Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it pejorative to describe the anti-abortion movement as anti-choice?

Surely the basic philosophy of the anti-abortion movement is that choice in that area is a bad thing, and should be limited.

The term would seem to be merely descriptive.

No different than calling the pro-abortion movement "pro-death". Or, anti-life, if that's what you prefer.

Obviously the basic philosophy of the pro-abortion movement is that abortions are a good thing and should be continued.

The term would seem to be merely descriptive.

Except that that isn't true.

To expand the point, anti-abortion people are anti-choice. They don't want women to have the choice of abortion.

Pro-choice people don't want women to have abortions, they want women to have the option.

Calling it pro-death is an obvious smear based on emotional language.

I believe it is a serious issue that deserves a serious level of debate.

micahaphone wrote:If it's also race-based, given Arizona, does this mean that you'll only going to be able to get an abortion if you scream out "Mah baby will be born a mexican illegal immigrant! Kill it now, before it can steal your job!"

Actually, it is the opposite. The law in question prevents some-one from doing just that.

As for the Pro/Anti - abortion debate..... What Roe v Wade actually did was make it safer for women who wanted an abortion. Previously, women had to do such in secret and there was a cottage industry of "illegal" abortion providers. Many of these were performed by people who were only marginally linked to the medical profession. Many also led to the death of not only the foetus but also the mother. They were performed in unsterile conditions and without medical follow up. Making abortion "legal" allowed for women to consult with real medical professionals and receive treatment for any complications that may have followed such a procedure.
Making abortion illegal (It Technically was never actually illegal, just frowned upon and heavily restricted.) would mean a rise in both "abortion dens", as some of the illegal locations were called, and death or disability of women seeking such procedures.

So which is really a pro life movement?

helgrenze wrote:

micahaphone wrote:If it's also race-based, given Arizona, does this mean that you'll only going to be able to get an abortion if you scream out "Mah baby will be born a mexican illegal immigrant! Kill it now, before it can steal your job!"

Actually, it is the opposite. The law in question prevents some-one from doing just that.

As for the Pro/Anti - abortion debate..... What Roe v Wade actually did was make it safer for women who wanted an abortion. Previously, women had to do such in secret and there was a cottage industry of "illegal" abortion providers. Many of these were performed by people who were only marginally linked to the medical profession. Many also led to the death of not only the foetus but also the mother. They were performed in unsterile conditions and without medical follow up. Making abortion "legal" allowed for women to consult with real medical professionals and receive treatment for any complications that may have followed such a procedure.
Making abortion illegal (It Technically was never actually illegal, just frowned upon and heavily restricted.) would mean a rise in both "abortion dens", as some of the illegal locations were called, and death or disability of women seeking such procedures.

So which is really a pro life movement?

Well, they care about the pure, innocent, cute babies. That doesn't really make sense, as babies can become any type of person, and usually teenage mothers, or others who seek abortions are not going to be the best of parents. Just remember, even serial killers were once cute little babies.

micahaphone wrote: Just remember, even serial killers were once cute little babies.

Looking at my siblings I believe I can heartily agree with you.


Though I don't think it's by any means a decent argument to support abortion.

Kilkrazy wrote:Except that that isn't true.

To expand the point, anti-abortion people are anti-choice. They don't want women to have the choice of abortion.

Pro-choice people don't want women to have abortions, they want women to have the option.

Calling it pro-death is an obvious smear based on emotional language.

If I advocated the right to murder people indiscriminately, would you call me "pro-choice," or "pro-murder"? After all, I'm not saying that all people should be murdered, just that I should have the choice to murder.

Calling people "anti-choice" is just as obviously a smear attempting to frame the debate against your opponent.

biccat wrote:If I advocated the right to murder people indiscriminately, would you call me "pro-choice," or "pro-murder"? After all, I'm not saying that all people should be murdered, just that I should have the choice to murder.

That doesn't quite work. Pro-abortion isn't the same as pro-death (even if you agree that you are killing a child).

And how would calling them anti-choice be a smear campaign? I'm honestly confused, isn't this precisely what pro-life groups are trying to do? Restrict access to abortion and put the life of the child/featus over the choice of the mother?

Kilkrazy wrote:Is it pejorative to describe the anti-abortion movement as anti-choice?

Surely the basic philosophy of the anti-abortion movement is that choice in that area is a bad thing, and should be limited.

The term would seem to be merely descriptive.

Is it pejorative to describe the anti-murder movement as anti-choice?

Surely the basic philosophy of the anti-murder movement is that choice in that area is a bad thing, and should be limited.

