Why no argument for abortion has ever worked.

[Lexicus]

And you're missing the point that in reality, most people who get abortions feel bad about it to some degree. It isn't a nice thing and I tend to doubt that there is anyone out there who thinks "oh boy! I'm so excited to get this abortion today! It's going to be great!"

So how does it make sense to say that someone who has a negative emotional reaction to abortion is 'pro-abortion'? Answer: it doesn't.

If the context was entirely a debate about whether smoking should be legal or banned outright

This is never "the entire context" though.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Problem is, "pro-abortion" does't have a clear meaning.

It does in the context of this thread in which I used the term and made it clear what I meant by it. I'm not suggesting people get it printed on t-shirts.

 

[Traitorfish]

It does in the context of this thread in which I used the term and made it clear what I meant by it. I'm not suggesting people get it printed on t-shirts.

So why not substitute an equivalent term without the same baggage? If we all agree that words and meanings don't have a 1:1 correspondence, why not use a term that other people find more acceptable, and just clarify that whatever meaning you intend attaches it to that term instead?

Instead of "pro-abortion", you could use, say, "pro-choice", and clarify that you mean "pro-choice-to-get-an-abortion" rather than "pro-choice-to-eat-waffles". You'd be able to make the same point without stepping on anyone's toes.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

And you're missing the point that in reality, most people who get abortions feel bad about it to some degree.

I'm not missing that point at all, you just happen to be making a point that is entirely irrelevant to anything I was saying and is not in conflict with it. Saying my use of language is emotionally cold doesn't make it wrong. So you're welcome to your own point, but it doesn't intersect with mine which is why it's irrelevant.

 

[Lexicus]

So when I asked if you were just logic-chopping for internet points without any reference to reality, you could have just answered "yes" and saved us both some time.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So why not substitute an equivalent term without the same baggage? If we all agree that words and meanings don't have a 1:1 correspondence, why not use a term that other people find more acceptable, and just clarify that whatever meaning you intend attaches it to that term instead?

Instead of "pro-abortion", you could use, say, "pro-choice", and clarify that you mean "pro-choice-to-get-an-abortion" rather than "pro-choice-to-eat-waffles". You'd be able to make the same point without stepping on anyone's toes.

Well... why should I feel compelled to substitute the term for something else just because other people moan about how they don't like how it makes them feel? And I'm not even sure what "baggage" you refer to. If you mean making mention of the actual topic under discussion, rather than masking it out entirely, then to me that's a perfectly acceptable form of baggage. "Pro-choice" is a fluffy, cuddly term that is even less descriptive and biased in that it emphasises only the positive aspects of that point of view and ignores the negative (and worse still, ignores the actual objections from the other side). Again, imagine it's literally about murder. One side is saying murder is morally unacceptable and can't be allowed, but the other is saying "hey no it's fine. I mean I personally don't want to murder anyone, but anyone who feels the need should be allowed to". Am I not allowed to call them pro-murder? I have to call them pro-choice too?

Very few people are inherently "anti-choice" as a general principle, but most of us agree that there are some choices people should not be allowed to make in a civilised society. Each potential "choice" needs to be weighed up on its own merits and consequences. So I prefer a label which actually mentions the moral issue that is under argument, not some bland "pro-choice" label that is essentially designed to whitewash the moral component entirely. If I have to clarify that by then specifying "abortions not waffles" then that just indicates it was a poor label in the first place. And, as I said to Lexicus, I'm not concerned with whether I step on anyone's toes or not.

But hey, I'm happy for anyone else to use the term as I know what they actually mean by it. I'm just arguing that pro-abortion isn't "wrong" and is entirely applicable too.

Edit: In the interests of fairness I should add that I think that "pro-life" is an equally fluffy, cuddly term that sidesteps the actual cause of the argument. In fact I'd say both terms (pro-life and pro-choice) are equally manipulative and disingenuous in that their intended implication is that the opposing group is anti- those things and therefore inherently bad. After all, what nice normal person could possibly be against life, or choice? But the topic of debate is abortion. Some people think it should be freely available, others don't. So pro- and anti-abortion. Nice clean labels. (ignoring all the massive grey area in the middle of course)

 

[Traitorfish]

Well... why should I feel compelled to substitute the term for something else just because other people moan about how they don't like how it makes them feel?

Politeness. Sensitivity towards your fellow posters. Avoiding tedious side-arguments like this one.

You've got options.

 

[Lexicus]

So I prefer a label which actually mentions the moral issue that is under argument, not some bland "pro-choice" label that is essentially designed to whitewash the moral component entirely.

I've already explained what you are 'whitewashing' with your insistence on an absurd 'pro-abortion' label. But I guess that's unimportant right?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So when I asked if you were just logic-chopping for internet points without any reference to reality, you could have just answered "yes" and saved us both some time.

