Let's Talk About Terms

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I had me a curious thread recently, which got me thinking about the terms people use to describe themselves and others. Obviously, we as human beings try to describe ourselves and the positions we hold on various societal issues in a positive light. To take one example, those in general who believe abortions take a human life consider themselves to be "pro-life." That's not very complicated.

And, also not complicated, those on the "other" side of the abortion debate consider the choice a woman must make on whether to carry a pregnancy to term or end it prematurely the premium decision, and therefore call themselves "pro-choice." With me so far?

Few things, though, are as simple as groups on either side of a fixed fence, as much as both sides would like the dichotomy to stand. I have in my decades of life met people who have had unwanted or troubled pregnancies, and who have exercised the choice to end them. These women later, though, happily bore and happily reared children, children they love. The kicker: the women in question never changed their position on the topic. Following me so far?

Obviously, these women are pro-choice, since they exercised their right to choose the outcome of the pregnancies in question. The wicket gets sticky, though, when we consider the flip-side. The folks on the other side of the dichotomy fence would regard the women getting an abortion as murderesses at worst, anti-life when one is being kind. They are, after all, taking the potential life of the fetus.

But what does one call these women later in their lives? It's difficult to look at them with their loving children and call them "anti-life." They are happily rearing children, after all, children they bore, sometimes late enough in life that the pregnancies were fraught with actual physical peril. For that reason, all around here in the liberal island of the Pacific North West, we see "Pro Child and Pro Choice" bumper stickers. It doesn't seem that incongruous at all.

The other side, though? Wouldn't the folks rallying to overturn Roe v. Wade, the folks putting impediments to legal and safe abortion and even family planning services, the harassers at the clinics; wouldn't they by definition be called not "pro-life" but "anti-choice?" As a further data point here, I don't recall many of the more vociferous clinic protesters being equally loud and present at prominent executions. Ironically, folks on the pro-choice side of the fence seem to represent sadness and ire when grown fetuses are put to death by the state for their crimes.

So, question for the panel; should a person described by the term "pro-life"–as defined by a person trying to restrict access for a woman's reproductive choice–be more accurately labeled "anti-choice?"

Comments

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I've found in my life that an intense interest in getting labels for people with views different from my own "right" has been a tremendous impediment to actually talking about anything.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

But labels are so convenient! Things fit just so... neatly into them.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

The first comment, and yet the most instructive. Congrats!

[korean-guy-01.livejournal.com]

Do your descriptions pertain to a majority?

What are the stats for abortionists turned family woman? What about the stats for pro-lifers advocating for Roe v Wade to be overturned?

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

What are the stats for abortionists turned family woman?

good question. i'm trying to find something online....but something tells me it is much higher than we'd imagine!

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Good questions, all. I have no idea where to begin researching them, and frankly, given the political climate surrounding the issue, doubt reliable statistics could be found if I tried.

Therefore, sadly moot.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure but being for legal abortion doesn't necessarily mean a woman can't have a family.

[mutive.livejournal.com]

I think you'll have to clarify.

Are you looking for the percent of women who are married when they get an abortion (http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html) (that's 17%), or maybe the percent who claim they're pro-life when they get an abortion (:http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html) (probably around 40-50%, although this assumes that the evangelical Christians and Catholics are claiming they're pro-life while getting an abortion, which they may or may not be), or perhaps percent who already have children (http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/10/most_surprising_abortion_statistic_the_majority_of_women_who_ter.html) (61%).

I couldn't easily find the "% who later marry" or "% who later have more children", but I suspect both numbers are fairly high. Honestly, probably most women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant and have an abortion are more likely to get married later than those who don't. (Because typically having a bunch of children seems to lower women's ability to find a mate. But I could be wrong on that guess. If you have stats to prove otherwise, would be very interested in them.)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Damn right they should be, unless they're pacifists who oppose capital punishment. All the moral equivocation in the world can't erase that a condemned criminal is still human life, and that defending a fetus's rights and denying the life of said criminals means that the pro-lifers assume to themselves the power to decide what is or is not life-worthy-life.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

We can play that game all day, though. How about those pro-choice people who won't let me choose not to buy health insurance, eh?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So, question for the panel; should a person described by the term "pro-life"–as defined by a person trying to restrict access for a woman's reproductive choice–be more accurately labeled "anti-choice?"

Here's my issue with labeling it as "anti-choice": the choice doesn't factor into it.