The term would seem to be merely descriptive, and clearly not pejorative, even though you could simply call it the the anti-murder movement instead of anti-choice and be more accurate.

Is it prejorative to describe the pro-choice movement as pro-abortion?

Surely the basic philosophy of the pro-abortion movement is that abortion is a good thing, and should be legal everywhere for any reason.

The term would seem to be merely descriptive, and clearly not pejorative, even though the movement isn't actually in favor of abortion per se.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Except that that isn't true.

To expand the point, anti-abortion people are anti-choice. They don't want women to have the choice of abortion.

Pro-choice people don't want women to have abortions, they want women to have the option.

Calling it pro-death is an obvious smear based on emotional language.

If I advocated the right to murder people indiscriminately, would you call me "pro-choice," or "pro-murder"? After all, I'm not saying that all people should be murdered, just that I should have the choice to murder.

Calling people "anti-choice" is just as obviously a smear attempting to frame the debate against your opponent.

"Pro-life" is itself a disingenuous emotional plea, since the debate has exactly nothing to do with life, and everything to do with trying to punish sex. Hence the same organizations being rabidly anti-contraceptive and anti-sex-ed, and leaping to condemn anyone who follows through on their rhetoric and actually goes and bombs clinics or assassinates doctors, as well as such events being quite rare compared to the number of people who claim to see abortion as 100% identical to the holocaust.

Abortion is a test of rights: the rights of a person to control their own bodies, and the rights of humans to live.

It's a complex issue, and trying to boil it down to "murder" isn't helpful, particularly since in no other instance is removing oneself from another person and refusing to allow it to live considered "murder." When a woman has an abortion, it's right there with a doctor: if if dies, what exactly did she do wrong, other than have it removed?

Obviously it's a situation in which analogies break down, and hardly anybody thinks that abortions are a good thing. Which is why being pro-choice isn't about being pro-murder: if anything, most pro-choice people support movements that limit or prevent unplanned pregnancies, and thus abortions. It's a realization that it's a complex issue, and at some point if we feel that all human life has value, than a woman's right to live her life as something other than an incubator has value, and maybe allowing her that choice is a good thing.

Now, calling the movement "pro-choice" is clearly euphemistic. But anybody trying to say that the terms "pro-abortion" isn't emotionally loaded language can sell crazy elsewhere, as I'm all stocked up.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Except that that isn't true.

To expand the point, anti-abortion people are anti-choice. They don't want women to have the choice of abortion.

Pro-choice people don't want women to have abortions, they want women to have the option.

Calling it pro-death is an obvious smear based on emotional language.

If I advocated the right to murder people indiscriminately, would you call me "pro-choice," or "pro-murder"? After all, I'm not saying that all people should be murdered, just that I should have the choice to murder.

Calling people "anti-choice" is just as obviously a smear attempting to frame the debate against your opponent.

What would you prefer to called then

It's also worth pointing out that one can be in favor of people having the right to do things that you find morally repugnant. I mean, I find holocaust denial stuff to be pretty evil, but I wouldn't never vote to ban it. There are many religious practices that I worry about indoctrinating kids in, but it's the right of parents. I feel that people have the right to chose to end their lives, but I don't think they should.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Except that that isn't true.

To expand the point, anti-abortion people are anti-choice. They don't want women to have the choice of abortion.

Pro-choice people don't want women to have abortions, they want women to have the option.

Calling it pro-death is an obvious smear based on emotional language.

If I advocated the right to murder people indiscriminately, would you call me "pro-choice," or "pro-murder"? After all, I'm not saying that all people should be murdered, just that I should have the choice to murder.

That's a red herring. The debate is about abortion.

biccat wrote:Calling people "anti-choice" is just as obviously a smear attempting to frame the debate against your opponent.

Except that it isn't.

The position of anti-abortion people (pro-life, if you will) is that they wish to restrict choice. They are against choice. They believe that choice is wrong, and lack of choice is good.

The term "anti-choice" precisely describes this anti-abortion position. It is also, in anti-choice terms, a compliment.

I think it's best to just call groups by what they want to be called, and then get on with debating the actual meaning and facts of the issue. They want to be called pro-choice, we call them pro-choice. They want to be called pro-life, we call them pro-life. Then we get on with talking about how terrible and cynically manipulative this gakky bill is.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:"Pro-life" is itself a disingenuous emotional plea, since the debate has exactly nothing to do with life, and everything to do with trying to punish sex. Hence the same organizations being rabidly anti-contraceptive and anti-sex-ed, and leaping to condemn anyone who follows through on their rhetoric and actually goes and bombs clinics or assassinates doctors, as well as such events being quite rare compared to the number of people who claim to see abortion as 100% identical to the holocaust.

