Abortion and the English Language
by Tom Neven on 01/09/2008 at 10:59 AM
As we come up on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade on Jan. 23, this might be good time to look back even farther, to more than 50 years ago when George Orwell wrote a trenchant essay on how language is misused and manipulated to, as he said, defend the indefensible. Calling his work "Politics and the English Language," he probably could not anticipate how truly his words could be applied today.
By now arguments from both sides of the abortion debate are familiar to most, but there's one aspect rarely discussed: the way the pro-abortion side abuses and debases the language to justify its position. I deliberately used the term pro-abortion, by the way, because the term pro-choice is their primary dodge.
One is hard pressed to find a political philosophy more vacuous. No political system short of anarchy elevates personal choice to an ultimate good, yet the so-called pro-choicers would have us think it trumps every other consideration, whether scientific, medical or moral. They know they can't win the debate on any of those grounds, so they hide behind pleasant-sounding words.
Such wordplay is not without cost. Our language, Orwell noted, "becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."
Consider how true that is today. Abortion defenders defend choice but never want to talk about the specifics of what is being chosen. They'll refer to the unborn child as "the product of conception" or "a blob of tissue." And what about the construction used by Kate Michelman, president of the NARAL Pro-Choice America, who referred to the end result of abortion as "fetal demise"? During a partial-birth abortion, they don't suck out the baby's brains; they "evacuate the intracranial contents."
For that matter, partial-birth abortion is a perfectly descriptive term they run from like scalded cats. Yes, they'll point out that there is no such medical procedure. It's really "intact dilation and extraction." But there's no such technical medical term as heart attack, either, but that doesn't stop people, including doctors, from using the perfectly descriptive term in everyday language.
This is not merely a case of a language snob sniffing at words he doesn't like. This misuse of language eventually leads to a loss of truth on many levels. Boundless' own J. Budziszewski, in his book The Revenge of Conscience, wrote:
As any sin passes through its stages from temptation, to toleration, to approval, its name is first euphemized, then avoided, then forgotten. A colleague tells me that some of his fellow scholars call child molestation "intergenerational intimacy": that's euphemism. A good-hearted editor tried to talk me out of using the term "sodomy": that's avoidance. My students don't know the word "fornication" at all: that's forgetfulness.
Abortion defenders hide behind a clot of turgid terminology to avoid the truth. Orwell wrote:
The inflated style is itself a kind of euphemism. A mass of words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all details. . . . When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.
Let's look at the word euphemism. It's been described as a verbal fig leaf. The metaphor comes from the biblical story of Adam and Eve, who, after sinning, instinctively hid their shame and nakedness with these leaves. God confronted them and asked, "Who told you that you were naked?"
Who indeed? Why do abortion defenders instinctively hide behind verbal fig leaves? What inner voice tells them that what they defend is shameful? How do they know they're morally naked? I know the answer. Do they?
1. Kate said the following at 11:58 AM on Jan 9:
I think many of my classmates, and perhaps most people in general, who are for abortion are elevating "personal choice to an ultimate good." In general they are zealous about defending the rights of women, which is wonderful before it goes too far when they start defending what they presume to be a mother's right to kill an unborn person just because it is inside of her body. They are so focused on defending the rights of women as people... that they forget about or refuse to consider the rights of the unborn as people, because they do not consider that the unborn might be people.
Unfortunately, position that the unborn are not real people with rights is informed by belief. Dangerously, it is an advantageous belief to have if one individually does not want the cost/responsibility of raising a child, and as a community/government that does not want the cost/responsibility of caring for a child whose parents cannot independently support it.
Remember when the Nazis did not see Jews as real humans with inherent rights, or when in American African Americans or Native Americans were not thought of as real people with inherent rights? It was a very "convenient" point of view for the dominant groups in these situations. Maybe some people deliberatly spread these beliefs, but most people probably fell into it because of the euphamistic language surrounding them.
I thought of an interesting illustration that seems relevant here. Consider a white woman today who very strongly believes that black people are not real people and should not have all the rights they presently do. Of course most of us would be quick to say she is wrong/misinformed among perhaps more colorful accusations or judgements. So now consider that this woman happens to become pregnant on accident and though she does not really want a baby and is not prepared to care for it, she carries it to term. Then, surprise, she finds that her new baby is black. Would anyone today possibly believe it would be ok and perhaps even empowering for her to kill that baby because she believes it is not a real person and she doesn't want it/can't pay to care for it?
2. Eliza said the following at 12:58 PM on Jan 9:
I am sorry to say that as a pro-lifer I am ashamed to hear speeches like the original post in this blog. Besides the fact that he is preaching to the choir, Tom's attitude is certainly not going to engender any feelings of goodwill on the part of "them", the "pro-abortionists". The only thing a post like this can serve to accomplish is to stir up anger on the part of other pro-lifers who visit these blogs.
Haven't we learned after 35 years that using purposefully harsh language and speaking about "them" as if they're worse sinners than us does not do any good? And is completely unchristian? Thankfully it is not our opinion on issues, but the blood of Christ that is our ticket to heaven.
I believe it is the job of Christians on earth to bring peace. This means 1) interacting with people instead of just pontificating about how wrong they are, 2) doing way more listening to people's actual pain and way less blaming, and 3) never letting oneself think they are better than the other person.
I think it doesn't matter what awful things the "other side" says or does, it is our responsibility not to stoop to their level. I really wish pro-lifers would stop being so self-righteous.
3. Ciah said the following at 1:05 PM on Jan 9:
Just a note about language:
I work as a reporter for a local newspaper, which follows The Associated Press rules about style and formatting. As I’ve read AP stories and followed its style guidelines, I’ve realized its bias on issues like abortion.