The point of opposing abortion is not to keep women under the thumb of the patriarchy, but to protect the innocent life inside the womb. To consider themselves "anti-choice" would then imply that they recognize the option of a woman to kill the innocent life inside them, but actively oppose having that choice. The option isn't even there for them.

I'm extremely on board with that concept, but I'm also in favor of legal abortion. It's why I don't consider myself "pro-choice," but rather "pro-abortion," as I'm in favor of abortion remaining legal on a whole.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Except that human life is not the issue. Otherwise both the death penalty and war would also be opposed. Unless criminals and soldiers and civilians killed by collateral damage forfeit the title to human life.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

The point of opposing abortion is not to keep women under the thumb of the patriarchy, but to protect the innocent life inside the womb.

That's the official position, I concur. It's even a philosophical position I can respect (when held genuinely), if not agree with at all.

I've sadly met too many patriarchal thumbsters to give every self-declared lifer the benefit of the doubt. It's like trying to buy a decent used car, and finding only junkers with new-ish paint. I don't talk much about the issue. Too much silliness posing as importance.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

if the anti-choice crowd really cared about the innocent life, they wouldn't work so fucking hard to make sure that poor parents couldn't take care of them.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

How about a term that accurately describes the position of the person, instead of what those that disagree with said person accuses them of believing.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

That's kinda like me, a balding overweight and out of shape couch potato, describing myself in singles ads that I'm a thirty-something triathlete who models for a living.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Lowered Expectations?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

'Fetus-Worshipers.'

Too harsh? OK, I'll go milder:

'Pro-Life until after it's born, at which point it's just a burden on society.'

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I agree. Terms like sitting, standing, kneeling are much more accurate.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Both the terms are stupid. If you try to read into the words themselves instead of just going by what they're supposed to mean in context then you end up in fantasyland.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Good point. Kinda like "fiscal conservative", eh?

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

okay, so I'm going to be kind of a brat when i say this . . . but can you imagine how many people would publicly/openly be Pro-Life if the common term were Anti-Choice instead? lol no one!

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

It's like the gangsters in Reservoir Dogs. Nobody wanted to be Mr. Pink, and everybody wanted to be Mr. Black.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

I finally accepted that I can be accurately described by the term 'progressive libertarian'.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
Dead center lower left quadrant.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

everyone gets lower left quadrant.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

A number of folk on here seem to think that because "pro-lifers" sincerely believe that human life begins at fertilisation, the rest of us should simply respect that belief and allow them to dictate laws accordingly. Many of those same "pro-lifers" also believe that the world was created in 4004BC: and we're also told that we should respect their beliefs on this matter too, though as yet, no-one has tried to enshrine such a position in law. And almost all of the folk who believe in YEC do not believe in evolution, despite the weight of evidence attesting to evolution available to them, and think bizarre theories of creation should be taught alongside evolution in biology classes: and the rational amongst us are expected to tolerate this evidentially suspect position, and accept that the "controversy" should be taught in science lessons.

And some of the rational making arguments on here come out with stuff like "I can defend 'x's' position whilst disagreeing with him" as if such shows broadness of mind, rather than defending what seems to the rest of us as insanity, because of strategically necessary political alliances.

The list of frankly incredible nonsense we should accept just gets longer and longer, and more and more incredible. Can't we just think of these folk as deluded, however sincere they are (as many deluded people are anyway) and not base either policy or law upon their sincere and heartfelt delusions?

And this is from a nation where religion and the State are constitutionally separated. I mean to say, the UK has an established Church which the Monarch is the head thereof, and very few of us believe any of this sort of nonsense. Even the Catholics don't believe in YEC or are anti-evolutionary theory, though they do get a bit hot under the collar over abortion and contraception. Mind you, at least they are consistent: they oppose Capital Punishment, so they could actually be considered "pro-life", rather than "pro-foetus-from-conception life, but bugger the born".

Oh well. I'm sure you'll get the laws you deserve.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

the rest of us should simply respect that belief and allow them to dictate laws accordingly

Except no one here said that... I'm sure I could respond to the rest of your comment, but I stopped reading there.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Human life goes through a wide range of developmental degrees from a single cell to a rational adult. The developing entity is not truly human until it reaches the point where rational thought occurs. At some point, right-to-lifers will eventually exhibit rational thought. At that point, we can consider them to be fully developed human beings rather than right-to-lifers.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

At some point, right-to-lifers will eventually exhibit rational thought.

What if they're mentally unwell? You know, diseased in the brain? It's quite common, as all can clearly see.