Visit Dom Pody's column >>

DOM PODYHome Page

A witty saying proves nothing. ~Voltaire
Add To Watchlist
Articles Posted: 54; Links Seeded: 383
Member Since: 3/2006Last Seen: 11/26/2009

Fixing the "Pro-Life"/"Pro-Choice" propaganda, once and for all.

News Type: Opinion — Sun Oct 8, 2006 7:55 PM EDT

advertisement

I have a problem.

First, a disclaimer: as most of you know, I'm a libertarian politically- I believe in governmental intervention only when the rights of another human are threatened. I'm against abortion, because, while I'm not in any way religious (atheist, actually), I feel that the fetus is a human life, and must be protected. However, this article is not for the abortion debate itself.

To put it bluntly: I hate the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice." They simply don't make any sense. I believe in personal choice, but I'm also a vouch supporter of human life- and I'm pretty sure that all people, regardless of their position in this debate, believe in individual choices but also human life.

The terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" don't convey what their respective supporters believe. We all believe in choices and life, and so these terms must be changed. I might be against abortion, but I'm not "pro-life," because that implies that I'm "anti-choice." I'm sure most "pro-choice" people are not "anti-life," either.

So, today I'd like to propose (somewhat) new terms. Instead of using the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice," I would suggest that we use "pro-abortion" and "anti-abrotion." Now, before many of those who are for the right to abortion get angry, yes I realize that "pro-abortion" sounds worse than "pro-choice." I understand your position- you don't think abortions should happen, you just think the woman has the right to preform one if needed.

However, this new terminology benefits your side as well. Instead of being susceptible to labels like "anti-life" or "pro-death" (and yes, I've heard both), the debate simply boils down to "pro-" or "anti-", nothing more.

Abortion is a complicated enough issue- why are we complicating it even more with such poor terminology? These terms are concise, and actually lays the ground rules for what each side truly believes in. I realize that most people won't use these new terms, but doing so would benefit those on all sides.

  • 9 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
10
4.4
{"commentId":321269,"authorDomain":"pody"}
Dom Pody

I fully realize that this change in terminology will probably not happen- however, I would hope that those on both sides of this debate can realize that the current terms hurt their own causes, and changing them is necessary.

{"commentId":321269,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"pody"}
  • 4 votes
Reply#1 - Sun Oct 8, 2006 8:03 PM EDT
{"commentId":324252,"authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
The OttO Show

I've come back to this piece and I love it. I'm playing your suggested terms over and over and it would certainly restructure the political divides over this issue. If we had 100 people and 50 were pro-life to various degrees and 50 were pro-choice by various degrees and gave them the labels of pro-abortion and anti-abortion, it would no longer be 50-50. Maybe you could follow this up with a question: of the two choices, without add-ons and amendments and buts - taking the political aspect of choice out of the equation, do you consider yourself one of the two choices: pro-abortion or anti-abortion?

I think most of the pro-lifers would have no problem saying 'anti-abortion'? But what would the pro-choice people say? Some would say 'pro-abortion', but the interesting part is who would say anti-abortion? The choice aspect has become so woven in with supporting people who have abortions, that it would seem to be a challenge perhaps to get them to say anti-abortion, even if they are.

What do you think Dom?

{"commentId":324252,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:04 PM EDT
{"commentId":324271,"authorDomain":"pody"}
Dom Pody

I agree Otto, it's near impossible to get the pro-choice people to say pro-abortion. I do think, though, that for the sake of explanation these terms make more sense.

{"commentId":324271,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"pody"}
  • 2 votes
#1.2 - Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:27 PM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":321283,"authorDomain":"kirklennon"}
Kirk Lennon

"Pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights" are more accurate terms. Of course, this one makes the former "pro-lifers" now "anti-...rights," which I doubt they'd like.

Then again, don't we all know that "Abortion is Pro Life"?

{"commentId":321283,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"kirklennon"}
  • 2 votes
Reply#2 - Sun Oct 8, 2006 8:23 PM EDT
{"commentId":321296,"authorDomain":"pody"}
Dom Pody

Ah, Mr. Lennon, I didn't want to get into a debate, but if we must... all governments must profess policies of non-agression, otherwise they would vault into anarchy. Those who favor abortion are professing agressionist policies, which no government can do.

Further reading on this topic.

{"commentId":321296,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"pody"}
  • 3 votes
#2.1 - Sun Oct 8, 2006 8:38 PM EDT
{"commentId":321903,"authorDomain":"abenton"}
Andrew Benton

Abortion is pro-life? My ass, if that's the case, then so is execution.

