects on the mother effectively vanish, thus minimising any possible focus on her.

For the opposition 'pro-choice/anti-choice' - that is one that again is emotive, and culturally resonant. It clearly shapes the debate, because currently our (UK and US) cultures would appear to be shaped very much on the concept of 'choice'. (Whether they really are, and how constrained those choices are are matters for other debates!) Consequently anything that would suggest that choice is being limited, as does this opposition, will virtually automatically generate a resistance, even if that resistance remains more or less unconscious. I'd suggest that just maybe, though to a lesser extent, the opposition 'pro-abortion/pro-life' also involves an emotive response, because at the base in our cultures 'life' is valued more than 'death'. (An interesting note here - in all the oppositions you've mentioned, RÃ*an, the 'active' one precedes the more 'passive' one ... that is that human intervention is required to attain the first, while merely letting the pregnancy continue obtains the second. Whether there is a hidden appeal or debate in that might also be a consideration )

And to address very shortly this other question of what is the reason/result of an abortion ... the result is the termination of a pregnancy. There may be other results too, as with the post-abortion feelings of the woman who carried the pregnancy. But on the reasons for abortion - for me this question brings it into my personal views on whether abortion is justified. I have to say that personally I am against it, and I think that just about all 'reasons' for abortion could be avoided by rather more social and individual responsibility. In other words, more care on contraception, less emphasis on male machismo and power (which is in my view mainly what rape is all about), more emphasis on supporting parents and new children, along with childcare programs, more open adoption and fostering procedures (as opposed to the times in the 1960s over here when unmarried mothers often had their children taken away and had to pretend they'd never existed), more valuing of children, less emphasis on sex for advertising and prestige and other dissociations from the context of loving relationships, and so on. So, and maybe this does bring this last back on topic in a way - could it be that the terms around which the debate on abortion is couched are too narrow?



Oh, and finally, I believe that in my opinions here on life issues (war, abortion, judicial murder) I am going against what I believe is orthodox/fundamentalist Christian teaching. But I don't think I am on issues of responsibility

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
To me,

1. capital punishment is IN RESPONSE to a wrong done by the person; IOW, if they did NOT choose (hey, there's that word!) to do wrong, they would NOT be subjected to capital punishment.

2. innocent civilian deaths are ACCIDENTAL; not intentional, and wars are typically NOT started on a whim, but rather seriously considered and thought to be for the greater good.

my point is that both terminologies are flawed... pro-life as well as pro-choice are too broad, since both positions have quite a few exceptions when it comes to 'life' and 'choice'

that said, it is my understanding that roman catholics (i.e. the pope) are against even those exceptions i mentioned... capital punishment and any kind of wartime killing... so they may be truely 'pro-human' life at least

[Insidious Rex]

I always find hypocrisy on both sides in this debate. Which is one of the reasons Im always leery of it because its pointless to argue about it. You have the general "liberal" stance that abortion should be allowed but these same people tend to be more opposed to capital punishment of fully grown adults. You have the general "religious conservative" stance of NO abortions but capital punishment for adults if they are bad AND only encourage abstinance for teens not birth control (thus leading to more abortions). And before someone says something Im aware of course that there are variations on both sides of these "traditional" stances.

Now that all being said I personally feel the first point of view is a little less hypocritical then the second point of view in that the "not human yet" argument can be used well when talking about many abortions while it cant be used for capital punishment. Plus the conservative model mentioned above tends to feed against itself in that forcing women to bring unwanted babies in the world will lead to more teen pregnancies which will in turn lead to more abortion opportunities especially so if you discourage sex education and contraception. But theres no getting around the hypocrisy built into this issue on EITHER side. I certainly see it in my own point of view that abortion is an unfortunate and necessary evil in our highly imperfect human society but that the concept of the state killing its citizens (capital punishment) is just somehow wrong to me.

From what Ive seen I think bjenkins and hemel (from opposite sides of the debate) have the least conflicting points of view in that the former is pro choice and believes the death penalty is necessary while the latter is pro life and believes the death penalty is wrong and is in favor of promoting the use of contraceptives. So kudos for them for remaining consistent in their over all philosophy on life in general when it usually doesnt work that way for most people.

[Rían]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Result: killing a foetus. Reason: because the resultant child is unwanted. The status of the foetus, and therefore the morality of the act, depends on its developmental stage.

Now to me, the reason is the illuminating thing here - it seems like we don't kill our kids if we don't want them after they're born, so the same reasoning should apply before they're born (IMO, at least.) I like how you worded that reason - v. straightforward.

And along the same lines, if one of us saw an abandoned baby on the street, I doubt if we would just walk away and leave it because we "don't want it." And I realize that different people have different opinions about "when" a fetus is a human, yet I think there's a little nagging feeling in even the most hard-core pro-abortion person that tells them that it's a person. Most people don't brag about getting abortions, and I think it's because of that feeling, and not for the various other excuses that I hear put forth. Just some musings ...

