Pro-Abortion

[Socrates]

On 5/10/2016, 10:44:17, Peace said:

I am really not a big fan of this term "pro-abortion" that "pro-life" folks like to toss around. I have probably used this term in the past, but just recently decided to stop using it after giving it some thought. The main reasons are:

1) It does not seem very logical. If you do not believe that adultery or masturbation should be criminalized, that does not mean that you are pro-adultery or pro-masturbation.  The same holds true for many of the folks who do not believe that abortion should be criminalized. They would not necessarily make the choice themselves, or they may even agree that it is immoral, but they would not go as far as to force that choice on other people.  One of the biggest "pro-choice" people I have ever met has 4 children of her own, one of whom was born with a serious illness.

2) It feels a bit slanderous to me, and I don't think it gives sufficient understanding to the difficult choices that (some) people have to make.  Someone might make a choice to abort because of young age, difficult financial / social circumstances, rape, incest, genetic disorders, etc. To me at least, the term "pro-abortion" runs a risk of characterizing people as just gleefully aborting or wanting to see abortions increase. I don't think that is very fair (although there may be some folks who fall in this category).

3) I actually think that "anti-abortion" is a more accurate description for many who call themselves "pro-life" than "pro-abortion" is for folks who call themselves "pro-choice".  Many folks who call themselves "pro-life" seem to be "pro-life" only in the sense that they are against abortion, but not in any other meaningful sense (for example, opposing paid maternity leave for pregnant women, being pro-death penalty, pro-war, etc.)

Sure, these are are arguments that are typically made by pro-choicers, but I think that they are legitimate arguments.  As some here may have guessed, I am a "consistent life ethic" person, and I do think that we are in the strongest position to make the pro-life argument because we are consistently pro-life at every stage.

Control the language, control the culture.

"Pro-choice" is a dishonest and euphemistic propaganda term.  It deliberately distracts the focus away from the central issue of the reality of the life of the unborn child, and even the act of abortion itself, to a nice-sounding abstraction that most people tend to favor: personal freedom of choice.

I once heard a speech by a lady who was a long-time veteran of the pro-life movement, and she said it actually took the pro-abortion side years to come up with the term "pro-choice" to use for their position.  She was also very insistent that we in the pro-life movement should never use "the enemy's language" when discussing abortion.

So-called "pro-choicers" for the most part are not for freedom of choice as some over-riding generic principle.  (Many "pro-choice" "liberals" take positions that support restrictions on individual choice  on things such as buying health insurance, weapons, school vouchers, etc.)  "Pro-choicers" are specifically for the choice to have an abortion (kill one's unborn child).  And most "pro-choice" pols don't merely want abortion to be a legal choice; they demand supporting it, and organizations that perform abortions, with tax-payer dollars.  No respect there for the the freedom of tax-payers to choose not support abortion.

To see the other inanity and dishonesty of the "pro-choice" language, try using it substituting some other horrific crime for abortion.  What if someone were to say they were "pro-choice" on the issue of rape?

"I'm personally against rape and think it's bad, and I would never personally think of raping anyone.  But I think whether or not to rape should be a man's choice.  I just don't think the government has the right to tell a man what to do with his body."

The term "pro-life" puts the emphasis on the life of the unborn child which we believe is deserving of legal protection, and helps emphasize the primary positive reason we oppose abortion.  It can in fact be permissible to kill others if necessary in defense, or in a just war, but that's a side issue.  If you don't like the word "pro-life," fine, but it frankly makes no sense for someone who claims to oppose abortion to oppose the term "pro-life," while at the same time insist we adopt the deceitful propaganda term "pro-choice."

Edited May 16, 2016 by Socrates

[Peace]

28 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Control the language, control the culture.

"Pro-choice" is a dishonest and euphemistic propaganda term.  It deliberately distracts the focus away from the central issue of the reality of the life of the unborn child, and even the act of abortion itself, to a nice-sounding abstraction that most people tend to favor: personal freedom of choice.

I once heard a speech by a lady who was a long-time veteran of the pro-life movement, and she said it actually took the pro-abortion side years to come up with the term "pro-choice" to use for their position.  She was also very insistent that we in the pro-life movement should never use "the enemy's language" when discussing abortion.

So-called "pro-choicers" for the most part are not for freedom of choice as some over-riding generic principle.  (Many "pro-choice" "liberals" take positions that support restrictions on individual choice  on things such as buying health insurance, weapons, school vouchers, etc.)  "Pro-choicers" are specifically for the choice to have an abortion (kill one's unborn child).  And most "pro-choice" pols don't merely want abortion to be a legal choice; they demand supporting it, and organizations that perform abortions, with tax-payer dollars.  No respect there for the the freedom of tax-payers to choose not support abortion.

