The Power of Words: terms for the abortion debate

[Rían]

While reading thru those 21 "Reasons", it made me think about the power of words, and the power held by those that choose the words we see in the media. For example, from the list:

4. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all humankind without regulation.

Yet those who are pro-life (and they're not ALL Republican, by any means) do not at ALL object to a woman making decisions about HER OWN body; what they object to is the decision that a woman is making about SOMEONE ELSE'S body - i.e., the person that is temporarily in her womb, through no choice of its own - the baby.

I like when articles use "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion" because I think it's more fair. If abortion did NOT take a life (in the opinion of the pro-lifers), then the pro-lifers would not object. I think it's only fair to use "pro-life" if the other side will be represented by "pro-choice". IOW, be fair and take the POV from each group; NOT the POV of both groups from only one group's POV, if that makes sense.

For example - I think most pro-lifers think a more accurate label for those who are typically called "pro-choice" would be (and I'm trying to be considerate here) something like "those willing to take the life of unborn babies for various reasons that they think valid". Now the pro-choice people would obviously object to this. And the pro-life people also object to the labels that pro-choice people call them. So I think the fairest thing to do in these types of discussions is to allow the groups in question to choose what they prefer to be called, instead of allowing one side to choose BOTH labels.

I'm willing to let the pro-choicers use that term, because that's the important issue for them, altho I REALLY strongly disagree that that's the important point. IOW, to me, it's just as much a choice to kill an adult as it is a choice to kill a baby in the womb, yet the pro-choicers don't advocate choice when it comes to killing those outside of the womb. Yet I think that they should be allowed to be referred to as "pro-choice", just as I should be allowed to be referred to as "pro-life".

Thoughts, anyone? (this is a volatile subject; please keep it considerate! )

[Valandil]

Unfortunately, the term coming into use in the mainstream media is 'anti-choice'. I recently cancelled Newsweek over it (and yes, I wrote them a nice note and told them about it) - and it's cropping up all the time. It seems patently unfair to me for the media to use for one side of an issue the term they would prefer ('pro-choice') while labeling the OTHER side of an issue what their opponents would call them ('anti-choice') instead of that other side's own preference ('pro-life').

You who ARE pro-choice... how would you feel if the media framed the sides as: 'pro-life' and 'anti-life'? Probably doesn't sound very appealing, does it? That's what those of us who are pro-life are faced with.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Valandil
It seems patently unfair to me for the media to use for one side of an issue the term they would prefer ('pro-choice') while labeling the OTHER side of an issue what their opponents would call them ('anti-choice') instead of that other side's own preference ('pro-life').

Absolutely; that's my point. It's a fairness issue, IMO.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Absolutely; that's my point. It's a fairness issue, IMO. [/B]

It's a simple way of discrediting your opponent and making their stand seem as negative as possible. I always look for certain wording in the media to see which way they lean or if they are trully unbiased. When a news outlet - like CNN says something like "this mess we've gotten ourselves into" when describing the war in Iraq - it shows that they are not just reporting the news - they are influencing the way people think about the war. That is what they do when they say "anti-choice". Being anti turns the issue into a negative automatically. It's pro-choice and now the left seems to be using anti-choice. I'm pro-choice - but not for late term abortions. But I disagree with them using the term anti-choice.

Also - regarding the "21 reasons why Republicans..." thread that Ben closed. I agree with Valadil. It was another example of people able to take a swipe at others and would have simply have started arguments. I was not going to let those one sided comments go - regardless of whether people thought they were funny. When someone posted the "What Makes an Ugly American" list in Khamul's trip thread - like Valadil with the Replublican list - I wanted to post an opposing list - but I refrained. The fact that people see nothing wrong starting threads or posting for the sole purpose of attacking versus discussing is EXACTLY what has been wrong with this board lately.

[Ben]

But aren't pro-lifers working to make abortion illegal, making them anti-abortion? If someone is against abortion in all or almost all scenarios, that makes him anti-abortion. To me, "anti-abortion" seems like an objective description. "Pro-life" puts a positive spin on the agenda (who could be "against life"?), while "anti-abortion" is neutral.