BTW, my sister-in-law just had her baby, and I saw, for the first time, a "safe drop" area in the hospital - I think those are a good idea (a place where you can legally leave your baby and just walk away.)

Will you now answer my question about dangerous screening tests?

Would you agree to carry out a test on a newborn which had a 1% chance of killing it? If not, why would it be acceptable to carry it out on a foetus?

I believe that gray areas exist, btw, and this is one of them. Even in the Bible, there's a verse that says, roughly, if something is wrong for you, then it's a sin to do it. IOW, I believe that God speaks to a person's heart, altho NEVER against his written Word (IOW, those people that say "I believe God is telling me to have an affair with you!" just have no theological leg to stand on and are just deceiving themselves.)

Now I think the difference here, tho, is that you just can't examine a fetus like you can examine a newborn. I think for a newborn, if the doctor found a problem, then we would have to weight the problem and possible gained knowledge against the potential danger of the test and make an individual decision for that case, if that makes sense.

For a fetus - personally, before I had the problems with pregnancy #2, I would NEVER have had an amnio. But in the judgment of my husband and myself, all the amnios I had with my son were appropriate. The amnio I had with my daughter was not as clear-cut, but given the confidence we had with my doctor and the history of complications, we decided to go ahead with it.

Does that answer your question?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Hemel
Oopie, first time I do disagree with RÃ*an ..

Do you mean just on this thread? Because IIRC, you disagree with me on the subject of gay marriage, too

We've all seen the pre-birth images of pregnancies, and most are very clearly designed to suggest that this is a 'baby'. As with the 'sucking thumbs' images. There are images too of the results of abortions - such as dismembered limbs on a small coin, which again are designed to elicit the response that this is the painful killing of an innocent human (albeit tiny).

How is this "designed"? IOW, if the baby in the womb IS NOT sucking his/her thumb, that's a different thing, but he/she IS doing this! Now perhaps you mean that the pro-life side is choosing imagines that elicit the most emotional response, but I don't think they're "designed" (but maybe this is a difference in use of words across the pond...) And also, if mutilated limbs EXIST, then they EXIST, and that's a FACT - people don't take bits of tissue and SHAPE them like mutilated limbs.

The very interesting thing about these images is that they dissociate the mother entirely ... the unborn is seen as though floating in space, cut out from the body wherein it is currently living, and thereby the mother and the effects on the mother effectively vanish, thus minimising any possible focus on her.

Yet the other side ENTIRELY makes the baby vanish - I think the pro-life side is addressing this error and saying, hey, it's NOT just a clump of tissue - look at what it really is!

I think if pictures like you talked about disturb people, then they should think about WHY they are disturbed...

One of the Mooters here knows someone who runs those booths that have been on college campuses around the US where they show graphic pictures of aborted fetuses. People get vehemently angry about those pictures - yet I truly believe that they would NOT get angry about pictures showing politically "popular" abuses ... again, this should ring alarm bells in a person's mind, IMO.

But your point about "the mother and the effects on the mother" is a good one - and the crisis pregnancy centers DO deal VERY MUCH with helping the mother, which I really like about them. I wonder if those booths have telephone numbers of crisis pregnancy centers available? I don't think it's right to just put up a booth like that in anger and defiance - I think the underlying motive needs to be love and care for those involved, altho an extrememly important part of love is showing the truth. Love is not just making everyone comfortable - it's bigger than that.

(An interesting note here - in all the oppositions you've mentioned, RÃ*an, the 'active' one precedes the more 'passive' one ... that is that human intervention is required to attain the first, while merely letting the pregnancy continue obtains the second. Whether there is a hidden appeal or debate in that might also be a consideration )

How funny that you noticed! I wondered if someone would ... And the reason is that I'm old-fashioned and polite - I was taught to always mention another person's subject/interests/name before mine!

But on the reasons for abortion - for me this question brings it into my personal views on whether abortion is justified. I have to say that personally I am against it, and I think that just about all 'reasons' for abortion could be avoided by rather more social and individual responsibility. In other words, more care on contraception, less emphasis on male machismo and power (which is in my view mainly what rape is all about), more emphasis on supporting parents and new children, along with childcare programs, more open adoption and fostering procedures (as opposed to the times in the 1960s over here when unmarried mothers often had their children taken away and had to pretend they'd never existed), more valuing of children, less emphasis on sex for advertising and prestige and other dissociations from the context of loving relationships, and so on.

I agree.

So, and maybe this does bring this last back on topic in a way - could it be that the terms around which the debate on abortion is couched are too narrow?

Good point!

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
my point is that both terminologies are flawed... pro-life as well as pro-choice are too broad, since both positions have quite a few exceptions when it comes to 'life' and 'choice'

Originally posted by IRex
I always find hypocrisy on both sides in this debate.

I agree with both of these - yet I feel the fairest thing is to use EITHER : the terms that both sides prefer (pro-choice/pro-life), OR : the terms that are strictly descriptive of the procedure (pro-abortion/anti-abortion). Really, the unfair use of terms is what is so upsetting to me, and the reason why I started this thread.

