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

[Lampo]

This is what I’m responding to:

I really hate the word “pro-abortion”. It is a buzzword meant to portray pro-choice activists in a more negative connotation. The terms “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” do mean different things.

There’s a chronic inability among anti-abortion individuals to discern between the terms pro-choice and pro-abortion. The distinction between the two terms… See more is: a pro-choice individual is someone who believes that a woman should have the choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy if she so wishes. Pro-choice folks may favor a degree of restriction on abortion, and generally include abortion in a list of options which also includes adoption and parenthood. That’s why the term is pro-choice, with the emphasis on choosing between multiple options.

Lots of pro-choice people carry unexpected pregnancies to term because that is part of their personal ethics or they feel they are ready for this unexpected development. The way a lot of abortion opponents put it, though, you’d think that pro-choice people are gung ho about abortion and think everybody should have one and that it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread… which simply isn’t true.

I wonder how “pro life” types would like to have their beliefs characterized as "anti woman"with the same argument?

My response:

“Pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” have different meanings? Maybe. The only time this could possibly be true is if the “pro-choicer” is also opposed to abortion 100% of the time. Otherwise, that person becomes “pro-abortion” when they agree with a mother’s decision to kill her child.

Does the person who is pro-choice but who also opposes abortion in every circumstance exist? Not sure. Does that describe the typical pro-choicer’s philosophy? I’d say no. Someone who is pro-choice also believes that abortion is a morally viable option in some type of situation.

Let’s call a spade a spade. Abortion is murder or it is not. Yes, I know it is legal, but an unjust law is no law at all. Dr. Peter Kreeft, a philosophy professor at Boston College, argues that there are only 4 possibilities when it comes to abortion. I happen to agree with him. They are:

1. The fetus is a person, and we know that.
2. The fetus is a person, but we don’t know that.
3. The fetus isn’t a person, but we don’t know that.
4. The fetus isn’t a person, and we know that.

In case #1, abortion is first degree murder. In case #2, abortion is manslaughter. In case #3, abortion is criminal negligence. An analogy to case #3 is if your driving at night and see an overcoat lying in the road and unsure if it is covering a person. Do you take the chance and run over it? No. Only in case #4 is abortion a reasonable, permissible, moral and responsible choice.

Evil means never justify the ends. The killing of an innocent human being is never justified and is gravely contrary to the moral law. The truth is, there have been about 50,000,000 innocent children killed by means of abortion since 1973. If that’s not a holocaust, I don’t know what is.

“A nation that kills its own children has no future.”

• Pope John Paul, II

 

[Bluegoat]

Well, concievably a person might think that abortion could be, in some cases, the lesser of two evils. Or they might be in a position where they think state regulation is problematic, so they do not want laws about abortion, but think that any individual should choose not to have an abortion.

Also, many Catholics feel that abortion laws should exclude abortions to save the life of the mother. Most laws allow it in that case, and many individuals who probably consider themselves pro-life would support the idea that only in such a case, the law allows the mother to choose based on her own convictions. But a Catholic might call such a person pro-choice, and even pro-abortion.

In any case, there is no way in the West that we will get anywhere with legal issues without more “hearts and minds”. Politicians can’t change much because populations are truly divided. It is necessary to have real dialogue with the other side, and that is impossible when using names that they consider to be inflammatory. And it turns off those who are witnesses to such discussions while being unsure of their own positions, it seems petty. Better to have some substantial exchanges rather than wasting breath on this question.

We should be happy when people identify this way. It means there is a place to start, some commonly shared values.

Besides, it is generally good manners to call people what they prefer to be called.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Does the person who is pro-choice but who also opposes abortion in every circumstance exist? Not sure.

The “Not sure” comment pretty much makes the case that your opponent is claiming.

Let me ask an analogous question: Does there exist a person who is in favor of parents having the legal right to appropriately spank their children, yet feels that it is always wrong to spank children?

 

[Joe_5859]

Besides, it is generally good manners to call people what they prefer to be called.

That’s what I usually try to do. One the one hand, it seems petty to get caught up in semantics, but the another hand, I do understand how the choice of language shapes the conversation. There are more than a few pro-choicers who also insist on calling pro-lifers “anti-abortion” or even (on occassion) “anti-women” rather than simply “pro-life”.

I think there is a distinction between “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” in certain respects, though they tend to lead to the same end result.