In college journalism classes, we were taught not to write “anti-” because of its negative connotation. Instead, journalists are supposed to use “pro-” to name both sides of the issue. For example, the two sides of the abortion issue are “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” But recently, I have learned that, according to AP style, “pro-life” is incorrect. Instead, reporters are supposed to use “anti-abortion” for pro-life supporters and “abortion rights” for pro-choice supporters. To me, this is the manipulation of language by the AP to promote an agenda. I disagree with it, but it is part of my job.
I didn’t know if anyone else noticed this from the AP or other news agencies.
4. Tom Neven said the following at 1:57 PM on Jan 9:
Ciah
You're right about the AP. Here's the entry from the AP stylebook:
Eliza
You denounce my post and accuse me of using "purposefully harsh language." First, I don't think there's anything harsh at all in what I say. But "purposefully harsh"? Can you look into my heart and know that I purposefully intended to be so?
You say I accuse others of being "worse sinners than us." Where at all in my blog do I call them sinners? More to the point, where do I say I'm better than they are?
I see nowhere in Scripture that we are to avoid confronting evil. My point here is that people are using language to gloss over evil, and too many people fall for it. Please tell me how it is un-Christian to point this out, and if I've been "harsh," please point out precisely how so.
5. anu said the following at 1:59 PM on Jan 9:
I think pro-choice is an accurate term, and I actually think that anti-choice is more a more accurate, and more encompassing term for people against abortion than "pro-life" is. Why? Because on the pro-life side you have a great number of people who also don't believe in birth control period or comprehensive sex education in schools--both of which are things that give women (and men) choices and control over their reproduction before abortion even comes into the picture.
Many women say that they would not personally have an abortion, but they think it should still be legal. Does that sound pro-abortion to you?
The flaw in your argument I see, is that you didn't directly tag the issue. While the pro-choice movement is about choice, it is more so about a general right to privacy--the idea that the government has no business inside a woman's uterus for whatever reason (forced sterilization, etc).
Whether one likes it or not, the right to personal privacy is now considered a fundamental constitutional right.
Your writing in this particular post was also overwhelmed with rhetoric and bogged down with inflammatory language. While I understand the point you're trying to make about euphemisms, using inflammatory words completely disintegrates any hope for genuine debate. One has to allow euphemisms in order to debate, or everyone gets defensive and stops listening.
Example: For example, when people say that we need to get rid of the "welfare state," what they often really mean is: "All those lazy black people need to get jobs, stop having babies, and stop living off my tax money!"
While I personally support welfare (though more reform is needed), without this euphemism no real debate on the merits and problems of welfare could occur unless certain sentiments are diffused through less inflammatory words.
6. kman said the following at 2:08 PM on Jan 9:
Eliza said:
>certainly not going to engender any >feelings of goodwill on the part of >"them"
Christ Himself uses some pretty harsh words. "brood of vipers" "white washed tombs" etc.. calling sin , sin is never going to engender feelings of goodwill. Only when sin is acknowledged do you know that you need the great Physician!
>I believe it is the job of Christians >on earth to bring peace.
Christ didn't command us to bring peace. In fact he said His peace was not like the world's understanding of peace. Christ gave us the Great Commission. I do agree with your points 1,2 and 3.
>I really wish pro-lifers would stop being so self-righteous.
At some point a Christian needs to say this action is wrong. How that gets said and within what kind of relationship does matter. But I think Christians should always be a light, always be willing to call evil what it is. Whether that is "Self-righteous" or not doesn't matter.
If you had lived in the time of Christ and you heard him say these words:
"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" would you have called Him "self-righteous"? Be careful in assigning a statement about someone when you hear them speak.
7. Adam T. said the following at 3:57 PM on Jan 9:
Absolutely, Tom. I wonder if you've read 'The Marketing of Evil'? I haven't, but I want to. It's subtitled 'How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom', and it's supposed to discuss this very topic.
http://www.amazon.com/Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption-Disguised/dp/1581824599
Language is very, very persuasive, and in essence, whoever frames the terms of the debate has (almost) already won. Have you ever heard that pollsters can more or less get the results that they want by craftily manipulating their questions a little bit? It's the same thing here: if you use the term 'pro-choice', you create the impression in people's minds that the heart of the issue is 'freedom', and this'll influence their opinion.
It's not just abortion, either; you could look at any number of other issues and see the same thing. The homosexual lobby uses the term 'gay rights' - implying that if you don't support them, you're denying people their 'rights'.
Ciah:
I didn’t know if anyone else noticed this from the AP or other news agencies.
Hee hee! Yes, I've noticed it. :p
8. Kellie said the following at 6:21 PM on Jan 9:
Anu said: "Many women say that they would not personally have an abortion, but they think it should still be legal. Does that sound pro-abortion to you?"
Yes...I think it does.
9. Eliza said the following at 8:50 PM on Jan 9:
Tom,
I'm sorry, you're right that I don't know you at all. I get angry when people assume things about me when they don't know me at all, and here I am doing the same thing to you.
I realized after writing that post that while in my head I was trying to practice what I preached (peace, etc.) I was really just being passive-aggressive. Not helpful.
However :) (you knew that was coming), I re-read your post, and from your language, I don't think my initial impression was way off base. You use the word "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice", saying that it's a dodge. That sentence is accusatory, implying that pro-choicers or pro-abortioners are trying to be deceitful. I happen to know that they find the term "pro-life" to be just as hypocritical, since not only are pro-lifers usually pro-death penalty, but they also spend little time talking about the need to improve the *quality* of lives, especially those of young single mothers.
Secondly, you label their political philosophy as "vacuous" and close to "anarchy". These are both extreme words and a generalization, as I doubt any person bases their whole political philosophy entirely on the single concept of personal choice. Many liberals seem to base their philosophies more on the idea of community, which leads to their support of welfare, environmental protection, universal healthcare (including sex ed for kids whose families are not functional enough to provide it).