{"commentId":321903,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"abenton"}
  • 1 vote
#2.2 - Mon Oct 9, 2006 10:21 AM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":321319,"authorDomain":"ryaninc"}
Ryan Joseph

I've never liked the terms, either. I am very pro-life, for many reasons, religion being one. But so much in politics and the like seems to be centered around making people happy. With the terms the way they stand now, everyone is "pro" something. It's just the same as our culture's happy terms for other things. Like the way we call it an "affair" when the real term is "adultery." We like things to be happy and the terms to make us sound good.

{"commentId":321319,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"ryaninc"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#3 - Sun Oct 8, 2006 9:08 PM EDT
{"commentId":321372,"authorDomain":"killfile"}
Killfile

Dom,

I did an article about this as well some time back called The Power of Frames. I take a bit more of an academic's point of view than you do, but the premise is the same.

Frames, which is what you're talking about here, are powerful things. They set up the fundamental assumptions around which a debate takes place.

The following is the excerpt from my article dealing with the Pro-Life Pro-Choice monikers.

"Pro-Choice" -- Probably the most significant accomplishment as far as political framing goes, the use of the phrase "Pro-Choice" is a public relations coup on several levels. First, it is very difficult to be for abortion. Abortions are bad, and I don't think anyone (except perhaps people who perform abortions for a living) is for them. Still, when one group has labeled itself "anti-abortion" the opposition ends up being "pro-abortion." Those opposed to a legislative ban on abortions managed to redefine their political stance as "Pro-Choice," immediately casting their opposition as "anti-choice" -- also not an enviable position. The "anti-abortion" movement then redefined itself as "Pro-Life" leaving the "Pro-Choice" people stuck with the implication of being "anti-life" though the "Pro-Life" movement has been unable to shake the "anti-choice" implication thus far.

I'm actually going to publish another article on frames tomorrow morning. This one will be a bit more partisan, however.

{"commentId":321372,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"killfile"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#4 - Sun Oct 8, 2006 9:54 PM EDT
{"commentId":321947,"authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
iarnuocon

All dissembling aside, you seem eager to tar the pro-abortion rights side with the negative connotations of the "pro-abortion" label, which doesn't mean quite the same thing. And I think you know it. So much for "fixing the propaganda." As Kirk Lennon said, the appropriate terminology would be "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion rights"-- or as I like to think of them, "pro-minding-your-own-goddamned-business" and "pro-sticking-your-nose-where-it-doesn't-belong."

{"commentId":321947,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
  • 4 votes
Reply#5 - Mon Oct 9, 2006 10:53 AM EDT
{"commentId":321949,"authorDomain":"zaki"}
Zaki

I fully disagree with these assertions.

We say pro-choice because it gives women a CHOICE.

She can choose to either: get an abortion / keep the baby / put it up for abortion. These are choices. She has the right to choose.

Pro-Life just means Pro-Non Choice. No choice is given. She can't have an abortion even if she wanted one. Even if she was raped, even if it was incest.

I'm 1 guy. I am not religious, I'm agnostic. I do not believe in FORCING my believes on other. If a woman wants to keep her baby, she can. If she wants to have an abortion, she can (with some regulations...if she had too many abortions in the past, she is no longer allowed...if the fetus is too old, it's too late for an abortion, etc)

Let's say I believe in jumping on trampoline every evening with 50 cheerleaders. Can I force local cheerleaders to take part in this "belief"? Hell @!$%#ing no.

Everybody has their own belief. As long as it's not too @!$%#ing crazy or racist, it is your belief and nobody should attack it.

Just because a few people think "abortion is morally wrong" does not mean the entire population cannot have abortion. That's absurd.

I think "war under false pretext is morally wrong", did that stop the current administration? Not really.

{"commentId":321949,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"zaki"}
  • 4 votes
Reply#6 - Mon Oct 9, 2006 10:55 AM EDT
{"commentId":322993,"authorDomain":"zaki"}
Zaki

put it up for adoption i meant.

Sheesh this Ramadan thing is really screwing with my head.

{"commentId":322993,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"zaki"}
  • 2 votes
#6.1 - Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:10 AM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":321957,"authorDomain":"nullbull"}
nullbull

The suggested wording does not work. This debate is about rights. Roe v. Wade was decided based on the RIGHTS of the individuals involved. Pro-Abortion-Rights, Anti-Abortion-Rights is more accurate. The ugly truth behind the anti-abortion-rights group is that they believe in forcing women to remain pregnant against their will. They do not believe a woman has the RIGHT to decide the fate of her child when that child is inextricably, biologically joined to her. The ugly side of the "pro-abortion-rights" is that they believe a woman's RIGHTs include the right end the life that is growing inside her.

By emphasizing the ugly part of the both sides in this debate, and focusing on what it's really about (rights), you make this a choice between 2 less than ideal options. Kind of the like the choice of whether or not to get a abortion.