I  don't necessarily think that "pro-choice" is a great term either, but as I mentioned earlier in this thread I think that you can potentially use it as a basis for discussion (e.g. why does the unborn not have any choice?)

28 minutes ago, Socrates said:

To see the other inanity and dishonesty of the "pro-choice" language, try using it substituting some other horrific crime for abortion.  What if someone were to say they were "pro-choice" on the issue of rape?

"I'm personally against rape and think it's bad, and I would never personally think of raping anyone.  But I think whether or not to rape should be a man's choice.  I just don't think the government has the right to tell a man what to do with his body."

Does the person in your hypothetical also believe that rape is immoral? If so, then I think the same logic would apply. I would not necessarily call the person "pro-rape" (or "pro-murder", "pro-adultery", "pro-masturbation") or whatever (although I would likely think the person is an idiot for not wanting it to be criminalized).

28 minutes ago, Socrates said:

The term "pro-life" puts the emphasis on the life of the unborn child which we believe is deserving of legal protection, and helps emphasize the primary positive reason we oppose abortion.  It can in fact be permissible to kill others if necessary in defense, or in a just war, but that's a side issue.  If you don't like the word "pro-life," fine, but it frankly makes no sense for someone who claims to oppose abortion to oppose the term "pro-life," while at the same time insist we adopt the deceitful propaganda term "pro-choice."

I don't oppose the word "pro-life" for people who are actually only "anti-abortion".  I think it would be good for people who are "anti-abortion" to actually take up a complete "pro-life" position, but if they want to call themselves "pro-life" regardless of the fact that they are not truly pro-life, that is perfectly OK with me. The point I was trying to make there is that if we are going to point out the logical inconsistencies with the terms that other people use in reference to themselves, then it is only fair to point out the logical inconsistencies that "pro-lifers" use with respect to themselves.  More than anything with that comment though, I was hoping to raise the idea that a "consistent life ethic" position is the most effective in advocating the "pro-life" position because the position is consistent across the board.  When I get into arguments with pro-choice folks and I make the argument that all life is sacred, it definitely helps in the discussion when they see that I am against the death-penalty too, for example.

[Ice_nine]

a killer who is in jail for life and has nothing to lose could quite possibly kill again, which can lead to more loss of life. The lack of capital punishment could be a motivating factor for someone who is on the fence about committing murder, and lead to loss of innocent life. I don't see how being against the death penalty is consistently "pro-life." People get killed in prison. Meh

[Era Might]

24 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

a killer who is in jail for life and has nothing to lose could quite possibly kill again, which can lead to more loss of life. The lack of capital punishment could be a motivating factor for someone who is on the fence about committing murder, and lead to loss of innocent life. I don't see how being against the death penalty is consistently "pro-life." People get killed in prison. Meh

Albert Camus has a powerful essay laying out the case against capital punishment, Reflections on the Guillotine. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflections_on_the_Guillotine

Camus's main point in his argument against capital punishment is its ineffectiveness. Camus points out that in countries where the death penalty has already been abandoned crime has not risen. He explains this by arguing that the world has changed so that capital punishment no longer serves as the deterrent that it may once have been. In Camus's father's day the guillotine was still used to execute criminals in public but by the time Camus wrote his essay executions took place privately in prisons. Although Camus approved of conducting the executions in private he argued that it removed the element of deterrence and rendered the death penalty as merely a means for the state to dispose of those whom it saw as irremediable.

Camus also argued that the threat of death is insufficient to prevent people from committing crimes as death is the common fate shared by all, regardless of guilt. He also believed that because most murders are not premeditated no deterrent can be effective and in the case of premeditated murder the deterrent would be insufficient to stop those who have already decided to act.

Without serving a purpose Camus argued that capital punishment is reduced to an act of revenge that only breeds further violence, fueled only by sadism and perpetuated by tradition. He likened this act of state revenge to the concept of an eye for an eye and stated that justice should be based on law and principles and not instinct and emotions.

Although Camus opposed the use of capital punishment today, he gives examples in the essay of how it may have been logical and appropriate in pious civilizations. In such civilizations Camus states that the death penalty was usually administered by the Church in order to deprive the convicted of the divine gift of life. However, by doing so, the convicted would then face judgement and have the chance of atonement at the hands of God. In an unbelieving world, Camus argues, the convicted is given no chance of atonement. The process takes place completely separate from the convict and simply dismisses him as beyond salvation or remedy.

Camus also stated that in an unbelieving world there is no absolute authority capable of delivering judgement as no man possesses absolute innocence himself. Because of this Camus suggested that the maximum penalty should be being set at labor for life due to the possibility of judicial error, a life of labor in Camus's opinion being harsher than death but at least carrying the possibility of being reversed. The convicted would then also always have the option of choosing death via suicide.