To be fair, I do know people who are wholly consistent in their pro-life stance. In addition to opposing abortion they oppose war unless their is an overwhelming humanitarian need, and they support health funding and social welfare to make sure the child grows up healthy and well provided for, even though it would cost them more in taxes. While I disagree with these people on abortion, I respect and admire the position they've taken in general and believe it is consistent.

Unfortunately, those people are not the majority of the pro-life movement. Typically pro-life people assume fairly standard conservative views, favouring aggressive foreign policy, and keeping their taxes as low as possible, even though it will result in reduced funding for health and education services. In short, while they may believe very strongly that the baby has an absolute right to life, they couldn't give two gaks about it or any other person once they're out of the womb. When, as you rightly did, you consider these people are typically opposed to safe sex education and in favour of teaching abstinence only, then it becomes obvious the motivation for these people isn't the life of the child, but the sins of the mother.

sebster wrote:Unfortunately, those people are not the majority of the pro-life movement. Typically pro-life people assume fairly standard conservative views, favouring aggressive foreign policy, and keeping their taxes as low as possible, even though it will result in reduced funding for health and education services. In short, while they may believe very strongly that the baby has an absolute right to life, they couldn't give two gaks about it or any other person once they're out of the womb. When, as you rightly did, you consider these people are typically opposed to safe sex education and in favour of teaching abstinence only, then it becomes obvious the motivation for these people isn't the life of the child, but the sins of the mother.

There is a term for them we can all agree on : idiots.

"Pro-life" is itself a disingenuous emotional plea, since the debate has exactly nothing to do with life, and everything to do with trying to punish sex. Hence the same organizations being rabidly anti-contraceptive and anti-sex-ed, and leaping to condemn anyone who follows through on their rhetoric and actually goes and bombs clinics or assassinates doctors, as well as such events being quite rare compared to the number of people who claim to see abortion as 100% identical to the holocaust.

Pro-life is the new anti-sex?

Except that it isn't.

The position of anti-abortion people (pro-life, if you will) is that they wish to restrict choice. They are against choice. They believe that choice is wrong, and lack of choice is good.

The term "anti-choice" precisely describes this anti-abortion position. It is also, in anti-choice terms, a compliment.

Totally and utterly wrong.
They are against abortion. The whole point of the 'pro-choice' movement (and similarly the pro-life movement) is that by inference their 'opponents' are bad. Anyone who's opposed to 'pro-choice' is 'anti-choice' or opposed to 'pro-life' is 'anti-life/pro-death' and sounds horrid.

However to say that pro-life-rs are 'anti-choice' is dishonest and deceptive. It's not like they want us to be zombies. Additionally what choices are the 'pro-choice' movement for? Freedom to choose about everything? Will they support the man-boy love association next? Pro-life is (or at least should) about being all life being good and giving dignity to human life from its earliest stages throughout all parts of life. Including the death penalty, euthanasia and so on.

As I remarked to biccat, the abortion debate is about abortion, not other things.

Sebster's idea to let the groups call themselves what they want to be called and deal with the actual issue is spot on.

Let's settle for "pro-life" and "pro-choice" since those are the most widely accepted terms.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:
He responded to a statement using a common prejorative with a similar prejorative. If you don't want people to use an unappealing term for your side, don't use an unappealing term for their side.

I disagree, and have had sufficient dealings with Phototoxin regarding abortion to know that he would have most likely phrased his position that way regardless of any perceived derision.

In any case, to the point, anti-choice is precisely as descriptive as pro-choice when discussing matters of abortion. It speaks directly to whether or not women should have the ability to choose to abort a child they are carrying. Compare this to the use of pro-death, which isn't strictly apt given that questions regarding the status of abortion as killing is central to the debate. People commonly deny that abortion involves killing a child, fetus, or otherwise independent life. No one denies that matters of abortion law are about protecting, or inhibiting the ability of women to choose.

Phototoxin wrote:
.. and perfectly demonstrating my point as some notice;

Yes, I know that was your point. My point was that you were wrong, so clearly so that I felt flippancy was warranted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phototoxin wrote:
Totally and utterly wrong.
They are against abortion. The whole point of the 'pro-choice' movement (and similarly the pro-life movement) is that by inference their 'opponents' are bad. Anyone who's opposed to 'pro-choice' is 'anti-choice' or opposed to 'pro-life' is 'anti-life/pro-death' and sounds horrid.

