anti-abortion and anti-choice are synonymous IMO because they don't want women to have the choice of abortion. they ONLY want the woman to carry to term. as another poster above me said, pro-life should be pro-ALL life. not just fetal life
( ... )
Even the choice to rob someone? Or the choice to kill your partner for cheating?
In my mind, pro-choice can just as easily define someone who supports any and all choices, no matter how repugnant, AS easily as pro-abortion can be misconstrued as someone who supports compulsory abortion. i.e., the only people who will make that 'mistake' are willing to make it whatever you call yourself, so it's pointless to define your terms based on them.
In my mind, it is pretty obvious that what is meant by "pro-choice" is pro-reproductive-choice. It is not at all clear what is meant by "pro-life", especially as it implies, quite falsely, that the opposing group is anti-life, something that pro-choice people cannot correctly be called by any stretch of the imagination. People who are pro-life, on the other hand, can quite accurately be called anti-reproductive-choice.
Better terms are terms that describe accurately what they represent without implied sub-words that do not actually appear in the terms. Could I call you pro-rights since I could mean pro-reproductive-rights? Or pro-reproduction since I could mean pro-choices-for-your-reproductive-options?
Pro-choice simply implies "for choices occurring" which does not accurately describe the stance of that political group. Similarly, anti-choice implies "against choices occurring" which is purposefully misconstruing as well as being negatively charged.
What I'm trying to say is that the term pro-choice in the context of the topic is, and frankly pretty obviously so, shorthand for pro-reproductive-choice. If you must have the word actually in there, fine. Then I think the fair, accurate terms are pro-reproductive-choice, and anti-reproductive-choice.
I got it, and I realize neither you nor I are stupid, but do you not see where the term anti-choice becomes unnecessarily negative? Why not anti-abortion and pro-abortion? Why is that not more neutral?
Because pro-abortion pretty clearly suggests supporting coerced abortion, and that is inaccurate.
I don't care if anti-whatever sounds negative. Anti-reproductive-choice accurately portrays their position without implying anything that isn't true. I don't see that as "unnecessarily" anything.
Anti-reproductive-choice is fine, but anti-choice is not. For precisely the same reasons that you claim pro-abortion 'clearly' suggests supporting coerced abortion.
I don't know why you think that, by the way. Pro-marijuana doesn't imply coerced smoking. Pro-marriage doesn't imply coerced marriage. Pro-choice doesn't imply coerced choices. If you think it implies that, it's pretty 'clearly' your opinion. I think it implies being in favor of abortions existing, as opposed to being against them existing. Which would be anti-abortion.
So say anti-reproductive-choice then. If you must.
The point remains, "pro-life" is an inherently confusing and somewhat misleading term. Especially since many people who claim the title don't believe in exceptions for the health/life of the woman.
And, no, pro-choice meaning coerced choices would make the term an oxymoron.
I've never heard the terms pro-marijuana or pro-marriage. I know nothing about the groups that apply such labels to themselves. Pro-marriage sounds particularly confusing - I would highly suggest any such group consider renaming themselves.
The point remains, "pro-life" is an inherently confusing and somewhat misleading term.
So you can understand that "pro-choice" is in the context of abortion rights and reproductive choices, but not understand that "pro-life" is in the context of fetal right to life?
I really feel like you're intentionally choosing what is "clear" and what is "misleading".
Your feeling is wrong. Unless you mean to suggest that the main point of "pro-life" is "pro-fetal-life-even-trumping-the-life-of-the-woman". If that isn't the mainstream pro-life position, then the term pro-life is unclear and misleading.
One can simply add the term reproductive to pro- and anti-choice, and both sides are clearly defined and accurate. Not so with pro-life, or any other option I have heard suggested.
Pro-reproductive-choice, taken word by word, is "for the choice to reproduce". Abortion doesn't even have to be in there. Many Baptists will tell you, "Sure, choose to reproduce. Be abstinent if you don't want to." So, no, pro-reproductive-choice, if you're going to be so literal, does not 'clearly' and 'accurately' define the position. Pro-choice-to-have-an-abortion-if-you'd-like is more clear.
But it's silly. You know that pro-life means people who are against abortion, and you know that if I say a pro-abortionist I mean a person who is for abortions occuring, the compulsory stuff is added in by you because you hate negative-sounding terms as much as pro-lifers do.
Anti-abortion is a clear term, and pro-abortion-rights is clear enough with one added word and keeps the scope of the argument down to abortion.
Pro-choice-to-have-an-abortion-if-you'd-like is more clear.
No, because that isn't what it means. Pro-reproductive-choice quite literally does mean support of letting people make any and all reproductive choices.