If abortion did NOT take a life (in the opinion of the pro-lifers)

(emphasis added) That's the problem. There is a disagreement over where life begins. I wouldn't classify a handful of cells as "human life" but I know that in certain religions, personhood is said to begin at conception. At this point there is no scientific or religious consensus on when that group of cells becomes a "person."

For this reason, "pro-life" is more of a subjective term. To its advocates, the embryo is a person, but I haven't seen conclusive scientific proof of this. On the other hand, these activists are not "pro-life" when it comes to the woman or even a child once it is born and possibly neglected. Similarly, "anti-life" would not apply to pro-choice advocates because all of the focus is on the cells in the uterus, which may or may not be a human life. Such advocates are fiercely supportive of the woman and her life, however. In some cases, the woman's life endangered by the pregnancy. I know that some pro-lifers make an exception for this, but there was no such exception in the 2000 Republican platform. If an abortion would be the only thing preventing a woman from dying and certain activists oppose it, who's pro-life?

I can understand why those on this side would object to "anti-choice," as this has a negative connotation. I would personally argue that "anti-choice" is actually the most accurate description. Using such a term doesn't require any definitive answer on when personhood begins and who/what qualifies as a person. Such advocates are "anti-abortion" but so are pro-choicers. Abortion should only be used if all other options are exhausted. The prolifers are working to get abortion criminalized, which would deprive women of a choice about their bodies. Thus "anti-choice" fits.

"Pro-abortion" doesn't work for pro-choicers because that would imply that those activists always prefer an abortion to childbirth. This isn't accurate. No one feels that abortion is a pleasant procedure; they merely feel it should be an option available to women.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I always look for certain wording in the media to see which way they lean or if they are trully unbiased. When a news outlet - like CNN says something like "this mess we've gotten ourselves into" when describing the war in Iraq - it shows that they are not just reporting the news - they are influencing the way people think about the war.

I agree. Let the news be unbiased (well, we can dream, can't we? ), and let people make their own evaluations.

That is what they do when they say "anti-choice". Being anti turns the issue into a negative automatically.

Yes, the term "anti" tends to be automatically thought of as negative, especially in a society like ours where personal freedoms are very dear, and have been bought at a great price. Yet "anti" is not always automatically bad - I think no one would object to being called "anti-slavery"...

When someone posted the "What Makes an Ugly American" list in Khamul's trip thread ....

BTW, has anyone here but me read that book? The "ugly American" himself is actually a great guy! Funny how the term got turned around ...

[Rían]

Originally posted by bmilder
I would personally argue that "anti-choice" is actually the most accurate description.

Well, I doubt that pro-lifers are against ALL choices and that's why I don't think it's accurate. Nor do I think anti-life is accurate or fair for the pro-abortion people, as it's clear they aren't against taking ALL lives.

*is intensely irritated that she has to finish dinner and can't discuss the rest of the post!*

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by bmilder
But aren't pro-lifers working to make abortion illegal, making them anti-abortion? If someone is against abortion in all or almost all scenarios, that makes him anti-abortion. To me, "anti-abortion" seems like an objective description. "Pro-life" puts a positive spin on the agenda (who could be "against life"?), while "anti-abortion" is neutral.

I don't think so. I'm pro-choice but I guess at the same time pro-life. My view is that lthe embryo becomes human when it starts to feel pain and the brain is forming. Would you agree to a woman aborting when she is in the 8th month - just because she broke up with her husband, boyfriend, or she just decided for whatever reason she doesn't want it?

I think when the mother's life is in danger - there has to be a choice made. Just like people always make in life and death situations. Doctors, rescue workers, etc - always have to make choices on who lives and who dies when they can not save both. I don't see how if the woman's life is in danger is a real issue. You save the most viable person - as is mostly always the case for any other situation.

I know you are aware too that not all Republicans are "anti-abortion". Christie Whitman was pro-choice.

