How's this response to, '"Pro-abortion' and 'pro-choice' have different meanings."

[Schrode]

For me, the term “pro-abortion” simply indicates that a person thinks abortion is morally acceptable. I would never expect it to mean that someone holds the ridiculous position that 100% of all pregnancies should end with abortion rather than child-birth. I don’t think anyone uses the term that way.

Just as pro-life indicates that someone is against abortion either all or most of the time (I know of plenty of Catholics (including a number of Priests) who believe in certain circumstances it should be permitted - you can say they’re not Catholic - that’s your opinion and right but I won’t agree with you)-
In the same way, when someone says “pro abortion” it imples (although in many cases untrue) that they are in favour of abortion 100% of the time. That was the point I was trying to get accross.
God Bless
Schrode

 

[Betterave]

Yes, “pro-choice” is just as biased as “pro-life” and “pro-abortion”. Both sides use language that makes their side look better.

But I doubt everyone is going to suddenly switch to “pro-abortion-rights” vs. “pro-fetus-rights”.

How d’ya figure? Why is ‘pro-life’ “just as biased”? What is misleading about it? I think it would be misleading to say, “I’m not anti-abortion, I’m pro-life.” But the term ‘pro-life’ itself… what objections are there to it?

And why “Yes…”? You’re disagreeing with me here: didn’t I clearly argue that ‘pro-choice’ is dishonest (given the conceptual status of the debate) and ‘pro-abortion’ is not.

 

[Just_Lurking]

And why “Yes…”? You’re disagreeing with me here: didn’t I clearly argue that ‘pro-choice’ is dishonest (given the conceptual status of the debate) and ‘pro-abortion’ is not.

You clearly argued in post 19 that “pro-choice” isn’t an impartial description, and I agreed with that; hence the “Yes”. You didn’t mention the term “pro-abortion” at all in that post, so if there was also an argument in that post about that term, I missed it entirely.

But the term ‘pro-life’ itself… what objections are there to it?

“Pro-life” is an okay term if you are a vegan. However, if you are “pro-cow-life” in the sense that you think beef tastes good on your dinner plate, then that’s a bit of a stretch.

In any event, there are accurate terms available to describe both sides–It’s just that no one has any incentive to use them.

 

[vera_dicere]

So the pro-aborts don’t like being called “pro-abortion”, well, tough, its of their own making.

They called themselves “Pro-Choice” and resorted to calling the Pro-Life side “Anti-Choice”.

Now, realistically, no one can be “anti-choice” and its asinine to say someone is “pro-choice” because everyone supports choice to an extent. Its what that “choice” is that’s the issue. When someone says “I’m pro-choice” everyone and their fuzzy dog knows it means that person supports the right to choose to have an abortion.

So if someone who is “pro-choice” supports abortion and someone who is “anti-choice” is against abortion, then choice = abortion. Simple as that.

Plus, when they say “pro-choice” well, really, they’re saying “pro-choice to kill unborn children”, so yeah, “pro-choice” and just that sounds a lot nicer.

Its a way for them to circumvent the truth.

 

[catharina]

Just as pro-life indicates that someone is against abortion either all or most of the time **(I know of plenty of Catholics (including a number of Priests) who believe in certain circumstances it should be permitted - you can say they’re not Catholic - that’s your opinion and right but I won’t agree with you)- **

In the same way, when someone says “pro abortion” it imples (although in many cases untrue) that they are in favour of abortion 100% of the time. That was the point I was trying to get accross.
God Bless
Schrode

**Indeed they might be Catholic

• but they are Catholics who have fallen into grievous error.
  In choosing to be pro-choice, they sever themselves from Catholic Teachings.
  If they act upon this false belief, they will excommunicate themselves.**

 

[Betterave]

You clearly argued in post 19 that “pro-choice” isn’t an impartial description, and I agreed with that; hence the “Yes”. You didn’t mention the term “pro-abortion” at all in that post, so if there was also an argument in that post about that term, I missed it entirely.