I'd really like to be able to have a conversation with right-wing Christians about this, instead of an argument. I'm not evil, and I'm trying desperately to think you're not either (not you personally; referring to right-wing evangelicals). But sometimes it's hard.
kman:
When Jesus used language like "vipers", etc., he was always talking to Pharisees and other strictly religious folks, not those outside his worldview. Even his anger towards the temple salespeople was directed at the equivalent of the "church".
RE: peace. "Blessed are the peacemakers". Also, the evidence of his nonresistance in the face of his crucifixion was peace in action.
Christians haven't had many other soapboxes other than abortion for the past 30 years. I'm not advocating not fighting for its elimination. Rather, just "fighting" smarter. And with more compassion.
10. Melissa* said the following at 8:57 PM on Jan 9:
"I think pro-choice is an accurate term, and I actually think that anti-choice is more a more accurate, and more encompassing term for people against abortion than "pro-life" is. Why? Because on the pro-life side you have a great number of people who also don't believe in birth control period or comprehensive sex education in schools--both of which are things that give women (and men) choices and control over their reproduction before abortion even comes into the picture.
Many women say that they would not personally have an abortion, but they think it should still be legal. Does that sound pro-abortion to you?"
Anu, I see where you're coming from, but you've stepped back from a person's position on an issue, abortion, and moved to classifying his/her position as his/her lifestyle (no birth control, etc). Then again, with all forms of birth control and education available, many of the people choose not to use such methods (products, classes). That in itself is a choice. But this is separate from abortion. I could say that I am pro-choice: I support a woman's choice to carry her child to term and then raise him/her or give the child for adoption. The problem with the term "pro-choice" is that it never refers to that option. Since it only refers to abortion, "pro-abortion," supporting abortion, is more accurate and straight-forward.
"The flaw in your argument I see, is that you didn't directly tag the issue. While the pro-choice movement is about choice, it is more so about a general right to privacy--the idea that the government has no business inside a woman's uterus for whatever reason (forced sterilization, etc).
Whether one likes it or not, the right to personal privacy is now considered a fundamental constitutional right."
Although not in the Constitution, the right to privacy has sprung from it, from the Fourth Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I'm not one to limit anyone's rights (I'd like more of them to be protected), but I fail to understand how government has linked a person's right not to have property seized without permission or probable cause to killing a new citizen.
The issue isn't a right to privacy anymore than the Civil War was about states' rights. Those in favor of abortion and those against it see the act and parties differently. Anti-abortion/pro-lifers and medical science acknowledge a fetus as a human being developing its first stages in utero. Pro-abortion/pro-choicers see a fetus as less than/not a human and therefore at another's disposal. When that fetus is correctly recognized as a human, other opinions don't matter. One cannot kill a human being on a whim.
"Your writing in this particular post was also overwhelmed with rhetoric and bogged down with inflammatory language. While I understand the point you're trying to make about euphemisms, using inflammatory words completely disintegrates any hope for genuine debate. One has to allow euphemisms in order to debate, or everyone gets defensive and stops listening."
As a pro-life advocate, perhaps I wasn't seeing any inflammatory language. Would you mind pointing it out to understand what you mean?
11. Utang Ekpo said the following at 10:30 PM on Jan 9:
Personhood is the key word american heritage dictionary calls person a living human being.
We must always get to the root cause of things as they are.
The Unborn person has been stripped of his or her personhood because our cultural uplifts and worships sex as an idol and birth control as a counterpart to glorify sex without worrying about its obvious natural result pregnancy and birth. The love of money is the root of all evil- and you bet that Pro-abortion abortion practitioners are pulling in the dollars in this country and they've schooled us on "choice"
The law of Biogenesis says that when two sexes of the same species or kind mate the natural result is always a member of that species. so all experience has shown that 2 dogs mating gives a baby dog.
never have 2 dogs mated and made a camel
Therefore when 2 human beings mate, the natural result of their mating is a human being- nothing more nothing less.
And more so a Human made in the image of God in his likeness with intelligence, morality, personality and spirituality.
all the unborn child needs is food, a friendly environment withoxygen, and water.. and He will grow from a zygote , to a fetus to a newborn.. when he makes the 6 inch trip down the birth canal, into a toddler, a preschooler, and adolescent like the rest of us
When we s see the unborn person as a person not a choice then we will cease to use words like pro-choice implying a choice to kill a person not yet born, because another person chooses to (of course maybe the mother or father are not told about adoption- the waiting lists of people waiting to adopts children, or they buy into someone else lying that the child is not indeed a child but is tissue- like losing your tonsils...)
We as a culture should know then that abortion is wrong and should be stopped because the unborn is a person!.
But the truth is that we have come to see it as a necessary evil for when birth control does not work.. because babies are a burden...so no matter that the unborn person is a person it must remain legal an option.
The end of sex is procreation (of a person), pleasure is a byproduct of sex but God is not pleased with mankind when we disobey his command to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth but instead choose to feel good with the procreation machine-sex that is.
okay is the main purpose of sex just procreation? I quote someone who helped me see sex and parenting in a different way.
"Two conditions must be satisfied before you can say that the purpose of P is to bring about Q, and it must be the case that P actually does bring about Q. the sexual powers actually do bring about procreation.
second, it must be the case that the fact that P does bring about Q is necessary to explaining why P has come to be- why P exists in the first place. this condition is also satisfied, because the fact that the sexual powers bring about procreation is a necessary part of explaining why we have such powers.