In my experience, pro-choice is a more sympathetic view point (as it’s proponents often go through great pains to make the point that they do not think abortion is a good thing), but it is also less logically tenable. I took a course on the morality of abortion (taught by an atheist philosophy professor) who spent the first three weeks demolishing all the popular pro-choice arguments as being illogical. (He spent the remainder of the semester building his case for the moral permissibility of abortion based on discrediting the strawman that is Descarte’s notion of the soul). I have never encountered a pro-choice argument that holds up under logical scrutiny.

I think the pro-abortion position is equally illogical, but it at least has a certain sense of internal logical consistency.

In any case, it gets a little dicey because everyone wants to be called “pro-choice”, but the logical reasoning runs the gamut. You have people who think abortion is evil, but maybe the lesser of two evils in certain emotionally-charged examples. And then you have the people who think that abortion is morally equivalent to removing an in-grown toe nail.

My problem is that the term pro-choice has become such a political term. Politicians hide behind it as a way for them to increase the availability of abortion while maintaining some type of “personal opposition” to abortion. I prefer for politics and policy not to be based on logical fallacies and contradictions, but perhaps I’m being overly idealistic in holding to such an expectation.

 

[Lampo]

The “Not sure” comment pretty much makes the case that your opponent is claiming.

Darn. I think I follow you, but could you elaborate as to why my comment makes their case? Is there a “pro-lifer” who is also in favor of abortion when it threatens the life of the mother? Should that person be called “anti-choice” instead of “pro-life”? Probably not.

Let me ask an analogous question: Does there exist a person who is in favor of parents having the legal right to appropriately spank their children, yet feels that it is always wrong to spank children?

I would say that person exists. I would also say there is a larger chance of that person existing as compared to the “pro-choicer” who is opposed to abortion in ALL situations. So the person that is in favor of a parents right to “choose” to spank, is that person “pro-choice” in that respect?

 

[edwest2]

This is called perception manipulation which is a common tactic of psychological warfare.

Depopulate a village sounds better than we killed everybody.

There is no question or debate, a human being, a unique human being, exists at conception.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Joe_5859]

This is called perception manipulation which is a common tactic of psychological warfare.

Depopulate a village sounds better than we killed everybody.

There is no question or debate, a human being, a unique human being, exists at conception.

God bless,
Ed

And “terminate a pregnancy” sounds better than “kill a baby.”

I know that this “perception manipulation” (I like that phrase ) is certainly a factor. I struggle, though, with how to approach the language issue in some instances. I know of one pro-life leader who refuses to even use the word “abortion” but will only refer to it as “child-killing” because he feels that anything less is a deceptive euphemism that dishonors the millions of children who have been killed in this way. Part of me agrees with that line of thinking, but then I am hesitant to be intentionally belligerent towards those I disagree with for fear of simply pushing them away without them ever even considering my point of view.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Darn. I think I follow you, but could you elaborate as to why my comment makes their case?

Your opponent complains about our side’s “chronic inability” to distinguish between a person who thinks abortion is a good thing versus a person who favors the legal right of pregnant women to choose abortion. Your “Not sure” comment merely confirms that you really don’t see a difference between people in the two categories.

As another example, I favor the rights of everyone, including Nazis, to organize peaceful public events, and I oppose the use of torture on U.S. detainees. But if someone calls me “pro-Nazi” or “pro-terrorist”, all it accomplishes is to make me angry and make me think that they really don’t even have a basic understanding of what I believe.

 

[Bluegoat]

That’s what I usually try to do. One the one hand, it seems petty to get caught up in semantics, but the another hand, I do understand how the choice of language shapes the conversation. There are more than a few pro-choicers who also insist on calling pro-lifers “anti-abortion” or even (on occassion) “anti-women” rather than simply “pro-life”.

I think there is a distinction between “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” in certain respects, though they tend to lead to the same end result.

In my experience, pro-choice is a more sympathetic view point (as it’s proponents often go through great pains to make the point that they do not think abortion is a good thing), but it is also less logically tenable. I took a course on the morality of abortion (taught by an atheist philosophy professor) who spent the first three weeks demolishing all the popular pro-choice arguments as being illogical. (He spent the remainder of the semester building his case for the moral permissibility of abortion based on discrediting the strawman that is Descarte’s notion of the soul). I have never encountered a pro-choice argument that holds up under logical scrutiny.

