Pro-abortion Or Pro-choice

[Didymus]

This may have been discussed before, but I really don't want to hack away at an ancient thread.

Even if it was already debated, I really believe we can cover new ground in this new thread, so here we go.

Socrates and I were just about to start discussing this in the "Anti-Obama or Pro-McCain" thread. I mentioned briefly that I do not follow the typical pro-life habit of referring to our 'opponents' as being 'pro-abortion,' but rather 'pro-choice.'

Here is Socrates' response, followed by my initial response:

[quote name='Socrates' post='1614554' date='Jul 31 2008, 09:59 PM']I think I missed that about using the term "pro-choice," but I'll have to strongly disagree with you there.
Some years back I heard a speech by one of the leaders of the pro-life movement, who said it was very important that pro-lifers do not adopt the language of the enemy by using the term "pro-choice." Once we start using their language to refer to the abortion issue, we allow the debate to be on their terms, rather than ours.
She said it actually took the pro-abortion side many years to come up with the term "pro-choice" to refer to their position, and it was a brilliant propaganda move, as it allowed them to shift emphasis away from abortion itself, and allowed them to support legalized abortion while claiming to not really be "for" it.

The term "pro-choice" is an Orwellian euphemism based on a lie.
It deliberately shifts the emphasis, and the debate, away from the facts of abortion itself, and towards a pleasant sounding abstraction ("choice"). After all, who could possibly be against the right to choose? If you oppose "choice," you are portrayed as some kind of enemy of human free-will.

Heck, I'm pro-choice! I believe we should have the freedom to choose where to live, who to vote for, what career to pursue, whom to date or marry, which brand of goods to buy, what movies to watch, where to go to school, etc., etc. And I'm sure on a number of issues I'm more for freedom of choice than most in the "pro-choice" crowd.
The truth remains though that some actions are not legitimate choices to make. I have no "right to choose" to murder, rob, or rape my neighbor. I have no right to choose to kill an innocent unborn child!

The fact is that the "pro-choice" crowd does not stand for "choice" as some generic general principle, but specifically with regards to [b]abortion[/b].
And oftentimes "pro-choicers" are far from pro-choice when it comes to things that oppose abortion - such as the freedom of the people of the states to choose to have restrictions of abortion, or the choice of taxpayers not to pay for abortions with their tax money, or the choice of pro-lifers to protest at abortion mills.

The truth is that "pro-choice" does indeed in reality mean "pro-abortion," and we should be honest and truthful in our language. Bowing to dishonest euphemistic language to be politically-correct in reality does no one a favor, and will do absolutely zilch to further the pro-life cause.

And if you're going to insist we use the enemy's language with regards to "pro-choice," what of their other euphemisms must we adopt? Should we start calling abortion mills "reproductive health clinics"? Unborn children "fetal tissue"?

We should be respectful of persons with wrong and mistaken opinions regarding abortion, but this does not mean we should adopt their euphemistic and propagandistic slogans when discussing and debating abortion.
Our language should always reflect truth, not political correctness.[/quote]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1614600' date='Jul 31 2008, 10:20 PM']you make very good arguments, and I would definitely like to pick your brain on them. I will start a new thread and lay out in more detail my thoughts on the language we use as pro-lifers[/quote]

I will return to this thread in a little bit. My bad, I've just been doing a lot of work around the house..

[friendofJPII]

I usually use the term "pro-choice." Some pro-choice people are pro-abortion, but others dislike the practice but think it should remain legal. If I am speaking with someone with whom I know is pro-choice, I will use the term pro-choice if the issue comes up, ifI were to call them pro-abortion, that immediately starts out on a negative note and ends dialogue.

[pan!c139]

Usually I use pro-choice as well, but I think that pro-abortion is probably a better term to use becaue it is more specific - but when talking to people about it, as friendsofJPII said, it starts a conversation on the negative side.

[cmotherofpirl]

If you are not prolife, you are prodeath.
Sitting on the fence is not an option.

[CatholicCid]

While I occasionally use "pro-choice" in conversation, I try to normally use "pro-abortion" because I don't like being called "anti-choice".

[pan!c139]

good point!!!

[Lisieux Flower]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1614736' date='Jul 31 2008, 10:26 PM']While I occasionally use "pro-choice" in conversation, I try to normally use "pro-abortion" because I don't like being called "anti-choice".[/quote]

So you're calling someone else a name because they call you an unfair name? Very mature... We AREN'T "anti-choice" just like most people AREN'T "pro-abortion" or "pro-death".

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Lisieux Flower' post='1614749' date='Jul 31 2008, 10:36 PM'] So you're calling someone else a name because they call you an unfair name? Very mature... We AREN'T "anti-choice" just like most people AREN'T "pro-abortion" or "pro-death".[/quote]

I'd consider it more so labeling their opinion then calling them names. Calling them names would suggest I am insulting them, but I don't see how suggesting a term for one's thoughts is insulting. If you support abortion, you are Pro-Abortion. I am against abortion, so I am Anti-Abortion. It's not name calling, but an observation.

And I do not like being called "Anti-Choice" because it is too broad a generalization in my thoughts, just as "Pro-Choice" is as well. It is an unfair generalization, using a broad label for one specific issue. If I had to, I'd guess that the term came into use mainly because it has a positive connotation too it, while the truer labels are too negative.

Edited August 1, 2008 by CatholicCid

[CatherineM]

A pregnant woman has basically 3 choices, abortion, adoption, or keeping the baby. Some people truly are pro-choice meaning they want women to have all three choices. Others really are pro-abortion meaning they don't tell women or encourage women past the one choice of abortion. Those are usually those who have an agenda, usually financial, but sometimes more sinister. Those of us that are pro-life, are for twice as many choices as the pro-abortion people are.

For myself, when in a situation where tact is needed, I say pro-choice through gritted teeth. Most of the time, I will say pro-abortion.

[dairygirl4u2c]

that was a very well thought and written response by soc

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'd probably just approach it pragmatically. if it's going to prevent people from changing their views because of the language, then prochoice should be said. if people aren't going to be turned off from changing because of the word, then don't cater to them.
i may be giving people too much credit, but i don't think they'd be turned off by the word. if you have a solid argument, behind the words, and are respectible to them as persons, then i tend to think you can say proabortion.

i refuse to accept, that saying prochoice for abortion, is like saying prochoice for the halocaust, or pure murder. most prolife people don't know the arguments for abortion, and personhood etc, and i think these issues are more dissimilar than similar as per analogies.
so it's not completley wrong, if you said prochoice, were the situation only going to be benefited by you saying it that way.

[Didymus]

Oh gee I shouldn't have started this thread till I could actually post in it.

Whatever yall do, don't wear yourselves out on this debate just yet. I think we can really come together on this. Everyone here is making good points, and we need to bring it all into the light so we can further unify ourselves as defenders of life.

I may not be able to throw all my thoughts down here till tomorrow. Forgive me. I'm tryin to catch up with life here..

[HisChildForever]

[quote]Some pro-choice people are pro-abortion, but others dislike the practice but think it should remain legal.[/quote]

That's the way I've always defined it. I see "pro-choice" as the individual stating, "Personally, I would never get an abortion (or, for guys, 'I would never support abortion') but I won't stand in the way of others who want to get it done. Also, I think it should be an option for those who suffered from rape/incest." I see "pro-abortion" as the individual stating, "Abortion should be legal no matter what."

It's really a matter of personal definitions, in my opinion. Heck, you could even say that "pro-choice is just making pro-abortion sound less murderous" which is true as well.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i mean, pragmatically.. if the only way you're going to change someone from being a murder or holocaust supporter, is by meeting them at their level,,,, i'd consider doing that.
i don't think i would, but really i don't know, how could i not in a sense.

so when talking about abortion, which is more dissimilar to holocaust etc, than not, then without a doubt, if that's the only way to change them, then use the term prochoice. meet them at their level. if it's the only way.

[dairygirl4u2c]

some late term abortions, in certain situations, i tend to be pretty inflexible about. usually i find that method is actually kinda effective. as long as you can keep a cool head, and act respectful, arguing those positions should probably often be forceful... cause it's sometimes at later term, blatant murder. the reason i think rigidness works i these situations,,, is precisely because it's so blatant, that a reasonable mnid could only conclude that anything else is murder, and they are blinded somehow. (almost everyone i speak to about late terms, without mothers life etc, have not put much thought into it etc, blinded)
if by being blinded though, they're put off because of your rigidness,,, you might change. this is like when it's a holocaust thing though. i dunno about all that.

other than that i think the main flaws in the things i just said in the last posts, were that i tended to be over broad. people generally might not be over sensitive to it, but some might. so if you know of those people, then maybe you should use prochoice. most are not the shrill knee jerk liberals we might paint them to be, but some are.
if reasonable minds can disagree about some abortion, which i think they could,,, just barely,,, (i think after really getting down to it, if they never change at all, then they probably are not reasonable people) then be courteous about it. you wouldn't like people calling you antichoice. if they're shrill as the premise, and it's courteous, then do it, if it's the only way they will change.
insisting on using proabortion is merely blind adherence to principles, given that you're shooting yourself in the foot, by preventing the very outcomes you seek, ie them changing. this isn't about cooperating with evil etc by sometimes being PC, there's no excuse to be inflexible in how your speak, at least sometimes.

Edited August 1, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c