Do we really want to win the Prolife debate?

[DaddyLarry]

Remember the old Pogo line: “We have met the enemy and he is us!” Too often our rhetoric matches that of the abortion on demand side. We refer to them as “pro-choice” or “abortion rights advocates”. We allow ourselves, without objection, to be referred to as “anti-abortion”, “anti-abortion rights advocates”, or anti-choice. Frankly, we will never win the debate as long as we continue to allow ourselves to be classified as opposed to human rights or dignity and use the terms that put our opponents in a positive light.

We are the human rights advocates. We need to use truth in our rhetoric. We should refer to ourselves as right to life advocates (found in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution) or simply prolife. Our opponents should never be referred to as “abortion rights advocates” or “pro-choice”. After all, since there is nothing right about abortion, there is no such thing as abortion rights. How can you advocate something that cannot exist? Likewise, how can one be pro-choice when they deny choice to the one being killed? The proper term to be used for our opponents is “abortion on demand advocates”. They support abortion to be available to satisfy whatever consumer demand for abortion that they can drum up.

Abortion on demand advocates therefore want to force medical personnel to do them. They want to force us to pay for them with our tax dollars. They want to prevent truthful information concerning abortion from being given to women. There is certainly no choice for anyone except those who want abortions. Those who find abortion morally repugnant don’t have any choice.

Let’s have our rhetoric be in line with the truth. If we do that, “The Truth shall set us free.”

 

[Alex246]

I agree with you. The pro-abortion side is fabricating a “right to choice,” which translates into “right to abortion.” There is NO basis for this, no matter how loudly people yell and say they’re right. We need to expose the fact that this “right” doesn’t exist and never has. If we’re calling the other side “pro choice,” then we automatically make it seem like we’re trying to strike down actual rights. It would be foolish to say this change in rhetoric would be a magic bullet, but it could very well help, which makes it worth pursuing.

 

[DaddyLarry]

Nobody said that a change in rhetoric would be a magic bullet, but it seems silly to me for us to put ourselves on the defensive from the beginning.

 

[manualman]

Where have you been since 1975? I’ve never once heard a pro-life organization refer to itself as “anti-abortion.” Almost all pro-life materials refers to the other side as “pro-abortion.” (which is often a fair characterization of groups like Planned Parenthood or NARAL, but is sometimes a turn-off to individuals who would never have an abortion themselves, but have been swayed to believe that it is ‘intolerant’ to tell others that they can’t do so. These people must be treated with more care. They’re on our side at heart and just need to think the principles through more carefully.)

It is the secular mass media that like to call the others “abortion rights” groups or “women’s rights activists.” THEY are the ones who label us “anti-abortion” or even sometimes “anti-choice.” Why preach to US about that? You don’t suppose we’d change 'em if we could? Write letters to the editors of secular media; preaching to the choir at CAF isn’t going to help.

 

[markomalley]

Actually, I’m pro-life and they are pro-death. I am in favor of human rights and they are in favor of oppression. If anything, I would have the more feminist attitude, while they would be for the oppression of females (throughout the world, more females are murdered from sex-selection abortion than males).

You are right that rhetoric matters…that’s why the pro-abort, pro-death forces and their minions in the media always use the anti-choice tag.

If you can figure out a way to get the media to start using the accurate nomenclature (i.e., the terms we use), please let me know and I’m with you 100%.

 

[Holly3278]

Remember the old Pogo line: “We have met the enemy and he is us!” Too often our rhetoric matches that of the abortion on demand side. We refer to them as “pro-choice” or “abortion rights advocates”. We allow ourselves, without objection, to be referred to as “anti-abortion”, “anti-abortion rights advocates”, or anti-choice. Frankly, we will never win the debate as long as we continue to allow ourselves to be classified as opposed to human rights or dignity and use the terms that put our opponents in a positive light.

We are the human rights advocates. We need to use truth in our rhetoric. We should refer to ourselves as right to life advocates (found in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution) or simply prolife. Our opponents should never be referred to as “abortion rights advocates” or “pro-choice”. After all, since there is nothing right about abortion, there is no such thing as abortion rights. How can you advocate something that cannot exist? Likewise, how can one be pro-choice when they deny choice to the one being killed? The proper term to be used for our opponents is “abortion on demand advocates”. They support abortion to be available to satisfy whatever consumer demand for abortion that they can drum up.

Abortion on demand advocates therefore want to force medical personnel to do them. They want to force us to pay for them with our tax dollars. They want to prevent truthful information concerning abortion from being given to women. There is certainly no choice for anyone except those who want abortions. Those who find abortion morally repugnant don’t have any choice.

Let’s have our rhetoric be in line with the truth. If we do that, “The Truth shall set us free.”

I agree. We should call the other side what they are and that is pro-abortion! Many pro-lifers already call them pro-abortion and rightly so because that is indeed what they are.

 

[DaddyLarry]

Where have you been since 1975? I’ve never once heard a pro-life organization refer to itself as “anti-abortion.”

I never said that any prolife organization does. We do, however, allow others to refer to us that way. Even Catholic radio stations and Catholic newspapers will often take a story about abortion from some wire service and run it without editing it for accuracy. Catholic media especially needs to be aware of this.

Almost all pro-life materials refers to the other side as “pro-abortion.” (which is often a fair characterization of groups like Planned Parenthood or NARAL, but is sometimes a turn-off to individuals who would never have an abortion themselves, but have been swayed to believe that it is ‘intolerant’ to tell others that they can’t do so. These people must be treated with more care. They’re on our side at heart and just need to think the principles through more carefully.)

These people need to be given a dose of reality. It is so easy to say “I would never have an abortion myself, but I don’t want to impose my views on others.” They actually are trying to be neutral on abortion. In reality, they are supporting abortion on demand. We should not use the term “pro-abortion”, but instead we need to use the term “abortion on demand”. Polls have shown that the American people are opposed by a vast majority to abortion on demand. If someone is “pro-choice” on abortion, then that person truly supports abortion on demand. (See post number 1 for explanation).

It is the secular mass media that like to call the others “abortion rights” groups or “women’s rights activists.” THEY are the ones who label us “anti-abortion” or even sometimes “anti-choice.”

Correct.

Why preach to US about that? You don’t suppose we’d change 'em if we could? Write letters to the editors of secular media; preaching to the choir at CAF isn’t going to help.

Because what you write here is exactly what we need to do, especially to the Christian media, including the Catholic media. We need to get our own house in order first.