There are gray areas in the abortion debate. I have always been in between - even while people have told me that one can not be in the middle on the issue. I for one - don't think in the 21st century that people should be using it as a form of birth control. I do not think that it should be a government funded procedure, nor do I think it should be covered by insurance. Providing birth control is one thing - covering abortions is another. I do not think that minors should be allowed to get an abortion without the okay from their parents - unless there are EXTREME circumstances. In this aspect I agree with New Jersey's law regarding abortion.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

all the pro-life or anti-choice stuff is nonsense. the only arguement in this case is whether you are pro- or anti-abortion.
over here there are no laws against abortion, excepting that after a certain point you cannot perform abortive surgery except in any emergency. nobody ask me what the cut-off point is, i can't for the life of me remember.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
... Doctors, rescue workers, etc - always have to make choices on who lives and who dies when they can not save both. I don't see how if the woman's life is in danger is a real issue. You save the most viable person - as is mostly always the case for any other situation....

first rule of triage, make a decision based on who can be saved, and that rule is always applied in such cases, in as much as giving priority to the mother

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
BTW, has anyone here but me read that book? The "ugly American" himself is actually a great guy! Funny how the term got turned around ...

How did it get turned around? It has always been a way of being putting down Americans - unless has written a book by that title to counter act the traditional negative meaning of the phrase. I've never heard of the book, but I'm sure the book came after the phrase. [EDIT] I looked up the book on Amazon - it was written in 1958 and they claim that the book coined the phrase "Ugly American" - it however was used in a negative way to describe Americans within the book.

As for using "anti-", you're right it isn't always bad I guess - but generally it is only used for purposes of discrediting a side you disagree with.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Last Child of Ungoliant
...over here there are no laws against abortion, excepting that after a certain point you cannot perform abortive surgery except in any emergency.

Here it's determined by the states. The federal government allows abortion, but the restrictions on abortion and all laws are determined by the states. The federal goverment does not have one single law as far as I know - determining abortion. The late term abortion law which came up when Clinton was president wasn't passed.

[Rían]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
How did it get turned around? It has always been a way of being putting down Americans - unless has written a book by that title to counter act the traditional negative meaning of the phrase. I've never heard of the book, but I'm sure the book came after the phrase. [EDIT] I looked up the book on Amazon - it was written in 1958 and they claim that the book coined the phrase "Ugly American" - it however was used in a negative way to describe Americans within the book.

But there is one guy in the book who is referred to as the "ugly American", because he's physically not too good-looking, yet he is the one who respects the locals and works with them, within their own cultural workings, to help them out. I think probably the book title contrasts the physical ugliness of the nice guy with the character (?) ugliness of some of the other Americans (not that Americans have a monopoly on being obnoxious - it's a characteristic freely seen in all societies). I just know that I had heard that phrase "ugly American" before, and was shocked when I actually read the book and it referred to a guy who was exactly the opposite of the stereotype!

I just found the book - I'll see if I can find a short quote a bit later, altho it's off-topic.

As for using "anti-", you're right it isn't always bad I guess - but generally it is only used for purposes of discrediting a side you disagree with.

Yes, I agree. I was just musing about possible "anti" terms that were NOT negative. I agreed with what you said about it generally being used as a knock, tho.

[Rían]

(OK, I found it in chpt 18, The Ugly American and the Ugly Sarkhanese - the term specifically refers to Homer Atkins, who is physically ugly, but a great, great guy. What a great chapter! The way he gives such great respect to the people that live there, and works with what they have, NOT what could be imported; and what they actually need, NOT what imagined needs could be made and then filled by importing foreign products, is a wonderful example of how to do things right, IMO.)

[Rían]

Hey, Ben changed my thread title!

Actually, Ben, I didn't mean it to be SPECIFIC to the abortion terms, but rather to the whole idea of terms used in topics under debate, and who sets them, and things like that. I just started with the abortion terms, because of those 21 items, that was the one that upset me the most.

But I can't think of a better title off the top of my head.

[Mercutio]

What a coincidence! This article came in the latest version of "Touchstone."

I hope this isn't another list attacking one side or the other jd, but I'm afraid you might consider it that...

Words Are Important
By J.C. Willke, MD

Words are important. Words are powerful. The words we or the pro-abortion activists use very clearly and frequently shape the value system of those who listen. Their use of the word “pro-choice� is no accident. It’s the last major argument they have, that a woman has a right to choose. But every time we call them that, we reinforce their argument and help them kill babies. Therefore, we must call them pro-abortion.

In addition, there are other more subtle words to use. For example, I suggest you not speak of them “doing� abortions, but rather of “committing� abortions. To do so immediately places a cloud or stigma over that abortion being done.