2 common proposed purposes of the sexual powers we as humans have. first suggestion is that the purpose of the sexual powers is pleasure. but consider an analogy between sex and eating. the purpose of eating is to take in nutrition, but eating is pleasurable too. suppose we were to say then, that the purpose of eating too is pleasure then it would seem that any way of eating that gives pleasure is good, whether it is suitable for nutrition or not. the point: pleasure accompanies the exercise of every voluntary power, not just sex, it is never the purpose of the power.
the 2nd common suggestion is that the purpose of the sexual powers is union: the production of an intimate bond between partners. for us[humans], procreation requires an enduring partnership between tow beings, the man and the woman, who are different but in complementary ways. But this implies that union isn't a different purpose, independent of procreation; rather it arises in the context of procreation and characterizes the way we procreate. A parent of each sex is necessary to make the child, to raise the child and to teach the child. To make him, both are needed because the female provides the egg, the male fertilizes it, and the female incubates the resulting zygote. To raise him, both are needed because the male is better designed for protection, the female for nurture. To teach him, both are needed because he needs a model of his own, sex, a model of the other , and a model of the relationship between them." J. Budziszewski
Okay maybe that was off topic but it is truth that I seldom hear.
But yes, allegiance does not have to be either with mother or child. They both suffer from legal abortion. But someone said in the context of comparing the anguish of a slave being beaten terribly by the slave master, which could result in their death and the unborn child in the worm being suctioned (or worse)by the abortionist either 1 of his parents hired. with the slave man when his master is beating him with the worst beating of his life, whip and all, He has 2 choices: 1)He can beg and plead for mercy hoping to get mercy from the master or 2) He can pick up and run for his dear life, BUT for the unborn child what choice does He have?
None, that is why we must be his voice and talk to people about him, about him being a person, a living human being so his life isn't taken away from him
His parents suffer too- both his mom and dad- killing him is never the best choice for them.
12. Lydia said the following at 12:55 AM on Jan 10:
I think this post is very worthy of its subsequent comments. Abortion has been on the table for so long and so far the focus has been on the issue rather than things like rhetoric and sophistry, which I think many people understood to be the objective of this article.
As a Marketing Communications major (with a Journalism Minor), I agree with the issues Tom raised about deceptive language in positioning a stance. Few people will call a spade a spade for good reason: the message must be ambiguous or simple enough to appeal to a mass audience.
Obvious case in point: the ambiguity of the term "pro-choice" allows one's subjectivity to interpret the word "choice" to fit their circumstance, while coining something pro-"life" has the other side associated with the obvious antonym of "death," simple as that.
Are both terms incorrect in describing what they stand for? Not if you attach your beliefs to the tags. In terms of the AP language, are pro-lifers "anti-abortion" and pro-choicers for "the right to abort?" It is what it is but what is more important is for us to make up our own minds about what we truly believe.
Why? Because the marketing world will deliberately choose words that stir us up while journalism is all about being politically correct. We cannot react irascibly to either sides if we agree even a little with what each is saying.
As Christians, I would like to think that we care more about being right than being fair, but to do that, we must first call the other side "wrong." How we go about doing that is our own decision.
13. Louise said the following at 6:10 AM on Jan 10:
The scenario that Kate described begs the question of: why would a person who believes that blacks aren't human engage in sexual relations with a black person?
Assuming force wasn't used of course.
But that might be off-topic.
14. The G said the following at 8:33 AM on Jan 10:
>Many women say that they would not personally have an abortion, but they think it should still be legal. Does that sound pro-abortion to you?
Yes, it does.
"Kindly" allowing other people to do what is wrong does not make advocates open-minded; it makes them complicit. They're helping other people destroy what is made in the image of God.
15. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 8:59 AM on Jan 10:
One of the reasons I believe abortion should be left up to the woman is because I see such hypocrisy in the "pro-life" argument- they argue that abortion should be illegal, but their work ends there. If people and organizations really believed that every child deserves to be born, it seems to me that they'd pledge their own support to help the newborn and their parents get by. I've yet to see it.
This is all part of the bigger question that I've never seen pro-life organizations address: what would lead someone to get an abortion in the first place, and what has to be done to change that? This is the root of the problem, and making abortion illegal will not fix it. If being "pro-life" meant finding methods to reduce unwanted pregnancy and having a support system for expectant mothers who are hesitent about keeping the baby, I would happily give myself that label. But what it is now- a "end-abortion-and-run" approach is nothing I want to associate myself with.
16. dana111 said the following at 9:30 AM on Jan 10:
Completely off topic, but to respond to Louise's question:
"The scenario that Kate described begs the question of: why would a person who believes that blacks aren't human engage in sexual relations with a black person?"
Two words: Strom Thurmond.
Historical concept: the rape of black female slaves by their white slave masters.
It is possible to have sex with a person of a differen race and still be a racist.
17. Paul said the following at 9:41 AM on Jan 10:
Andrew R. I'm in leadership at a campus right to Life organization, and a key part of our ministry is getting women help with their unplanned or unwanted pregnancies. That's where Crisis Pregnancy Centers and adoption agencies come in.
I definitely agree with you, though, you can't just say abortion is wrong and then walk away. You've got to provide a logical and realistic alternative.
18. anu said the following at 9:54 AM on Jan 10:
I'm actually going to leave a positive comment! Lol this is one of the few (i actually can't think of any others) discussions on abortion on Boundless that hasn't been completely reduced to name-calling and people condemning each other to hellfire and damnation.
Hopefully I didn't speak too soon!
Oh one negative comment--Boundless blog moderation is really on the sucky side. Not so much on this post necessarily, but it seems like anything, no matter how crazy, incendiary, plain wrong, or offensive it is gets past moderation if the opinion manages to fall on the "correct" side of the discussion. And what did Louise's comment have anything to do with this discussion? Of course, when talking about abortion, black people and sex just has to be discussed.
FYI Louise: Forced sexual relationships (aka RAPE) between black slave women and their (usually married) masters was the rule, not the exception during slavery.
As under 5% of all U.S. marriage are interracial, the amazing diversity you see today in African-American skin tones, facial features, and hair texture is not due to rampant race-mixing. It's because of slavery.
19. Louise said the following at 10:45 AM on Jan 10:
Okay, folks.
I belong to two Civil War Round Tables so I am completely aware that during the US slavery era, masters had sex with female slaves.