To my mind someone who is anti-choice with respect to a single issue, which is the only sense pro/anti-choice has any meaning, is considerably less horrid than pro/anti-life; and, in parallel that one is descriptive by necessity, while the other is often disputed.

Phototoxin wrote:
Additionally what choices are the 'pro-choice' movement for?

If the issue area in question is abortion, and it is, then the answer to your question should be obvious.

In any case, it hardly matters either way. People that are sensible enough to have a rational conversation on the issue won't particularly care about what each movement is named, and those that aren't sensible won't be open to reason regarding why their descriptor is inflammatory to main body of the other side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Sebster's idea to let the groups call themselves what they want to be called and deal with the actual issue is spot on.

Let's settle for "pro-life" and "pro-choice" since those are the most widely accepted terms.

Even if it weren't spot on, its hardly as though we can force them to do something else.

youbedead wrote:

biccat wrote:Calling people "anti-choice" is just as obviously a smear attempting to frame the debate against your opponent.

What would you prefer to called then

If someone opposes abortion, I would call them "Pro-Life." They're allowed to define their own term, so long as it isn't blatently contradictory to their initial premise.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Except that that isn't true.

To expand the point, anti-abortion people are anti-choice. They don't want women to have the choice of abortion.

Pro-choice people don't want women to have abortions, they want women to have the option.

Calling it pro-death is an obvious smear based on emotional language.

If I advocated the right to murder people indiscriminately, would you call me "pro-choice," or "pro-murder"? After all, I'm not saying that all people should be murdered, just that I should have the choice to murder.

That's a red herring. The debate is about abortion.

If you are unable see the parallels between murder and abortion (especially as the issue is perceived by the pro-life movement), then this isn't a debate.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:Calling people "anti-choice" is just as obviously a smear attempting to frame the debate against your opponent.

Except that it isn't.

The position of anti-abortion people (pro-life, if you will) is that they wish to restrict choice. They are against choice. They believe that choice is wrong, and lack of choice is good.

The term "anti-choice" precisely describes this anti-abortion position. It is also, in anti-choice terms, a compliment.

The argument from the pro-life side is that there can be no legitimate choice where one choice is the taking of innocent human life. They do not weigh the balance between "a woman's choice" and "a baby's life," they (generally) take the position that human life is sacred and taking it is wrong. You could describe them as "anti-choice," but that would be the same as calling someone against murder "anti-choice." It's a misnomer intended to deride the opposition.

Also, aren't there forum rules about using derogatory terms to describe your political opposition?

Looking at the bill, I can pretty much tell that it's not enforceable. It's a political move, although it's one I can get behind. I mean, whether or not you believe abortion is a right or not, it's fair to say that denying something life simply because you don't like the color of its skin or it has a certain gender is a dick move.

It's wasteful legislature. Now, let's do something that everyone can endorse: outlaw Hitler.

Semantics don't matter. Throw in a couple more, anti-sex-education, anti-bad-parenting, pro-single-teen-mom, anti-condom.

Doesn't matter. I will happily be called a "anti-lifer" by some of the hicks that picket abortion clinics and just point at their despicable misbehaving kids in the walmart lines as a reason. Yeah I'm an donkey-cave elitist but that's because I'm right - That kind of attitude - because past a point, people get tired of the filthy masses dictating what they can or cannot do based on the mistakes the filthy masses made. That's why condoms are your friend, dumbass picket line lady with her idiot kids and no dad to be seen.

(edit
While the stereotype of traler trash/ crackhead is easy to point at the reason why people should breed, a lot of ani-abortion arguements come from sensitive, well thought points of view. I agree with these, which is why I use contraception... no problem for me so far and I've been at it for 20 years. If I was foolish and got a girl pregnant, I would not urge for abortion, I would man up and be a dad (that's why I'm careful ), but that doesn't mean my personal feeling on that should be legislated upon another.

Making things illegal just makes them more difficult or dangerous to obtain, it doesn't make them go away, so any law prohibiting it is endangering to women.

Guitardian wrote:Semantics don't matter. Throw in a couple more, anti-sex-education, anti-bad-parenting, pro-single-teen-mom, anti-condom.

Doesn't matter. I will happily be called a "anti-lifer" by some of the hicks that picket abortion clinics and just point at their despicable misbehaving kids in the walmart lines as a reason. Yeah I'm an donkey-cave elitist but that's because I'm right - That kind of attitude - because past a point, people get tired of the filthy masses dictating what they can or cannot do based on the mistakes the filthy masses made. That's why condoms are your friend, dumbass picket line lady with her idiot kids and no dad to be seen.

Making things illegal just makes them more difficult or dangerous to obtain, it doesn't make them go away, so any law prohibiting it is endangering to women.