Almost everyone speaks of experimenting on an embryo and then “destroying it�. Please, never use that phrase again. This human embryo is experimented upon and then he or she is “killed�. There is a dramatic difference in what you are saying. It’s biologically correct, and the impact on the listener should be very definite.

I've compiled a list of suggestions that can frequently improve your ability to communicate the pro-life message. When needed, I’ve also provided specifics why one phrase is better than the other. You are already using some of them, while others you are not. But do, by all means, take them seriously. Lives hang in the balance, so we must do our level best to protect them.


Killing a baby during delivery// Partial-birth abortion/alone
The great majority of people in the US do not know what partial-birth abortion is. Accordingly, many are not opposed. If, in addition to PBA, you say "killing a baby during delivery," they stop short, their jaws drop and you'll get an immediate reaction.

Research cloning/clone and kill// Therapeutic cloning
Cloning is cloning. In this case, a living human is experimented upon and then killed. The word is research. It is certainly not therapeutic.

Human embryo implants// Fertilized egg implants
The fertilized egg stage lasts one day. Using this term dehumanizes this single cell human being. On day two, cell division occurs, and the proper term is "embryo" or best of all "living human embryo".

Fertilization// Conception
Fertilization is an exact biologic term. The term conception has been changed in many peoples' minds to include implantation at one week of life.

Abortion mill/chamber/killing center //Abortion clinic
A "clinic" calls up an image, in their minds, of a place of healing, which it is not.

Abortionist// Abortion provider/Doctor
These hired killers do not deserve the dignity of the title doctor. Call them abortionists.

NARAL// NARAL Pro-choice America
By changing their name to include "pro-choice," they are trying to force us to use their definition. Resist it. Continue to call them only NARAL.

Birth dearth // Population explosion
There is no population explosion. Every Western nation, and increasingly many third-world nations, now have birthrates sharply below replacement level. The problem before the mid-century will not be too many people, but too few young people to take care of too many old people.

Disqualifying issue // Single issue
The words single issue, in recent years, have acquired a very negative meaning. Disqualifying issue is much more descriptive and states exactly what it is.

Kill //Destroy
When you talk of destroying the embryo after experimentation, you dehumanize, for we destroy things. When you say kill, you emphasize humanity.

Kill an unborn baby // Terminate a pregnancy
Everyone reading this terminated his or her mother's pregnancy - most at nine months.

Mother // Pregnant woman
Mother is a much softer word, calling for love and compassion by the reader.

Abortion // Procedure

Fetal handicap Fetal deformity
Handicap calls forth in our minds, "I want to help". Deformity calls forth revulsion, turn away, "I don't want to look".

Assault rape, forcible rape // Rape
Using the word rape alone includes statutory rape, which is intercourse, consensual or otherwise, with a minor. To use assault or forcible also separates it from the more vague and specious terms of marital rape and date rape.

Human life // Person
Human life is definitive-this is human, this is alive. Person can be defined in 14 different ways and a government, by its laws, can define who is a person.

Place baby in a // Give her baby away
pair of loving arms
To "give her baby away" sounds negative, almost calloused.

Protective legislation // Anti-abortion laws
Pro-life people aren't against anything; they are for the life of the mother and the child, so protective is proper.

She is carrying a child // She is expecting a child
She's not expecting, she already is.

When doctor kills patient //Death with dignity
There's nothing very dignified about killing a patient through euthanasia. Call is what it is. A doctor kills a patient.

Chemical abortion //Medical abortion
Chemical abortion, i.e. RU 486, is accurate and has a negative connotation. Medical abortion insinuates healing, which it is not.

Abortions committed // Abortions done
Committed carries a very specific judgment.

National Organization For // National Organization
[some] women For Women
Always qualify this. They are not the largest group of women by far. They are actually a rather small organization, which has only too major thrusts - they are pro-abortion and pro-lesbian.

Womb //Uterus
Womb is a warmer, maternal term. Uterus is coldly medical.

Permissive/radical //Liberal abortion laws
abortion laws
Liberal always used to mean concern for the poor person. Permissive abortion doesn't much care for the baby.

Abortifacient pills // Emergency contraceptives
Call them what they are. They are abortive.