My comment was in the context of 2008, which perhaps I should have mentioned.
And anu, I'm not the one who introducted the topic of black/white relations to this thread!
And...I readily admitted that my response to Kate's comment would probably be considered "off-topic".
But I do agree with you, anu, that the moderation on this blog is somewhat on the spotty side.
I never did get a clarification re the policy of publishing name-calling comments.
Mr. Slater?
20. Aaron Wells said the following at 11:41 AM on Jan 10:
You know, Anu, you raised a lot of good discussion points. Too bad they are all red herrings.
I find a few things worth comment. First, I agree with you: the "pro-choice" crowd can continue to call themselves pro-choice, as long as the clear distinction - which no one has bothered to make - is kept between the terms of that crowd and their opposition. In the arena of the abortion debate, "pro-choice" are for choice over life; and "pro-life" are for life over choice. Your list of other stances generally associated with being anti-abortion do not matter. They are a totally separate subject. We are talking about children here and whether or not their parents should be allowed to kill them.
...But, since you brought it up: I find it ironic that the people most for abortion are, by in large, pro-welfare, pro-gun control, and for the censorship of Christians in almost every context. Do not tell me it is really all about privacy. That is just a convenient buzzword. Abortion advocates even opposed the availability of ultrasounds for expectant mothers pondering killing the baby, a CHOICE that was given them by crisis pregnancy centers.
OK, so, maybe, given that salient point, I take all of that back: pro-choice is the wrong term. I think deceived is a better term, because nothing about the pro-abortion stance has any true coherency or consistency to it unless it is that of being coherently in line with Satan's schemes against the people of the earth and consistently sinful.
21. Kate said the following at 12:05 PM on Jan 10:
In response to Louise's question (which is not related to the actual point of my illustration) here are several possibilities:
First off, I'm not sure that abstaining from or being disgusted by sexual relations with people is a necessary fallout from having the position that they are not real people with rights. After all, women used to be seen in that light by men.
Black parent + white parent does not necessarily = a baby that appears black or white.
There are variations in skin tone and other features that might be normally associated with "black" or "white." So she might have seen her partner as "white" though he had the genetic potential to pass on traits that look more "black."
She herself could have a mixed-race background and be unaware of it because she looks "white" and never met one of her parents or grandparents. Perhaps the most ironic of all the possibilities...
Additionally, our imaginary woman could have been heavily under the influence of a substance and not aware of who her partner was, whether this activity was voluntary or rape.
22. Louise said the following at 12:24 PM on Jan 10:
Kate, thank you for your response.
23. Kate said the following at 12:32 PM on Jan 10:
The point of my illustration (in case it was actually broadly missed?) was not to discuss "black/white relations." Perhaps I should not have just responded to Louise with the list of possibilities because it might be sort of a detrimental aside.
I simply meant to suggest a scenario in which I assumed we would all agree that somebody's belief that somebody else is not a person is not always accurate, nor does it suffciently define who is and who is not included as a person with rights. We all know that at one time my imaginary woman's beliefs were widely held in the USA, after all. I think it's safe to say we also widely agree today that this was erroneous thinking at best. So if her child is actually a real person, her belief cannot excuse or justify her action if she kills her child. Can you imagine her trying to defend her position in a murder trial?
24. anu said the following at 12:38 PM on Jan 10:
Louise--thanks for responding. I had a feeling thats what you meant, I guess I was directing my comments toward people who visit this blog in general. :)
Yes: having sex with, dating, marrying, being friends with, or adopting someone of another race does not automatically make you not racist. No need to devolve this any further. Please, end of discussion?
25. Luigi Novi said the following at 10:07 PM on Jan 10:
The flaw in Neven's argument is that it assumes, a priori, that "pro-life" is a dodge. In other words, pro-choicers use this term, not because they sincerely hold personal choice as a virtue, and that position as the right one, but merely because they have some consciousness of guilt about abortion, and use this term to avoid admitting this. This is an unsupported accusation, and easily refuted.
In the first place, Neven does nothing to explain how he knows that this is the mindset of pro-choicers. He simply assumes it as fact. Sorry, but I don't think so. This is just an ad hominem argument (i.e.: "You're only saying that because you have some ulterior motive!"). It presumes that it is simply not possible to sincerely hold the position that pro-choicers do. As soon as Neven can illustrate this with evidence or reasoning, this remains nothing more than rhetoric.
Second, language permeates society, so most people don't consciously choose terminology, particularly the common language closely associated with a particular issue or area of knowledge; they use the terminology already in use by others. I use “pro-choice” primarily because that’s what that side in the issue is called. Having been born a year before Roe v. Wade, it’s not like I had much of a say in the matter. Language evolves, so who knows, maybe one day "pro-abortion" may supplant "pro-choice" as the term of choice. And there's nothing stopping anyone from using that term now if they prefer it. One could argue that pro-choicers could reject the term in favor of a different one if they wanted to. (Indeed, Cindy Crawford, to name one random example, once referred to herself as "pro-abortion" in a magazine interview.)
But pro-choicers do not do this because they do not give much thought at all to the term, as they do not perceive it to be as important as the more salient points in this issue. To be fair, there are many people who reject popular fads, gestures, and vernacular. I myself, for example, do not call myself a "liberal" or a "conservative", because my position on each issue cannot be summed up or predicted by a single label, and I object to how some use those terms to do this. (I have been accused of being a right-winger by liberals who objected to my views of Michael Moore and capitalism, and have been accused of being a soulless liberal by a conservative who objected to my views on flag-burning and a number of other issues.) I prefer to say that I’m an “issue individualist”. Sounds clunky, right? Well, that just goes to show that I will reject a popular categorization if I feel it doesn’t fit me. Thus, I could and would easily call myself “pro-abortion” if I thought it appropriate. I do not, however, because it’s not accurate.