[Janny]

IR - I think my view differs from yours again because of the fact we live on opposing sides of the pond. I couldn't possibly state how accurate your interpretation is, but suggest it is probably not true of the UK, mainly because of the capital punishent issue.
Also in response to your point vis-a-vis the pro-life insistance on abstinance, I would argue that while it does have that double effect, the principle is a ideological one, not a pragmatic one.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Which is one of the reasons Im always leery of it because its pointless to argue about it.

Just out of curiosity, do you feel that this thread has been "pointless" or useless?

Plus the conservative model mentioned above tends to feed against itself in that forcing women to bring unwanted babies in the world will lead to more teen pregnancies which will in turn lead to more abortion opportunities especially so if you discourage sex education and contraception.

How would "forcing women to bring unwanted babies in the world" lead to MORE teen pregnancies? If anything, I think it would lead to LESS ... I mean, if you're pregnant, you're pregnant, even if you later get an abortion.

[Janny]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
How would "forcing women to bring unwanted babies in the world" lead to MORE teen pregnancies? If anything, I think it would lead to fewer ... I mean, if you're pregnant, you're pregnant, even if you later get an abortion.

I read that as the insistance on abstinance and refusal to permit birth control leading to more pregnancies.

[Rían]

Oh, I see - yes, that's prob. what he means. Personally, I think a more Christian position is to USE (non-abortive) birth control, altho I think it falls into the area of what you and your spouse feels God desires for your family, but I don't want to get into that now ...

[Hemel]

Some answers for RÃ*an's post

Because IIRC, you disagree with me on the subject of gay marriage, too

I've taken this one over to the 'gays, lesbians, bisexuals' thread, just to stay on topic

How is this "designed"?

Exactly as you suggested - that particular images are selected to portray particular things. The thumb-sucking images are very emotive 'this is a baby' images The ones of limbs and coins are even more so designed, I'd suggest, because they have involved the deliberate selection of parts of aborted tissue and their placement on an item that wouldn't naturally be present. Thus to make a particular point - such as ... it's tiny, but these are human limbs. Or maybe ... hey, even at this early stage these little fingers are perfectly formed.

Yet the other side ENTIRELY makes the baby vanish -

Yes, I agree with this. My point is merely that images also form part of the debate, and the subtext of 'this is a baby' is the loss of the mother. Perhaps another observation here is that it's far less easy for the pro-abortion side to come up with positive pictures. So basically I'm just trying to further what you say by finding other terms or ways in which the debate is framed. That's because I agree with what I think is your premise, that is that the way we name things reflects a position and suggests a conclusion.


IR - I'd never considered myself 'pro-life' before!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Janny
IR - I think my view differs from yours again because of the fact we live on opposing sides of the pond. I couldn't possibly state how accurate your interpretation is, but suggest it is probably not true of the UK, mainly because of the capital punishent issue.

my interpretation of what? and even if your country doesnt have capital punishment you can certainly still have an opinion on it right?

Also in response to your point vis-a-vis the pro-life insistance on abstinance, I would argue that while it does have that double effect, the principle is a ideological one, not a pragmatic one.

Ideology is what gets us into these kinds of messes. Its high time for some serious pragmatic living in my opinion. utopias are great to think about but they dont exist. you can tell every teenager in the world not to have sex but what would you say your chances of success are?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Just out of curiosity, do you feel that this thread has been "pointless" or useless?

personally I don’t see a real use in ever arguing over semantics. It reminds me a little of groups who argue over the size of the peace negotiation table. That’s probably why Ive only been spurred to make one or two posts here. I don’t care what you call yourself or what you call me. We have our point of view on the abortion issue so labels mean nothing to me. Im more interested in how you feel about it not what you call yourself. But hey that’s just me.

How would "forcing women to bring unwanted babies in the world" lead to MORE teen pregnancies? If anything, I think it would lead to LESS ... I mean, if you're pregnant, you're pregnant, even if you later get an abortion.

Originally posted by Janny
I read that as the insistance on abstinance and refusal to permit birth control leading to more pregnancies.

That’s one big factor I was referring to. But I was also referring to another: one can assume that unwanted babies would tend to have statistically more likelihood (as a group) of being less well adjusted (for lack of a better term) then babies who were wanted and therefore in better nurturing situations. In other words if you force an impoverished teen to have their baby then that baby will tend to grow up in a situation where bad choices are more likely to be reinforced then in a loving family situation and thus lead to a higher teen pregnancy rate when that baby reaches breeding age which would in turn feed back into the abortion cycle. So theres a double whammy hypocrisy there.

Originally posted by Hemel IR - I'd never considered myself 'pro-life' before!

well you are against abortion and against capital punishment. I would think that’s pretty much the definition of being “pro� “life�. Wouldn’t you?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
personally I don’t see a real use in ever arguing over semantics.

Well, I don't think we've been "arguing" here - I think we've been gaining understanding about the opposing side. But that's only (ABBREVIATION WARNING!!) - MHO