Let me clarify post 19, where references to “pro-abortion” were clearly implied given the context. Here’s my argument:

What would you say about “pro-choice” applied to slavery? “Anti-abolition” is more accurate, but really “pro-slavery” is more appropriate given that that label most clearly identifies the morally problematic issue in question. The issue is never primarily about about “choice” as such, nor is it about “rights” as such. The primary issue is necessarily slavery itself or abortion itself (thus about the legitimacy of being “pro-slavery” or “pro-abortion”). The relation of these to notions of “choice” or “rights” necessarily follows from the analysis of abortion and slavery in themselves, it does not precede it. Therefore, the alleged legitimacy of the term “pro-choice” (and refusal of the term “pro-abortion”) is question-begging unless one has settled the prior issue of the status of abortion. It seems that since this question is not settled in any relevant sense (i.e., presuming we are still engaging in polemics on either side and are interested in being intellectually honest and fair to the other side of the debate), “pro-choice” is a dishonest term (conceptually speaking) and “pro-abortion” is not.

“Pro-life” is an okay term if you are a vegan. However, if you are “pro-cow-life” in the sense that you think beef tastes good on your dinner plate, then that’s a bit of a stretch.

In any event, there are accurate terms available to describe both sides–It’s just that no one has any incentive to use them.

“Pro-life” applies to human lives - we all know this and it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise. There may be those who object to this connotation of the term because they are interested in promoting a different agenda (e.g., certain vegetarians), or perhaps just in introducing a red herring into an abortion debate, but that is not relevant to the context of a discussion of the legitimacy of aborting human beings. Right? Therefore there is nothing suspicious about its use in this context.

 

[Lampo]

Don’t most if not all “pro-choicers” become “pro-abortion” the moment a mother decides to have her child killed? In other words, most if not all “pro-choicers” agree with a mother’s decision to have her child terminated if that is the mother’s decision?

 

[Just_Lurking]

“Pro-life” applies to human lives - we all know this and it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

The other side claims that fetuses (as well as zygotes, etc.) are not human life, thus making the term “pro-life” biased from their point of view.

 

[catharina]

The other side claims that fetuses (as well as zygotes, etc.) are not human life, thus making the term “pro-life” biased from their point of view.

I can claim that a chicken-roost egg will not grow into another chicken,
given the proper circumstances - but my claim is untrue and and a lie to a farmer.

A fertilized egg holds a brand new nature from the unfertilized egg.

 

[Betterave]

I can claim that a chicken-roost egg will not grow into another chicken,
given the proper circumstances - but my claim is untrue and and a lie to a farmer.

A fertilized egg holds a brand new nature from the unfertilized egg.

Correct. It is obviously not possible to legitimately support the charge of bias on the basis of an obviously false claim. To attempt to do so is far more obviously dishonest than the use of the term “pro-choice.” Not all living zygotes and fetuses are human life (the majority aren’t), but the human ones obviously are.

 

[catharina]

Correct. It is obviously not possible to legitimately support the charge of bias on the basis of an obviously false claim. To attempt to do so is far more obviously dishonest than the use of the term “pro-choice.” Not all living zygotes and fetuses are human life (the majority aren’t), but the human ones obviously are.

Thank you. Great clarification.

 

[buffalo]

My understanding of pro-choice:

The choice a woman wants to make to murder her unborn baby who is denied choice and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Correct. It is obviously not possible to legitimately support the charge of bias on the basis of an obviously false claim. To attempt to do so is far more obviously dishonest than the use of the term “pro-choice.” Not all living zygotes and fetuses are human life (the majority aren’t), but the human ones obviously are.

Well then, I guess it’s completely clear that the only possible truly unbiased terms are “pro-life” and “pro-scum-sucking-murdering-bast*rds”.

Case closed.

 

[Betterave]

Well then, I guess it’s completely clear that the only possible truly unbiased terms are “pro-life” and “pro-scum-sucking-murdering-bast*rds”.

Case closed.

ah well… ahem… that may be going too far. In any case, I think it should be scum-sucking-pro-murder-bast*rds, just so we’re clear that we don’t wish to imply that they *favor *scum-sucking, but rather simply *are *scum-sucking

I actually like to say to “pro-choicers” that I’m pro-choice too, provided we exclude illegimate choices such as murder, assault, lying. And the main choice I favor as a “pro-choicer” is choosing to look honestly at “pro-abortion pro-choice,” which is actually “anti-choice” for the aborted child, and should therefore be called “anti-and-pro-choice” - but that would really be awkward for them, wouldn’t it?

Somehow they never make the leap from “my body, my choice” to “not my body, not my choice.”