Pro-choicers are not necessarily "for" abortion. What pro-lifers like Neven fail to understand, deliberately or not, is that pro-choicers do not necessarily like abortion, or even hold it as a viable option for themselves, as many of them would personally refuse one, even if they could have one. (Although I couldn’t rule out abortion entirely, I myself would prefer to respond to an unwanted pregnancy by either giving the child up for adoption, or raising it, regardless of my gender.) Pro-choicers simply object to the idea of forcing this decision on others who might disagree. Thus "pro-choice" is the accurate term. It describes not pro-choicers' feelings about abortion so much as the prospect of forcing their beliefs about abortion on others. Thus, the term is perfectly accurate. Neven, however, cannot bring himself to try and understand his opponents on this issue, or to conceive of a non-ulterior reason for this label, so he arbitrarily gloms onto an ulterior one. It is this flaw that causes his entire argument in to to crumble. It’s not enough for him to espouse his pro-life views and disagree with those who don’t share it. No, he has to cloak himself in the veneer of pseudo-intellectualism by assuming that those who don’t share just must have some shady motive for it, but can offer only logical fallacies to back up what is merely rhetoric. It reminds me of those pro-choicers who assume that no man would be a pro-lifer if he were female (as if there aren’t female pro-lifers). Ad hominem, meet reality. Reality, meet ad hominem.
As far as Neven's statements about personal choice, well, I'm not sure what he means by "ultimate" good, but yes, I do consider personal choice to be an important component of a free society. Do I think it "trumps every other consideration, whether scientific, medical or moral"? No. But it is one reason (among others) that I am pro-choice.
If I were Neven, I'd stay away from broad generalizations about those who "can't win the debate" on civil and honest grounds, and who need to hide behind intellectually dishonest tactics. Such generalizations make excellent stones when through back at your glass house.
26. Robert J Espe said the following at 9:05 AM on Jan 11:
It is possible to be against both abortion and giving money to unwed mothers and be logically consistent. I am against abortion because you can't kill people. I would never give money to an unwed mother because with the exception of rape, she chose to become pregnant (you might even convince me to pay for a rape victim's maternity and adoption costs). She had the "choice" to not have sex, sex is not a right, and she should have thought about how she would pay for a child. Therefore I believe that people who find themselves pregnant (and not me) should have to suffer financially for their poor decision making (I'm married and will have my own children to pay for). No one should have to die so they may continue with consequence free sex. I'm more than happy to help widows and orphans who are destitute through no fault of their own though.
27. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 1:37 PM on Jan 11:
Robert, your arguments are the exact kind that I do not want to associate myself with. You simplify the whole abortion discussion down to "Hey, she got herself pregnant, she's the one who should deal with it... alone." I see absolutely no love or compassion in the stance... it really infuriates me. I can't see Jesus being approached by a pregnant woman and saying to her "You made a huge mistake, don't expect any help from Me. I'm off to help people who are living a good life."
My blood is boiling right now.
28. anu said the following at 2:39 PM on Jan 11:
How did Robert's post get through moderation...
My jaw literally dropped when I read his post--its one of the most hateful things I've read in a while.
I wonder what might happen to my post if I said that I'm so opposed to anyone under 18 having babies that I would personally pay for their abortions myself. I wonder if that would make it on.***
***Just an example, I don't actually support this :)
Also some very strong sexist undertones: "she got herself pregnant"???!??!!
The last time i checked, procreation without the aid of a doctor requires and egg AND a sperm.
29. JB said the following at 11:15 AM on Jan 12:
I think both "pro life" and "pro choice" are excellent descriptors because they take both positions seriously. If you believe that human life begins at conception, then you are for the preservation of that life. You aren't anti-choice because there isn't any reasonable choice to make about the matter. If you don't believe that an embryo or fetus is a human life, you support the autonomy of a woman to make decisions about the disposition of her body. You're not anti-life because you don't recognize a life which you might oppose. You don't necessarily support the elevation of choice to an ultimate value because there are no interests which oppose choice you might weigh it against.
These labels are only euphemisms if you think the other side is secretly lying about their thinking. But it's as unhelpful to allege that pro-choicers are unconsciously rationalizing murder as it is to allege that pro-lifers are unconsciously rationalizing a hatred of women.
30. Stanhope said the following at 2:15 PM on Jan 12:
Luigi is correct in demonstrating the fallacy of Neven's logic. Pro-choice means exactly that: supporting the individual's right to make their own choice. And pro-choice is the only position that doesn't attempt to force a woman into a particular course of action; it supports her *choice* whatever that choice may be. 'Pro-lifers' are the only ones attempting to use force (and governmental force at that) to strong-arm women into the behavior that the prolifer prefers.
If I support a Repubican's right to vote, that makes me pro-vote, not pro-Republican. Neven should be more careful with his thought process.
31. mindlab said the following at 6:43 PM on Jan 13:
Re: 'anarchy'
Speaking of Orwellian misuse and manipulation, let's take a look at the term 'anarchy'. From the latin, literally: against/no king; loosely translated "without a king."
I realize that the revisionist historians have spent generations painting anarchists as Molotov cocktail-chucking, police-murdering nut jobs, but most of those actions are committed by persons who's political theories run closer to socialism or communism. Anarchy, properly understood, is a political theory that believes that humans don't need government to interact peacefully.
Anyone who has observed capitalism (see Wealth of Nation, Adam Smith) has observed anarchy in action. It works, as witnessed by the fact that the wealthiest nations on earth are/were generally capitalistic. The only question is, to what extent does the same theory predict non-monetary behavior.
All that to say, please don't misuse the word anarchy just because the popular press and grade-school history books do. Words must have specific meaning (a point Orwell made in 'Politics and the English Language') and to misuse words like anarchy weakens the power of language to express ideas.
32. Ted Slater said the following at 12:10 PM on Jan 14:
Mindlab -- in your defense of the term "anarchy," you wrote, "Anarchy, properly understood, is a political theory that believes that humans don't need government to interact peacefully."