You can leave out the "when did you stop beating your wife" stuff. I was arguing with people who were telling me I was wrong when I think I'm right. No more, no less. I'm not interested in your "internet points" or anything else and, as I've already said, my personal real life experiences are not relevant. If I'd answered "yes" then I would have been tacitly accepting the validity of your question, which I don't. And you are the master of yourself, don't blame me or anyone else if you choose to spend your time in a way which you later see as wasteful.

Also, I'll happily go on record as being pro-amputation.

 

[Senethro]

Tedious side arguments are what some people apparently live for.

 

[El_Machinae]

Edit: In the interests of fairness I should add that I think that "pro-life" is an equally fluffy, cuddly term that sidesteps the actual cause of the argument. In fact I'd say both terms (pro-life and pro-choice) are equally manipulative and disingenuous in that their intended implication is that the opposing group is anti- those things and therefore inherently bad. After all, what nice normal person could possibly be against life, or choice? But the topic of debate is abortion. Some people think it should be freely available, others don't. So pro- and anti-abortion. Nice clean labels. (ignoring all the massive grey area in the middle of course)

This is a neat observation, and I think I'll disagree a bit. I mean, obviously I agree that the terms are kind of intended to be manipulative. But past that.

It's neat that they're not opposites. Culturally, we view the pro-life and pro-choice sides on 'opposite' sides of the discussion ... but they're not. Not really. They just have different weightings of priorities, and those different weightings cause different outcomes.

The prolife side is actually pro-life. Way, way more than they're 'anti-choice'. Sure, some are anti-choice, but they're not the lion's share. And the pro-choice side is just that. It's not like they're 'anti-life'. Only a small portion of us are 'pro-abortion' in any meaningful sense.

The two discussions are each on a different axis. Different vectors.

 

[Commodore]

Tedious side arguments are what some people apparently live for.

Yeah, crazy right? It's almost like issues like this aren't black and white and actually have nuances that need to be discussed as well to help break down misunderstandings and confusion.

 

[Lexicus]

The prolife side is actually pro-life. Way, way more than they're 'anti-choice'

Utter baloney. Anyone who votes Republican for instance is self-evidently anti-choice, not pro-life.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't deem it factually inaccurate to label that stance as pro-abortion.

What's the saying about not being entitled to your own facts...?

Pro-"choice to have an abortion", hence pro-abortion.

What part of the word "choice" was written in Klingon?

I am in favor of the procedure being legal and safe, AND in favor of women's right to choose to have that procedure IF they want it. I am also in favor of women's right to choose not to have it and not suffer homelessness, loss of education, loss of employment, loss of social standing, or family support, etc. if they opt to continue the pregnancy and raise the child that will eventually result.

Problem is, "pro-abortion" does't have a clear meaning. Taken literally, it says that a person is in favour of abortions, that they want abortions to happen. But does it mean that they think abortions are, in themselves, a good thing, that we should want abortions for their own sake, or does it mean that, taking a pragmatic approach to the world, accepting that a certain number of unwanted pregnancies are just going to happen, at least in the short term, it's for the best if at least some of them end in termination? It can either, depending on what you want to say, or what the listener wants to hear.

This becomes contentious because people will use terms like "pro-abortion", knowing that they can take advantage of that ambiguity to different audiences. They can justify the use of the term in reference to the second definition, that pro-choice advocates support abortions taking place in the here and now, but knowing that a large part of their audience will hear the first definition, that pro-choice advocates want more abortions for their own sake, whether that's because they dislike "responsibility", because they're trying to exterminate [white/black/disable/insert conspiracy theory here] people, or just because they hate babies.

You can't appeal to blunt semantics over emotion when the semantics of the term are dependent on the emotional response of the listener.

Excellent points.

There are a few people with whom I've been conversing for months on a Richard Dawkins video page. Of course the creationists have taken the conversation into abortion (there's another video in which Dawkins interviewed anti-abortionist Wendy Wright), and this American woman informed me that "there is an abortion clinic on every street corner in Canada" and that I must therefore (since Canada doesn't have specific laws pertaining to abortion since decriminalizing it) be in favor of abortion up to the very last seconds of the baby exiting the mother's body. And she just doesn't get why these are wrong things to say. After all, what do I know - I've just lived here all my life and know where I myself would draw a line. She, like the poster upthread here, insists that I'm "pro-abortion" and she goes on to say that I "celebrate" abortions.

I'm used to offensive crap being thrown at me on YT. I really don't need it here.

I'm not missing that point at all...

Yes, you are. Repeatedly and deliberately.

