Terminology, revisited.

Feb 07, 2009 12:16

I know a terminology debate has had to have been done before, but let's revisit this ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

gemfyre February 15 2009, 13:00:37 UTC
I prefer the terms "pro-choice" and "anti-choice", because they are direct opposites of one another.

Pro-choice means you're for the pregnant woman having a choice of what she does with her unborn baby.

Anti-choice means you don't think she should have a choice - you think she should give birth to that child.

Anti-abortion is also correct, because they oppose abortion.

Pro-life can be correct, or it cannot be. Some pro-lifers are for ALL life, which to me is pro-life, they think everything should have a chance to live (human and non-human). Many "pro-lifers" however do not care about other species, or they support the death penalty or war or other things that take life. So they are not truly "pro-life".

Pro-abortion is usually incorrect, because a pro-choicer is about choice, not forcing all women to have abortions.

Anti-life isn't correct either - pretty much for the reason stated above. A truly anti-life person would want everything to be dead.

Reply

absinthecity February 15 2009, 13:55:28 UTC
Agree with all of the above. I'm very unhappy about not being allowed to use the term 'anti choice' in this community, and have refrained from posting (on anything other than this very issue!) since I found this out.

Reply

kali_kali February 15 2009, 17:55:01 UTC
See comment below.

Reply

sicilianhitlist February 16 2009, 23:38:36 UTC
Do you use anti-choice to discuss those who think a woman should be forced into abortions when they aren't going to be able to care for the child? Because that's exactly what anti-choice means, right? Not having the choice of an abortion?

Reply

fallenintograce February 15 2009, 15:45:21 UTC
Agreed 100%. As a side note, when I was in journalism school we were taught to use "abortion-rights supporters" and "anti-abortion" to refer to the two sides, as these were seen to be the most ideologically neutral terms.

Reply

tsukikage85 February 15 2009, 17:12:27 UTC
I think it's a little extreme to apply pro-/anti-life to other species, but I do agree in terms of the death penalty, etc.

Reply

kali_kali February 15 2009, 17:53:57 UTC
This is somewhat one-sided, in my opinion.

You said that many pro-lifers cannot be considered pro-life because they "do not care about other species, or they support the death penalty or war or other things that take life".

But the flipside of that would be that many pro-choicers do not support every choice that every human being could potentially take (at least, I hope they wouldn't, because that would set some very dangerous precedents for law and human behaviour).

By necessity, the terms need to be restricted to the discussion of abortion, in which case, pro-life and pro-choice are the most neutral and civil terms that can be used, and for debate, civility is important, otherwise it degenerates into name-calling.

Reply

sicilianhitlist February 16 2009, 01:04:06 UTC
If pro-life is going to encompass all life, should pro-choice not encompass all choice?

Reply

roseofjuly March 18 2009, 19:45:35 UTC
This is generally my comment. I'm not against life in general, and I'm not for abortion. I want women to be able to make the choice whether they want to carry that life to term or not.

I have less of a problem with pro-abortion than anti-life though.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up