(no subject)

[noahgibbs]

Hm. I was reading an article by pro-lifers about a march for reproductive rights. The merits of the article aren't worth going into (they talked about being there as unbiased and objective journalists, and finally decide on the summary, "this is pure evil").

But the way they continually referred to the pro-choice folks as "the pro-abortion movement" made me step back for a second and think. In general, I refer to the folks who want abortion made illegal as "pro-life", because it's their term. I don't think it's a very good description of their position, but I accept it as the appropriate term because it's the one they chose. However, they don't do our side the same courtesy.

Obviously I need to start calling the sides "pro-choice" and "unwanted baby". "Sir, as a representative of the viewpoint that women should have unwanted children, how do you feel about this?"

Comments

Wording

[kraydon.livejournal.com]

I think you may be the exception here.

Most times that I see the opposition refer to "Pro-Life" it's called "Anti-Abortion."

Although I haven't see it called the "Pro Abortion" side. I want to say they usually also use some sort of "Anti" slogan for the negative effects.

Re: Wording

[rosefox]

I hear "anti-choice" a lot these days. I hate it.

[urbanbard.livejournal.com]

One of the most important parts of any debate is terminologly. When you let the other side define the terms without argument, you've already lost.

One of the projects that I and many of my classmates are most committed to is in fighting the terminology around faith on issues like abortion, gay rights, sexuality, etc. So often the terms used imply that the right is faithful and the left secular, which is often not the case.

[vvvexation.livejournal.com]

There's always "anti-choice."

[daltong.livejournal.com]

That's what I've called it for years. I don't remember where I first heard it.

[queen-elvis.livejournal.com]

I had a very stupid argument with someone about this recently, and it is my conclusion that "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are much more misleading than "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion," which are just literal descriptions of stances on the issue. Nobody is against life or choice of all kinds.

[princeofwands.livejournal.com]

or possilby "pro-abortion-rights" and "anti-abortion-rights", since I know several people that are "pro-choice" but personally anti-abortion.

[rosefox]

Okay. I have taken enough deep breaths to keep from typing THIS IS WRONG over and over again in this nice empty little comment box that deserves better.

No one on either side of this debate is pro-abortion. The goal of both movements--the stated, affirmed goal--is to reduce the number of abortions that take place in the U.S. and across the world each year. They just go about it from different directions. One side is about preventing unplanned, unwanted pregnancies, because people who get knocked up accidentally often get abortions. The other side is about supporting women in taking pregnancies to term, because women who aren't supported in that often get abortions. That's it. That's the only difference.

The whole thing really pisses me off. All these people could work together, devoting their considerable joint resources to approaching both ends of it at once, if the second faction weren't controlled by people who think that contraception is evil and the first faction weren't controlled by people who think that being pregnant means never having to say you're sorry. Instead, money that could be going towards free condoms for teenagers goes to huge rallies in Washington and women end up going in for D&Cs because the only alternatives they know about entail being force-fed a dumbed-down guilted-up version of Christianity.

The only pro-abortion group I know of is the Church of Euthanasia. Everyone else thinks abortion is an awful sad thing and to be avoided if at all possible. But as usual with people, ideology gets to trample all over pragmatism.

Er, not that I care or anything.

[astralagos.livejournal.com]

Not entirely true - there's a strain of thought in the pro-life movement that argues that since abortion is a choice, you make a value judgment about the fetus when you decide to abort. In the U.S., we tend to assume purely economic or personal reasons for this, but if you look at it worldwide, the usual reason for aborting a fetus is because the fetus is judged undesirable from pre-natal tests. For example, in India and southeast asia, there's a large number of sex-selective abortions every year - so much so that India's actually been legislating prenatal gender tests.

This is actually the thing that freaks out some of the groups like PLAGAL - their worry is that if homosexuality is genetically determined and can be identified during a prenatal test, then gay foeti will be aborted.

One of the "bombs" that I, personally, feel is going to require a radical rethink of this entire debate is that, depending on what type of prenatal testing is eventually available, we will have to address questions boiling down to - based on the knowledge available, why did we abort? Was it because of a life-threatening disease? A deformity (although Charles Steinmetz and Steven Hawking might have issues with that), or did it end up being because of cosmetic reasons?

[queen-elvis.livejournal.com]

The only pro-abortion group I know of is the Church of Euthanasia. Everyone else thinks abortion is an awful sad thing and to be avoided if at all possible.

I find it obvious that "pro-abortion" means "pro-abortion-availability," not "pro-abortion-at-all-times-for-everyone." Maybe you don't. In any case, I don't think your viewpoint and mine are incompatible. I am merely looking at it from a political/legal standpoint, while you are looking at it from a social standpoint.

[warsop.livejournal.com]

I don't think that 'unwanted baby' is going to work. That gets into a messy debate about how the baby got there in the first place. The debate gets derailed and turns into a discussion of birth control, abstinence, the morning-after pill, and lots of other stuff.

[terpsichoros.livejournal.com]

I usually see the anti-abortion side referred to as "anti-abortion", "radical right-wingers", or "Christian Fundamentalists" or other such terms when referred to in pro-choice organization literature. Newspapers pretending to objectivity use the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life", or occasionally "anti-abortion".

[astralagos.livejournal.com]

We usually see ourselves referred to as the "Anti-abortion" movement, although those of us in the Seamless Garment movement tend to think of ourselves as pro-human-life in all forms - opposed to abortion, the death penalty and unjust war. This of course doesn't include the folks from PLAGAL and several other folks I know who oppose abortion on anti-eugenic grounds.

[noirem.livejournal.com]

I consider myself part of the catholic pro-life movement, which means I think abortion, euthenasia, and the death penalty are all murder and as such should be illegal. Yes, that would make me "anti-abortion" but it doesn't make me "anti-choice." I just happen to think that your choices should be made before having sex, not after. But I object to both terms because A) they're imposed by people on the outside and B) neither term comes close to describing the core belief that all life is sacred from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death and should be treated as such.

As for unwanted children, if you're unwilling to get pregnant, to have a child, then don't have sex. Even with protection there's always the chance that it will fail. Used correctly every form of birth control has a margin of error, and very few people use birth control correctly 100% of the time.

There's always the rape/incest argument which accounts for a statistically insignificant number of the abortions performed each year, and I believe there are better (which is to say ways that will actually allow for healing and closure) ways to deal with those situations than to just perform an abortion and pretend nothing happened.

[angelbob.livejournal.com]

I believe there are better (which is to say ways that will actually allow for healing and closure) ways to deal with those situations

Hm. You feel that bearing a child is necessary for healing and closure? If so, how do you square that with, say, miscarriages? Or do you believe that a miscarriage necessarily makes for worse healing and resolution than a rape sans abortion?

But I object to both terms because A) they're imposed by people on the outside

Outside the movement in question? Or outside something else?

[r-transpose-p.livejournal.com]

I call both sides "snoochy booches".