Safe, legal and everywhere Safe, legal and rare
(Clinton quote)

Human life with great potential //Potential life

Right to Life/Pro-life // Anti-abortion

Baby/Fetal Baby //Fetus/ Embryo

School based sex clinics //School based health clinics
Calling them sex clinics is accurate. Don't disguise this by using the word health.

the // separate the good vs. bad terminology.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
...not that Americans have a monopoly on being obnoxious - it's a characteristic freely seen in all societies...

That is true - and that has been my argument for a very long time - but it is only us that get saddled with it. For a while now no has really thought anything wrong with posting such a list about Americans. There would have been a huge outcry though if such a list was done about Europeans or if someone was called an "ugly european".

The term "ugly American" is a generalised term used by people who want to mock and condemn a group of people who most likely they had no interaction with. The term has been bandied around here as if it doesn't matter at all and as if it is completely acceptable.

This is another example of the power of words - if something is said enough from the outside - those who it is directed against start to believe it as fact. "Ugly American" is used to indicate contempt for a whole group of people - as if they themselves are superior and are above all that. As if we Americans have a monoploy on it all. Some Americans have come to believe that the "ugly American" title only fits Americans and that everything outside America and American culture is just so perfect.

[Rían]

I think everyone should read the book "The Ugly American" - it's quite good


Now back to the terms - interesting list, Mercutio, thanks for sharing it. Words are indeed very important, and choice of words comes from underlying belief systems. And that list certainly highlights some different underlying beliefs!

[Rían]

Originally posted by bmilder
But aren't pro-lifers working to make abortion illegal, making them anti-abortion? If someone is against abortion in all or almost all scenarios, that makes him anti-abortion. To me, "anti-abortion" seems like an objective description.

I could be somewhat happy with "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" used together, but NOT with "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion" used together. That's unfair, IMO.

"Pro-life" puts a positive spin on the agenda (who could be "against life"?), while "anti-abortion" is neutral.

Yes, and "pro-choice" put a positive spin on the agenda, too; would you agree?

That's the problem. There is a disagreement over where life begins. I wouldn't classify a handful of cells as "human life" but I know that in certain religions, personhood is said to begin at conception. At this point there is no scientific or religious consensus on when that group of cells becomes a "person."

I totally agree with you that there is disagreement ....

For this reason, "pro-life" is more of a subjective term.

.... so WHY are you conceding to the side that considers that life does NOT being at conception? Why are you saying "pro-life" is subjective, but "pro-choice" isn't? Why not give the people who believe that life DOES begin at conception their choice of terms, because for them, it's about LIFE; and give the people who believe that there is no life involved the choice of THEIR terms, such as "pro-choice" (i.e., there isn't a life involved at all), because for them, it's about choice. Doesn't that sound more fair?

(and how people can say that it's NOT about life, but about choice, when they're talking partial birth abortion to kill a full-term and completely viable baby, just mystifies me! )

On the other hand, these activists are not "pro-life" when it comes to the woman or even a child once it is born and possibly neglected.

I'm gonna call you on this one - what exactly do you mean? (I think this is a popular misconception, IOW, and would like you to elaborate).

Similarly, "anti-life" would not apply to pro-choice advocates because all of the focus is on the cells in the uterus, which may or may not be a human life.

That's why, IMO, pro-choice people should be allowed to choose their terms, according to their beliefs. And pro-lifers should be allowed the same courtesy, IMO. And the media, which purports to be fair, should use the terms that each side prefers, in order to be fair. Do you agree?

Abortion should only be used if all other options are exhausted.

What are the "other options"? I don't understand what you mean by this. (btw, is this YOUR personal opinion, or are you stating the most common abortion advocate stance? Because I believe the most common abortion advocate stance is abortion any time, since they are pushing for partial birth abortions to be legal.)

"Pro-abortion" doesn't work for pro-choicers because that would imply that those activists always prefer an abortion to childbirth. [/B]

To me, it indicates that a person is for abortion being legal, NOT that they always prefer an abortion to childbirth, but I see what you mean.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Abortifacient pills // Emergency contraceptives
Call them what they are. They are abortive.

Eh? Not necessarily. The effect of the emergency contraceptive can act in two ways: firstly, to prevent the egg from attaching to the uterus, and secondly, to prevent an egg from being released from the fallopean tubes. In both cases, there is not necessarily a fertilised egg, and so, can't be considered to be abortive. (kinda goes without saying with the fallopian option.)

That list is... questionable.