I think the pro-abortion position is equally illogical, but it at least has a certain sense of internal logical consistency.

In any case, it gets a little dicey because everyone wants to be called “pro-choice”, but the logical reasoning runs the gamut. You have people who think abortion is evil, but maybe the lesser of two evils in certain emotionally-charged examples. And then you have the people who think that abortion is morally equivalent to removing an in-grown toe nail.

My problem is that the term pro-choice has become such a political term. Politicians hide behind it as a way for them to increase the availability of abortion while maintaining some type of “personal opposition” to abortion. I prefer for politics and policy not to be based on logical fallacies and contradictions, but perhaps I’m being overly idealistic in holding to such an expectation.

I also think that most pro-choice arguments are illogical. But that is a good reason to point out the inconsistencies, not to ascribe to them a conclusion which they have specifically rejected, at least that is how I see it.

I think your professor was on the best track to a consistent pro-choice ethic though. If we say there is no soul, than abortion becomes a reasonable possibility (as do other examples of killing humans for the advantage of an individual or community.)

Political use of words is annoying, but the pro-life side does it to - after all, who wants to be anti-life? When either side tries to gain points through name calling, you know the discussion has become useless.

 

[Joe_5859]

Political use of words is annoying, but the pro-life side does it to - after all, who wants to be anti-life? When either side tries to gain points through name calling, you know the discussion has become useless.

I agree. It is unfortunate when name-calling seems to rule the day.

 

[edwest2]

Well, Joe, while standing outside of an abortion clinic, I asked those with far more experience than me, why those going in believed it was OK. The answer was that they were made to believe it was OK by authority figures. For a while, what was aborted was referred to as “a blob of tissue.” Or a tiny clump of cells.

No one needs to call anyone a “baby killer,” but people need to be informed of the truth. Human life is sacred from conception to natural death. Of course, loud words and emotion are used by abortion supporters to intimidate. I watched on TV as a woman yelled, “Keep your beliefs off my body!”

Always remember what the truth is. Too often, especially on the internet, the truth is replaced by opinions that only cover the truth. Keep the truth simple and clear.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Schrode]

This is what I’m responding to:

My response:

“Pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” have different meanings? Maybe. The only time this could possibly be true is if the “pro-choicer” is also opposed to abortion 100% of the time. Otherwise, that person becomes “pro-abortion” when they agree with a mother’s decision to kill her child.

Does the person who is pro-choice but who also opposes abortion in every circumstance exist? Not sure. Does that describe the typical pro-choicer’s philosophy? I’d say no. Someone who is pro-choice also believes that abortion is a morally viable option in some type of situation.

Let’s call a spade a spade. Abortion is murder or it is not. Yes, I know it is legal, but an unjust law is no law at all. Dr. Peter Kreeft, a philosophy professor at Boston College, argues that there are only 4 possibilities when it comes to abortion. I happen to agree with him. They are:

1. The fetus is a person, and we know that.
2. The fetus is a person, but we don’t know that.
3. The fetus isn’t a person, but we don’t know that.
4. The fetus isn’t a person, and we know that.

In case #1, abortion is first degree murder. In case #2, abortion is manslaughter. In case #3, abortion is criminal negligence. An analogy to case #3 is if your driving at night and see an overcoat lying in the road and unsure if it is covering a person. Do you take the chance and run over it? No. Only in case #4 is abortion a reasonable, permissible, moral and responsible choice.

Evil means never justify the ends. The killing of an innocent human being is never justified and is gravely contrary to the moral law. The truth is, there have been about 50,000,000 innocent children killed by means of abortion since 1973. If that’s not a holocaust, I don’t know what is.

“A nation that kills its own children has no future.”

• Pope John Paul, II

I read a post on here a while back and it really cleared some of this up for me. It said (and forgive me for paraphrasing) - That the prolifers go out and picket at the women’s clinics and planned parenthood places with signs saying “don’t kill your child”, “It’s not a fetus it’s a baby”, “you have no right to take your baby’s life”,etc. Now if people were not “pro choice” and were really “pro abortion” then IMHO that the “pro abortion” people would be outside the OBGYN clinics with signs saying “abort the fetus - it’s not a child” or “don’t carry that fetus to term”. The day I see a protesters outside an OBGYN clinic that carry signs like that is the day I will feel it’s acceptable to call a “pro choice” person “pro abortion”.