Camus also argued that capital punishment was inappropriate because by effecting revenge for grievances it simultaneously hurts the family and loved ones of the convict in the same manner as those being avenged were hurt by the initial crime.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

a killer who is in jail for life and has nothing to lose could quite possibly kill again, which can lead to more loss of life. The lack of capital punishment could be a motivating factor for someone who is on the fence about committing murder, and lead to loss of innocent life. I don't see how being against the death penalty is consistently "pro-life." People get killed in prison. Meh

I think CCC 2267 explains the point fairly well.

[Era Might]

Here's a Christian critique of not only the phrase "pro-life" but the entire concept of "life" in the modern world. He argues that the objectified, abstract, scientific "thing" we call life has nothing to do with the idea of life as the breath of God. I think the author would probably agree that the Christian obsession with being pro-life is in a real way an idolization, like the golden calf, Christians need some idol to hold on to because they follow a God for whom Life consists of loss and rebirth, not security and defense. The author was an historian and theologian so he looks at life as an historical idea and not just a matter of word choice.

http://brandon.multics.org/library/Ivan%20Illich/against_life.html

[Ice_nine]

meh

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Ice_nine said:

meh

As if.

[Socrates]

On 5/15/2016, 10:17:45, Peace said:

I  don't necessarily think that "pro-choice" is a great term either, but as I mentioned earlier in this thread I think that you can potentially use it as a basis for discussion (e.g. why does the unborn not have any choice?)

What terms you use in private conversation with individuals is your, well, choice, and would probably depend on the nature of the discussion and individuals.  However, I definitely don't think pro-lifers should adopt "pro-choice," or similar language in their public rhetoric, as such language in itself draws the emphasis from the life of the unborn child to "freedom of choice," and gives the side favoring legalized abortion (whatever you want to call it) unduly positive spin.  I'm still not sure exactly what term you think we should use.

On 5/15/2016, 10:17:45, Peace said:

Does the person in your hypothetical also believe that rape is immoral? If so, then I think the same logic would apply. I would not necessarily call the person "pro-rape" (or "pro-murder", "pro-adultery", "pro-masturbation") or whatever (although I would likely think the person is an idiot for not wanting it to be criminalized).

Whether they happen to personally believe it is immoral is largely beside the point.  In both cases (rape and abortion), the person would favor allowing a horrific act against another person with no legal consequence.  In both cases, the term "pro-choice" is just empty and evasive rhetoric - which was my point in making that hypothetical.  The truth is that some actions are not legitimate choices, and should not be allowed in any civilized society.  Neither abortion nor rape are "victimless crimes"; both horribly violate the rights of others, and the victim of abortion is murdered.  "Pro-choice" rhetoric pretends the primary victim of abortion simply doesn't exist.  Abortion can't fairly be compared to purely personal vice such as masturbation.

On 5/15/2016, 10:17:45, Peace said:

I don't oppose the word "pro-life" for people who are actually only "anti-abortion".  I think it would be good for people who are "anti-abortion" to actually take up a complete "pro-life" position, but if they want to call themselves "pro-life" regardless of the fact that they are not truly pro-life, that is perfectly OK with me. The point I was trying to make there is that if we are going to point out the logical inconsistencies with the terms that other people use in reference to themselves, then it is only fair to point out the logical inconsistencies that "pro-lifers" use with respect to themselves.  More than anything with that comment though, I was hoping to raise the idea that a "consistent life ethic" position is the most effective in advocating the "pro-life" position because the position is consistent across the board.  When I get into arguments with pro-choice folks and I make the argument that all life is sacred, it definitely helps in the discussion when they see that I am against the death-penalty too, for example.

You have some legitimate points, though it's really a different issue than the original topic of language.  Without getting into a never-ending debate on the death penalty, one can in fact oppose abortion, yet allow killing in legitimate defense of self or others, just war, or of criminals who represent a danger to society, without being inconsistent.  The Church has always taught as much.  It's murder of innocent human beings (including abortion and euthanasia) that must always be opposed.

One thing with the "consistent life ethic" is that people will always draw the line at different places.  A strict pacifist will claim it is wrong to kill even in defending the lives of others, and vegan/PETA nuts will call you inconsistent or "speciesist" unless you also oppose all killing of animals or even plants, even for food. (Why should we be "pro-life" only with regards to humans?) Only the most extreme persons will claim absolutely all killing is wrong (and even some of these will, illogically, still be "pro-choice" on abortion).  I don't see a need to change my beliefs to accommodate such persons.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Socrates