The thing is, God Himself believes that humans need government in order to interact peacefully. Throughout Scripture the need for government, and for our submitting to its proper authority, is reinforced.
Anarchy, therefore, it seems to me, is an ungodly political theory.
33. Ted Slater said the following at 12:15 PM on Jan 14:
Stanhope -- would you consider those in favor of parents' determining where to educate their kids ("public" schools, private schools, home schools) to be "pro-choice"? That'd be a good thing, right, to allow parents to use their tax dollars to educate their kids where they want?
Would you, therefore, consider the teachers unions and far too many "progressive" politicians to be attempting to use force (and governmental force at that) to strong-arm parents into the behavior that the pro-government schooling advocates prefer?
Just trying to determine how consistent one can be with this line of reasoning....
34. Tom Neven said the following at 1:13 PM on Jan 14:
Stanhope
I could give many examples of "pro-choicers" using vague language to manipulate the argument. I gave a few examples in my blog, but space would not allow all the examples.
But here's one you can check out:
Every single state that has proposed a customized license plate advocating adoption (e.g., Florida) and just a "support life" sentiment (e.g., Colorado) has been sued by "pro-choice" forces, trying to get the states to withdraw the plans. Apparently the wrong "choice" was being advocated (and, really, who could be against adoption?). But no one would be forced to get the plates; indeed, you would have to pay extra for them. But the "pro-choicers" did not want to give the citizens of those states the opportunity to make a choice on what types of plates to sport on their cars.
And Ted makes a good point: the people who squawk the loudest about "choice" are often the same ones who want to remove our other choices in public life. The most hypocritical example is Russ Feingold, who boasts of his "pro-choice" positions but co-sponsored the constitutional monstrosity knows as the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Act, which robs people of their choice of when they can petition their government for redress of grievances, whom they can support to do so, whom they can give money to, and how soon before an election or primary they can do any number of things. Feingold clearly does not believe "choice" to be the highest good, but he hides behind the word to avoid discussing the specifics of what happens during an abortion.
Mindlab
I used "anarchy" in its literal sense of the word: without king/ruler. And I stand by my statement: No political system short of anarchy elevates "choice" to the highest good. And citing Adam Smith won't wash: He assumed a government in place to enforce such things as contracts, without which capitalism won't work. (Simply agreeing to pay for goods is a form of contract.)
35. JB said the following at 3:07 PM on Jan 14:
Tom,
I don't understand your argument about the pro-choice side elevating choice to the "highest good." Choice is certainly *a* good if you take that position, but there's no need for it to be the highest good. If you don't think that a fetus is a person, then abortion is only an issue of choice - there are no other goods you need to weigh choice against. Talking about choice isn't a dodge, it's really the only relevant issue. Do you just not believe people who tell you they honestly don't take a fetus to be a person?
And, just for the sake of argument, McCain-Feingold could be defended in terms of maximizing choice. If you buy the argument that unlimited campaign contributions from certain well-funded interests (do any of those come to mind?) reduce the practical ability of others to influence government, then limiting the choice of those few interests allows meaningful choice by a greater number of actors.
36. Carrie (the original) said the following at 3:29 PM on Jan 14:
JB, you ask "Do you just not believe people who tell you they honestly don't take a fetus to be a person?"
Actually Tom, Ted, and other do believe a person who tells them that they don't take a fetus to be a person. From this belief they deduce that the person is wrong because a fetus is, in fact, a person.
37. Tom Neven said the following at 3:55 PM on Jan 14:
JB
First, it's a poor argument to simply say, "I just don't believe XYZ" when there's plenty of biological and medical evidence that XYZ is in fact true. The "pro-choicers" don't want to discuss this, though, so they just hide behind the term "choice." It's akin to my saying, "I don't believe people with black skin are fully human, therefore I don't need to treat them so." It's an inexcusable argument, both biblically and scientifically. (And I'll stress that you never have to resort to Scripture to argue against abortion; atheist Nat Hentoff does quite a good job of it.)
As for McCain-Feingold, what part of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" don't the good senators understand?
No means no, even if you can come up with the best rationale in the world to try to muffle the First Amendment. Shame on Bush for signing this monstrosity--he apparently punted, believing the Supreme Court would nullify it--and double shame on the Court for tying itself in knots to justify this law. And triple shame on our so-called defenders of free speech like The New York Times and The Washington Post for championing such a law--which, of course, doesn't muffle them at all.
38. JB said the following at 5:54 PM on Jan 14:
Tom,
I don't know what would count as biological or medical evidence that a thing constitutes a human person. Sure, you could show a number of things about a fetus, such as the fact that its DNA is very similar to other humans or that it is viable under certain conditions, but the attribution of the moral status of personhood is a question for philosophy or theology, not science. The abortion argument turns on this philosophical point. At what point does a zygote/embryo/fetus/infant become a person? You might argue that there is only one correct answer to this question, but the fact is that people (honestly, in my opinion) come to a number of different answers. And if your answer is that personhood occurs at birth or shortly before, then talking about choice isn't a dodge so much as the inevitable consequence of that belief. I'm not saying that that belief is necessarily correct (I think it is, but that's neither here nor there), but if someone does come to that conclusion then they can talk about abortion in terms of choice perfectly honestly. I don't think you need to concede that a person is right about his/her argument in order to take that argument seriously.
On McCain-Feingold, I'm not dogmatic about it. You and the ACLU might have a point. But it seems to me that in the same way that we can limit the sheer volume that a speaker might use to make her argument, we can limit the amount of money a person or organization uses to express a political position. If Focus on the Family, Eli Lilly, and the Altria Group are limited in the amount of money they can give to candidate X that doesn't seem to me to limit their ability to express a position at all, and, at the same time, it allows me with my more limited financial resources to express myself in a way that's relatively more meaningful. I was just making the point that the good senators don't necessarily contradict their valuation of choice in supporting campaign finance reform.