{"commentId":321957,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"nullbull"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#7 - Mon Oct 9, 2006 10:59 AM EDT
{"commentId":322203,"authorDomain":"antrios"}
RationalMinority

I am pro-choice, but the choice I am for comes before conception.

When a couple concieves, they are responsible for three lives, the life of the man, the life of the woman, and the life of the child. If a man and woman don't want a child, they choose to keep their pants on. There. No more "accidental pregancy".

There are special cases, such as birth complications, where abortion may be the best option. Then there are cases where killing the child is less a moral issue than an issue of convenience.

There are plenty of methods to prevent pregnancy. I have no problem with my tax dollars going towards prevention and awareness. I have no problem with necessary terminations of pregnancy. I have a problem with people who do not take responsibility for their actions. Such people should be allowed their abortion and then relieved of their ability to reproduce in the future, men and women alike. In the case of rape, only the man is (always) relieved of his ability to reproduce.

Or if they would like to keep their reproductive abilities, the could consider putting an unwanted child up for adoption.

See? Now everyone has rights, choices, and responsibilities.

{"commentId":322203,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"antrios"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#8 - Mon Oct 9, 2006 1:22 PM EDT
{"commentId":322231,"authorDomain":"killfile"}
Killfile

Rape? Incest? Do we allow abortions in these cases?

Severe physical deformity? Severe mental retardation? How about those?

{"commentId":322231,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"killfile"}
  • 4 votes
#8.1 - Mon Oct 9, 2006 1:40 PM EDT
{"commentId":322321,"authorDomain":"insert"}
insert_name_here

I can understand the position of those people who don't wish to allow abortion if they support using government money to educate people about real birth control methods, not just abstinence. Teenagers will have sex, and you might as well educate them (us) about how to do so safely. Government paying for birth control while banning abortion is at least not hypocritical.

{"commentId":322321,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"insert"}
  • 1 vote
#8.2 - Mon Oct 9, 2006 2:40 PM EDT
{"commentId":322662,"authorDomain":"hemphill"}
hemphill

Condom's break, the pill does fail sometimes, spermacides are not 100% effective. Accidents do happen.

So you don't believe that sex should be had except for procreation?

{"commentId":322662,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"hemphill"}
    #8.3 - Mon Oct 9, 2006 7:07 PM EDT
    {"commentId":322703,"authorDomain":"insert"}
    insert_name_here

    No technique is perfect. Many, many studies have shown that solely teaching abstinence as a sex-ed technique does not work if the goal is to prevent pregnancy.

    So you don't believe that sex should be had except for procreation?

    Where'd you get that idea?

    I think sex is fine, as long as it is consensual. Sex that results in pregnancy isn't so great necessarily (outside of marriage/a long-term relationship) but that is why condoms, the pill, etc exist. I support a woman's right to choose an abortion, as well as to choose to carry the baby to term.

    What I was saying above was that I understand the position of those who are against legal abortion, as long as they recognize that the government must provide alternatives, e.g. free condoms, to make sure teenage/unwanted pregnancies do not rise. Offering abstinence as the only option is not valid, that is, if your goal is to prevent pregnancy. If you want to make yourself feel good, promoting abstinence is the way to go.

    {"commentId":322703,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"insert"}
      #8.4 - Mon Oct 9, 2006 7:48 PM EDT
      {"commentId":322713,"authorDomain":"hemphill"}
      hemphill

      Gotcha. Much the same take myself.

      {"commentId":322713,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"hemphill"}
        #8.5 - Mon Oct 9, 2006 7:54 PM EDT
        Reply
        {"commentId":323125,"authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
        The OttO Show

        Hi Dom:

        As I've written in the past, I believe that their are plenty of people who are very much 'pro-abortion' as they hide behind the 'pro-choice' woman's right facade. They rally around it and treasure it and see it as a necessary agenda, regardless of any and all consequences. I don't care if they "get angry" because that kind of position in itself is infuriating to me.

        And I have no problem with the term 'anti-abortion'. I am. As should any 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice' person be. (confusing yet?)

        {"commentId":323125,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"theottoshow"}
        • 4 votes
        Reply#9 - Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:12 AM EDT
        {"commentId":323130,"authorDomain":"abenton"}
        Andrew Benton

        Agreed.

        {"commentId":323130,"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078","authorDomain":"abenton"}
        • 1 vote
        #9.1 - Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:29 AM EDT
        Reply
        {"canLink":false,"threadId":"46641","isPrivate":false}
        Leave a Comment:
        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
        Newsvine Privacy Statement
        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
        {"threadId":"46641","contentId":"391078"}
        Start TrackingStart Tracking
        Stop TrackingStop Tracking
        Back To Top | Front Page