Honestly, I’m beginning to believe that some of the “pro-life” people call the “pro choice” people “pro abortion” just to try to get a rise out of them or annoy them. Although I do not support abortion in 99.9% of the cases, I know of no pro choice friends and relations who say that “abortion is always right” or “abortion should be preformed whenever the woman decides she want it-no matter how far alongk”. Many pro choice friends of mine have multiple children - So obviously they are not always “pro abortion”.
This is a topic that I seriously doubt will come to an agreement or answer in my lifetime or that of my children’s. Saying someone is “pro abortion” makes it sound as if that person is pro abortion 100% of the time - and I simply don’t believe that’s the case.

God Bless
Schrode

 

[Joe_5859]

I read a post on here a while back and it really cleared some of this up for me. It said (and forgive me for paraphrasing) - That the prolifers go out and picket at the women’s clinics and planned parenthood places with signs saying “don’t kill your child”, “It’s not a fetus it’s a baby”, “you have no right to take your baby’s life”,etc. Now if people were not “pro choice” and were really “pro abortion” then IMHO that the “pro abortion” people would be outside the OBGYN clinics with signs saying “abort the fetus - it’s not a child” or “don’t carry that fetus to term”. The day I see a protesters outside an OBGYN clinic that carry signs like that is the day I will feel it’s acceptable to call a “pro choice” person “pro abortion”.

Honestly, I’m beginning to believe that some of the “pro-life” people call the “pro choice” people “pro abortion” just to try to get a rise out of them or annoy them. Although I do not support abortion in 99.9% of the cases, I know of no pro choice friends and relations who say that “abortion is always right” or “abortion should be preformed whenever the woman decides she want it-no matter how far alongk”. Many pro choice friends of mine have multiple children - So obviously they are not always “pro abortion”.
This is a topic that I seriously doubt will come to an agreement or answer in my lifetime or that of my children’s. Saying someone is “pro abortion” makes it sound as if that person is pro abortion 100% of the time - and I simply don’t believe that’s the case.

God Bless
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.

 

[Betterave]

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.

Actually “pro-abortion” simply means that a person thinks abortion should be legally permitted in at least some circumstances (as per the OP’s initial argument - this follows provided one accepts that illicit/immoral killing of a human being out always to be illegal - those who deny this can be called “pro-murder,” not just “pro-abortion”). Of course, when “pro-choicers” claim they are not “pro-abortion” they are failing to recognize this, so it should be explained to them (as in the OP), not just used as an offensive (because misunderstood) label.

 

[Bluegoat]

Actually “pro-abortion” simply means that a person thinks abortion should be legally permitted in at least some circumstances (as per the OP’s initial argument). Of course, when “pro-choicers” claim they are not “pro-abortion” they are failing to recognize this, so it should be explained to them (as in the OP), not just used as an offensive (because misunderstood) label.

How about saying they are “pro-legally-permitted-abortion-if-the mother-chooses?” THat seems clear, if not very pithy.

 

[Betterave]

How about saying they are “pro-legally-permitted-abortion-if-the mother-chooses?” THat seems clear, if not very pithy.

Or why not “pro letting the mother choose to not have an abortion is she doesn’t want one”? The reason, I think, is that clarity requires a certain amount of pithiness. Overly neutral descriptions can be just as misleading as overly polemical ones.

 

[Just_Lurking]

How about saying they are “pro-legally-permitted-abortion-if-the mother-chooses?” THat seems clear, if not very pithy.

The term “pro-abortion-rights” has occasionally been used to fill this need.

 

[Just_Lurking]

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.

Generally speaking, “pro-X” means “in favor of X” or “thinks X is a good thing / idea”. This is the whole point, polemically speaking, of using the terms “pro-life” and “pro-abortion”. After all, who could be against life, or in favor of killing unborn children?

 

[Betterave]

Generally speaking, “pro-X” means “in favor of X” or “thinks X is a good thing / idea”. This is the whole point, polemically speaking, of using the terms “pro-life” and “pro-abortion”. After all, who could be against life, or in favor of killing unborn children?

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. 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” 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).

 

[Just_Lurking]

“pro-choice” is a dishonest term (conceptually speaking).

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”.