If you want to specifically say pro-abortion-rights, I guess we can go with that. But then, for the understanding of outsiders, I do think it is extremely necessary to attach the word rights to the end. Leaving it off quite clearly suggests coerced abortion, as previously mentioned.
Why do you think that it clearly suggests coerced abortion? Who has ever used the term in that way? Ever?
Why does "for abortions", especially as opposed to the term "against abortion", imply abortions for all? That doesn't make any sense. The logical negation to "no abortions" is "some abortions" not "all abortions". Have you ever heard of a group that's even remotely mainstream that believes in coerced abortions that calls themselves pro-abortion?
Just because you say that it 'clearly' suggests doesn't mean it does. I can say pro-choice 'clearly' suggests "for ALL choices" instead of "for choices", and that the word "reproductive" MUST be in there because all people are uncharacteristically stupid, using your logic.
By whom? Crazy people who are on the opposing side? The same people who will intentionally misconstrue "pro-choice" to mean all choices? Why would you let them define your terminology for yourself?
Reply
Even the choice to rob someone? Or the choice to kill your partner for cheating?
In my mind, pro-choice can just as easily define someone who supports any and all choices, no matter how repugnant, AS easily as pro-abortion can be misconstrued as someone who supports compulsory abortion. i.e., the only people who will make that 'mistake' are willing to make it whatever you call yourself, so it's pointless to define your terms based on them.
Reply
Reply
Pro-choice simply implies "for choices occurring" which does not accurately describe the stance of that political group. Similarly, anti-choice implies "against choices occurring" which is purposefully misconstruing as well as being negatively charged.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I don't care if anti-whatever sounds negative. Anti-reproductive-choice accurately portrays their position without implying anything that isn't true. I don't see that as "unnecessarily" anything.
Reply
I don't know why you think that, by the way. Pro-marijuana doesn't imply coerced smoking. Pro-marriage doesn't imply coerced marriage. Pro-choice doesn't imply coerced choices. If you think it implies that, it's pretty 'clearly' your opinion. I think it implies being in favor of abortions existing, as opposed to being against them existing. Which would be anti-abortion.
Reply
The point remains, "pro-life" is an inherently confusing and somewhat misleading term. Especially since many people who claim the title don't believe in exceptions for the health/life of the woman.
And, no, pro-choice meaning coerced choices would make the term an oxymoron.
I've never heard the terms pro-marijuana or pro-marriage. I know nothing about the groups that apply such labels to themselves. Pro-marriage sounds particularly confusing - I would highly suggest any such group consider renaming themselves.
Reply
So you can understand that "pro-choice" is in the context of abortion rights and reproductive choices, but not understand that "pro-life" is in the context of fetal right to life?
I really feel like you're intentionally choosing what is "clear" and what is "misleading".
Reply
One can simply add the term reproductive to pro- and anti-choice, and both sides are clearly defined and accurate. Not so with pro-life, or any other option I have heard suggested.
Reply
Pro-reproductive-choice, taken word by word, is "for the choice to reproduce". Abortion doesn't even have to be in there. Many Baptists will tell you, "Sure, choose to reproduce. Be abstinent if you don't want to." So, no, pro-reproductive-choice, if you're going to be so literal, does not 'clearly' and 'accurately' define the position. Pro-choice-to-have-an-abortion-if-you'd-like is more clear.
But it's silly. You know that pro-life means people who are against abortion, and you know that if I say a pro-abortionist I mean a person who is for abortions occuring, the compulsory stuff is added in by you because you hate negative-sounding terms as much as pro-lifers do.
Anti-abortion is a clear term, and pro-abortion-rights is clear enough with one added word and keeps the scope of the argument down to abortion.
Reply
No, because that isn't what it means. Pro-reproductive-choice quite literally does mean support of letting people make any and all reproductive choices.
If you want to specifically say pro-abortion-rights, I guess we can go with that. But then, for the understanding of outsiders, I do think it is extremely necessary to attach the word rights to the end. Leaving it off quite clearly suggests coerced abortion, as previously mentioned.
Reply
Why does "for abortions", especially as opposed to the term "against abortion", imply abortions for all? That doesn't make any sense. The logical negation to "no abortions" is "some abortions" not "all abortions". Have you ever heard of a group that's even remotely mainstream that believes in coerced abortions that calls themselves pro-abortion?
Just because you say that it 'clearly' suggests doesn't mean it does. I can say pro-choice 'clearly' suggests "for ALL choices" instead of "for choices", and that the word "reproductive" MUST be in there because all people are uncharacteristically stupid, using your logic.
Reply
Please tell me you're kidding. I've definitely seen/heard it taken and, in fact, meant that way.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment