SpasticSage wrote:However, I do have to ask for one favor, which is less about the main debate, and might seem somewhat petty, but bear with me... I feel that calling pro-lifers "anti-choice" (sorry, Honor) also distracts from the real issues in the intelligent debate of this topic (assuming that you believe that a person could be both pro-life and intelligent). I personally believe that it devolves the argument partly into a matter of petty name-calling (obviously, pro-lifers didn't make the term "anti-choice"). Granted, it is possible to argue that we're against a certain choice. Similarly, we could argue (according to our beliefs) that analgous names for the pro-choice position are also true (and IMHO, they sound less flattering than "anti-choice"). Of course, you don't HAVE to stop calling us "anti-choice", but I'd just call it a matter of respect and courtesy (we're debating on a forum, not rallying en masse at a political convention).
I apologise in advance... Discussion of this part of the subject is just kind of strident by nature. We can't discuss these terms without using them. That having been said:
I use "Anti-choice" because it's the most accurate and honest term for someone who either does't believe women should be allowed to have abortions, or doesn't want them to be able to choose when an abortion is apporpriate.
The right came up with the terms "Pro-life" and "Pro-abortion" because that's what they do well. They come up with catchy, clever, memorable, terminology for things to shape the way people think about issues... This is especially effective when the people in question don't habitually think much. If you're too lazy and self-absorbed to think about it, or too well indocrinated to do your own due diligence, then which option sounds best at first glance becomes very important to the debate. So they pick names that play well to people who aren't going to think much beyond the level of the name. It's just really not important to the thought process if those catchy names happen to be innacurate or untrue.
Clear Skies Initiative - For or against? Right to life - For or against? Defense of Marriage - For or against? Now let's try it with more honest names...
Factory owners should be the ones to decide whether or not their factories pollute too much - For or against? Women shouldn't be allowed to use contraception - for or against? People of other faiths and sexual orientations should be denied certain rights - for or against?
So the right labled "pro choice" people "pro-abortion". That's stupid, and frankly dishonest, and they chose it because it sounds terrible. Nobody is "pro abortion" (well... I -have- met a few crazies... I'm using the word "nobody" to mean no serious person involved in the deate on a rational level) Nobody is against life for babies. Nobody is in favor of killing babies. The fact that some of us are more realistic about when a fetus becomes a baby, or think that the life of a living person should take precedent over the maybe life of a potential person doesn't alter that. We're all pretty damned solid in our being in favor of life.
So we had to re-name ourselves more honestly. We're for freedom. We're for reality. We're for not subjecting someone else to your own personal rules just because you feel strongly about them. we're for giving people the natural freedom to look at the facts and make their own choice. "Pro choice" it is.
The right, of course, chose "pro life" for themselves, for the same reasons. It sounds wonderful. It sounds like a no-brainer. Everyone is pro life. But it's also, frankly, dishonest. It's not that you're (and I mean the side of the argument, not you personally) in favor of life... That's not what distinguishes you from me in this debate. We're all in favor of life. You just think you should be able to define it based on mysticism rather than science.
I use "anti-choice" because it's the most honest, least insulting, most accurate, most simple way to say it. If you don't think every individual woman should be allowed to choose whether or not to have an abortion in any given situation, then you are anti-choice. It's really that simple.
No offense intended... I'm open to further debate on the subject, and I won't use the term gratuitiously in your company... But I'm really not in the habit, nor do I want to become in the habit, of soft-pedaling terminology to describe someone who thinks they should be able to restrict the actions of others and deprive them of rights and freedoms based on mystical beliefs without realistic scientific proofs.
If someone wants to restrict
their own access to abortion based on their unfounded beliefs, that's one thing. That's freedom. The minute their willing to say someone else should not be allowed to have one... That is nothing short of attempted oppression... And if you're willing to press your beliefs onto other people, and make them live to the letter of your wishes, then the only thing separating you from a rapist or a murderer is a matter of degree.