39. mindlab said the following at 8:12 PM on Jan 14:
Re: Anarchy
Ted Slater: I understand your position, although I’m not sure that God is all that set on Kings (remember what He said to Samuel just before sending him to anoint Saul). In any case, what I was pointing out is that I think the way Ton Neven used the term ‘anarchy’ is incorrect. . .
Tom Neven: the problem with your statement is that you’re misusing the word anarchy. Anarchy doesn’t elevate personal choice as the highest good. Anarchy describes a theory of personal interaction that excludes most or all government interference; this does not necessitate absolute freedom to commit any act that strikes your fancy (e.g. breaking a contract). Most of the anarchist political theory I’ve read deals with the various ways that actions are limited by non-governmental forces, so to assume that anarchy implies absolute freedom is simply wrong.
I write this to point out that the term anarchy, like so many other words, has a very specific meaning. Using words casually and incorrectly, as rhetorical fodder, dilutes that meaning and reduces the power of language to convey ideas. . . which is exactly what Orwell wrote about in his essay.
40. John said the following at 5:31 AM on Jan 15:
FYI Louise: Forced sexual relationships (aka RAPE) between black slave women and their (usually married) masters was the rule, not the exception during slavery.
anu,
Of course you have evidence to support this, no?
41. Carrie (the original) said the following at 8:19 AM on Jan 15:
JB, let's talk philosophy of personhood in that case. Let's start with philosophy 101: Jean Paul Sarte "I think, therefore I am". Now anyone with any sort of child development training knows that it is important to talk to the child growing inside the womb. Brain functions are taking place. The child is having thoughts and making connections. This is how the bond is formed between parent and child. The child recognizes the mother's voice and heartbeat once they are outside the womb.
So, according to Jean Paul Sarte, the unborn child exists. Scientific classifcation of the unborn child would label it "homo sapien". It is human, it thinks, it "is".
42. Becca said the following at 9:54 AM on Jan 15:
Carrie, I think you mean Descartes - Sartre probably isn't the kind of guy you want to quote on these matters, as fascinating as he is!
43. Louise said the following at 9:55 AM on Jan 15:
John, go back and read my comment please.
I never said that master/slave rape was the exception.
44. Carrie (the original) said the following at 10:19 AM on Jan 15:
Decartes, yes. My days of philosophy studying are many years behind me. Names get mixed up.
Thanks :)
45. Tom Neven said the following at 10:31 AM on Jan 15:
I suspect you've been reading Ayn Rand or someone who's been influenced by her. That is not "anarchy" in the literally (and casual) sense of the word. It is "rational self-regard" and "ethical egoism," political theories as equally full of holes as anarchy.
Even in your description you say "most government," not "no government," so that, in the literal sense, is not anarchy.
But more important, Orwell did not say to go only by the overly literal sense of the word, a point I make in the original blog about the use of the clear-meaning "partial-birth abortion" vs. the technically correct by obfuscating "intact dilation and extraction," or the clear-meaning "heart attack" vs. the technically correct "myocardial infarction" (among the several types of heart attacks). "Anarchy" may have a technical meaning in political philosophy, but it also has a perfectly clear everyday meaning of "no government; every man for himself." I was not writing for a philosophy journal; I was writing a blog. And most of the use of "pro-choice" is in everyday media such as newspapers and blogs, not philosophy journals.
Becca
You're right: it was Descartes who said that. Sartre is the last person we'd want to cite. He said, "Existence precedes essence," meaning there is no core human nature; we define for ourselves what it means to be human.
46. Becca said the following at 10:38 AM on Jan 15:
Also, Sartre aside, I'm also not convinced that Descartes supports your argument.
Descartes conclusion that "I think, therefore I am" is arrived at in his Meditations on First Philosophy after he's questioned the certainty of absolutely everything - and then asked himself what he can be certain of. At the point that he makes the assertion that "the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind" he is working under the assumption that it's entirely possible that there exists a "deceiving god" capable of making him think that everything exists, even if it doesn't.
He concludes that the ONLY thing he can be certain of under circumstances of such absolute doubt is his own existence - the existence of everything else outside of himself is still in doubt.
Later on in the Meditations he gets into proofs of external things (including God), but it seems like poor philosophy to use Descartes' cogito in this argument.
Saying that the only thing you can be certain of is your own existence isn't very compatible with a belief in the life of the unborn - the child may know that it exists, but that doesn't help much if the people on the outside don't know it.
[Sorry, former philosophy major here...]
47. Tom Neven said the following at 10:48 AM on Jan 15:
Becca
Here's a shout-out from another philosophy major! You're right: in fact, Hume tore Descartes to shreds, which is why I'm a Scottish Commonsense Realist. My hero is Groundskeeper Willie!
48. Ted Slater said the following at 11:44 AM on Jan 15:
Talking philosophy now? Let's hear it for Ludwig Wittgenstein and Miguel de Unamuno y Jugo!
49. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 1:02 PM on Jan 15:
Tom and Ted:
"the people who squawk the loudest about "choice" are often the same ones who want to remove our other choices in public life."
I don't think that's a fair argument to make. Both sides of every argument have their hypocrites, and you can't effectively use them to argue your point, since they really don't represent everyone who has that opinion.
For instance, I could say "Some pro-lifers blow up abortion clinics and kill the doctors inside. That's not very pro-life!" but you and I know that most pro-lifers do not advocate blowing up abortion clinics.
50. Tom Neven said the following at 2:07 PM on Jan 15:
Andrew R.
Touche. I should have said, "Some people ..."
Thanks.
51. John said the following at 5:27 AM on Jan 16:
Louise,
Go back and read my comment, I was addressing anu, not you.
But if you had said it was the exception, you would have been correct.
Rape was not the norm!