Bro, I understand how you feel, but this isn't the way to go about convincing other people that you have their best interests at heart. Or even convincing them to like you.

ack, ya ninjad me on the edit.

This isn't going to end well etc etc.

Can you not just argue the topic without descending into making inflammatory and sweeping statements? It really isn't advancing the debate and will probably end up getting the thread locked.

Making things illegal just makes them more difficult or dangerous to obtain, it doesn't make them go away, so any law prohibiting it is endangering to women.

By that reasoning we should legalise rape and heroin while we're at it since making them illegal 'doesn't make them go away' and endangers women and junkes respectively.

Edit: on topic ; assuming abortion is legal and morally correct, abortion on regards to race or gender alone is wrong in an of itself. But when you say 'abortions for family balancing only' (for example) you start on that slippery slope of 'rights to choose' over someone/soemthing/some cells 'right'/right to life.

Phototoxin wrote:

Making things illegal just makes them more difficult or dangerous to obtain, it doesn't make them go away, so any law prohibiting it is endangering to women.

By that reasoning we should legalise rape and heroin while we're at it since making them illegal 'doesn't make them go away' and endangers women and junkes respectively.

Two different beasts. Heroin is debatable and in many people's eyes, not just junkies, not worth criminalizing as it does make for more problems than it solves, and it is a choice of what the person wants to do with their own body. Rape is different entirely because it is not a choice over your own body, it is the victims body.

I know where thi could go with a fetus having its own body. I maintain that it does not, up to a certain point, as it is physically connected to and reliant on the mother's body while it is still a lump of cells and not a conscious developed organism of its own.

Could parents who are the same race (say, white) be denied an abortion as they are obviously having an abortion as they don't want a white baby?

SilverMK2 wrote:Could parents who are the same race (say, white) be denied an abortion as they are obviously having an abortion as they don't want a white baby?

This is the problem with the law. And with all "motivation" laws, by extension. If I go out and get an abortion, it doesn't really matter what personal reason I might have for it - unless there's observable evidence that I got an abortion because I hate pink/brown/black/aquamarine babbies, there's nothing to prove. Even if I silently fume about the subjugation of the noble green race, and those filthy aquamarines controlling the media, in the eyes of the government I haven't committed a crime by terminating this filthy aquamarine pregnancy.

That makes as much sense as the government telling you you have the right to kill your baby but not to know it's gender.

filbert wrote:This isn't going to end well etc etc.

Can you not just argue the topic without descending into making inflammatory and sweeping statements? It really isn't advancing the debate and will probably end up getting the thread locked.

No, we can't. Thats the problem. "Debating" this on the intranetz is pointless, utterly pointless, but apparently happy fun time. So get the popcorn and watch the hilarity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

micahaphone wrote: Just remember, even serial killers were once cute little babies.

Looking at my siblings I believe I can heartily agree with you.


Though I don't think it's by any means a decent argument to support abortion.

Surprisingly, most dads of teenagers have been advocates of (retroactive) abortions.

Phototoxin wrote:By that reasoning we should legalise rape and heroin while we're at it since making them illegal 'doesn't make them go away' and endangers women and junkes respectively.

The reasoning behind this analogy you posted is as flawless as a glass foundation which has been shattered into dust.

And then was gakked on and had sections of it removed and dumped into a landfill.

And then was hit by an earthquake with the house just above the epicenter.

Outlawing rape does not endanger women. That is a stupid, stupid, STUPID assertion, beyond stupid, a hideously low and disastrously poorly thought out idea, and frankly you should be deeply ashamed of yourself for making it.

The heroin analogy has some merit, I think.

While most of us can agree that people have the right to do with their bodies as they please, we do make certain exceptions in order to guarantee public safety and order. Even though the government cannot and should not regulate what I do with my genitalia in my own home, I am subject to certain rules that indirectly safeguard the safety of others. Heroin and other dangerous narcotics are illegal because they make people behave irrationally and dangerously towards themselves and others. Additionally, such behavior benefits criminals and puts money into the hands of the enemies of our society.

Ultimately, I think, the debate over whether or not a woman has a "right" to an abortion should be fought over whether or not her actions regarding her own body negatively affect those around her. If, like the heroin addict, a woman having an abortion harms another individual or creates an unsafe society, then it is the local government's duty to legislate against abortion. If, like a person getting a tattoo or a piercing, a woman getting an abortion does NOT affect those around her, then it's the government's job to leave her alone.

I hope I'm making sense, here. It's bloody hot where I am and I'm not thinking straight.