Well... why should I feel compelled to substitute the term for something else just because other people moan about how they don't like how it makes them feel? And I'm not even sure what "baggage" you refer to. If you mean making mention of the actual topic under discussion, rather than masking it out entirely, then to me that's a perfectly acceptable form of baggage. "Pro-choice" is a fluffy, cuddly term that is even less descriptive and biased in that it emphasises only the positive aspects of that point of view and ignores the negative (and worse still, ignores the actual objections from the other side). Again, imagine it's literally about murder. One side is saying murder is morally unacceptable and can't be allowed, but the other is saying "hey no it's fine. I mean I personally don't want to murder anyone, but anyone who feels the need should be allowed to". Am I not allowed to call them pro-murder? I have to call them pro-choice too?

Choice is not a "fluffy, cuddly" term. It's a very powerful term, especially for people who don't have much of it in their lives.

Very few people are inherently "anti-choice" as a general principle, but most of us agree that there are some choices people should not be allowed to make in a civilised society. Each potential "choice" needs to be weighed up on its own merits and consequences. So I prefer a label which actually mentions the moral issue that is under argument, not some bland "pro-choice" label that is essentially designed to whitewash the moral component entirely. If I have to clarify that by then specifying "abortions not waffles" then that just indicates it was a poor label in the first place. And, as I said to Lexicus, I'm not concerned with whether I step on anyone's toes or not.

Don't be disingenuous. Most people understand the term "pro-choice" to refer to the abortion debate.

 

[El_Machinae]

Utter baloney. Anyone who votes Republican for instance is self-evidently anti-choice, not pro-life.

Baloney to your baloney. The echo-chamber you sit in probably high-fives the straw men, but good luck getting the conversation out.

I know it's fun to villainously paint the people you disagree with, but it's not honest discussion

 

[Lexicus]

Baloney to your baloney. The echo-chamber you sit in probably high-fives the straw men, but good luck getting the conversation out.

I know it's fun to villainously paint the people you disagree with, but it's not honest discussion

I think you may be confused as to what a strawman is, because that wasn't one at all.

As Cutlass has pointed out several times, the Republican Party in this country supports a thousand policies that kill and harm millions of Americans (to say nothing of people in other countries!) on a daily basis.

If you support them but call yourself pro-life, there is an inconsistency there, whether you think so or not.

And it's unfortunately an inescapable fact that most of the people who call themselves pro-life, at least in this country, vote for the very pro-death Republican Party.

I mean, I said this before with the Iraq War. If you supported the criminal war of aggression that's killed upward of a million people, you simply cannot logically call yourself pro-life. Your response to this was basically: nuh-uh.

I know it's fun to villainously paint the people you disagree with, but it's not honest discussion

The possibility of honest discussion is precluded when one "side" is entirely mendacious and refuses to act in good faith. That is overwhelmingly true of the "pro-life" movement in the United States. There are exceptions, but that's the point -they're exceptions, and they're largely not reflective of the pro-life movement as a political phenomenon that influences public policy.

 

[miaasma]

Yeah, crazy right? It's almost like issues like this aren't black and white and actually have nuances that need to be discussed as well to help break down misunderstandings and confusion.

there's a difference between responsibly approaching an overtly multi-faceted topic and being needlessly pedantic, case in point

I know it's fun to villainously paint the people you disagree with, but it's not honest discussion

it's also not inherently dishonest to point out legitimately insidious beliefs

 

[El_Machinae]

I mean, I said this before with the Iraq War. If you supported the criminal war of aggression that's killed upward of a million people, you simply cannot logically call yourself pro-life. Your response to this was basically: nuh-uh.

Honestly, yes. I'm hoping harsher language sways your binary views, where you get to paint your political opponents as mindless or latently hypocritical and thus mostly deserving of your superior contempt.

Again, baloney to your baloney. An average Republican voter is not, in any way, 'pro-death' when it comes to the discussion that the abortion debate is held. One can believe that the welfare state inherently holds people down rather easily, since oodles of welfare policies clearly do so. On can believe that certain types of force can only be countered with force very easily. None of these are 'pro-death', inherently, they're a different opinion on the best way forwards at those levels of policy.

No one is perfect. But for gosh sakes, your rhetoric is baloney. And it's baloney that's great for whipping up your echo-chamber. And there's the pleasant youthful hubris which tells you that you're more correct than everyone who thinks differently than you. But it stymies all discussion. Cutlass cannot help himself. He's stuck in his ways. He's got his lenses.

But to paint the pro-life movement as inherently hypocritical is a total waste of your time if you're trying to have a discussion. Great for whipping up partisan anger though, I guess.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, crazy right? It's almost like issues like this aren't black and white and actually have nuances that need to be discussed as well to help break down misunderstandings and confusion.

Which is why calling people "pro-abortion" is so counter-productive, and spending a page or more defending it so tedious.

 

[El_Machinae]

Which is why calling people "pro-abortion" is so counter-productive, and spending a page or more defending it so tedious.

I don't mind quick segues, if two people are misunderstanding a word. But it reminds me of when people argue about whether atheism is a religion. Ugh. Just agree on a definition and move on already.