.JPG)
Image from the March for Choice (April 25, 2004)
Words are never just words. Subtle distinctions can make all the difference when conceptualizing important meanings, especially in the personal and the political realm.
The abortion debate, for one, is a perfect example of how labels carry considerable weight in terms of identifying specific beliefs or even credibility. So far, most of us are familiar with the "pro-life" versus "pro-choice" dialogue. As such, both labels actually do a service to each side of the argument, giving both a more positive connotation with regard to their political positions. While one side is said to be against abortion because of their concern for the life of the fetus (hence the "life" designation), the other side is supportive of women's choice (hence the "choice" designation).
Still, there are other words and other terms for both sides. "Anti-choice," for one, has definitely caught on when describing the anti-abortion movement, while "anti-life" has not exactly made much headway as an alternate description for pro-choicers. Though some vehement pro-life / anti-choice advocates may embrace the term "baby killer," it has not garnered much success in the political sphere, mainly because it lacks credibility due to the inherent tinge of rage and name-calling.
But choice? Anti-choice? One cannot argue too much with that label. Indeed, pro-lifers aren't exactly allowing of choice when a fetus is concerned. Nevertheless, why would "anti-choice" be a better description for some pro-lifers than simply "pro-life"?
The truth is, many people who claim to be pro-life are not actually pro-life in the traditional sense of the term. Instead, they are mostly pro-life, unless the pregnant woman in question has been raped or has fallen victim to a situation that was "not her fault".
In this sense, such people believe that it may be okay to absolve a woman of her responsibility for the pregnancy if she has not sexually transgressed on her own accord. Conversely, women who become pregnant by being actively sexual or deviant from the *respectful* status quo are hypocritically expected to carry a pregnancy to term -- for the *life* of the child.
When a fetus' rights are only relevant based on the way it is conceived in a paradigm where puritanical notions of morality play a larger role, the issue is no longer about life, but about women's equality and sexual deviance. Or more specifically, women's right to be sexual without social punishment.
In modern times, women cannot exactly be officially punished for being promiscuous anymore, or even for being a little careless like back in the old days when her entire life could be ruined or stained by a loss of virginity outside of wedlock.
Instead, some parts of society now prefer to work within the confines of political correctness, finding more subtle ways to make women pay for their sexual sins perhaps by punishing her in the event that she might "mess up" to the point of pregnancy (as if the male sperm donor could not possibly share in the blame). You made this bed, now sleep in it . . . . that'll teach you not to have sex . . . because sex is bad, mmmkay?
Another reason why "pro-life" may not suit the political position of several purported pro-lifers, rests on the fact that carrying a pregnancy to term may endanger the lives of some women. To insist that a parturient women rush headfirst into a conceivable risk of death only to preserve the life of a fetus is hardly a pro-life argument, but rather a "pro-fetus" argument. As such, "pro-life" arguments in this case are only relevant with regard to the developing embryo. Which begs the question: does life no longer matter for the viable woman host of the growing organism?
Moreover, what about quality of life? Is there a provision in the pro-life movement that caters to the quality of life for a newborn and its mother? Even if the child would be born with severe deformities that would render life completely miserable? Some pro-choicers might argue that knowingly bringing such a child into existence would be cruel and immoral, as that child would be subjected to a life of pain and suffering.
Therein lies the distinction of terms: pro-choicers are not necessarily pro-life or anti-life, which is why "anti-life" has never caught on. In the same vein, those that are pro-abortion are not necessarily pro-choice. A perfect example of this seeming paradox is China's "one child" policy, for which women are forced to abort excess fetuses against their will for the purposes of population control, a system that can hardly be considered pro-choice.
Instead, legitimate pro-choicers are primarily concerned about personal power, privacy, quality of life, and by extension, life itself. And what's a quality life without reasonable choices to begin with? Pro-choicers care most about supporting autonomy and freedom, enabling the masses to do the best they can within the context of difficult situations, whether that be prioritizing certain lives over other potential lives or safeguarding the rights of people to create their best lives.
Following such logic, if pro-choicers cannot accurately be labeled anti-life, can they be considered anti-fetus instead? Though there may be a minority of people who find fetuses vile and disgusting, even some of the worst curmudgeons can hardly be impractical enough to despise the early stages of human existence, let alone create and indulge in abortion sprees for the fun of it.
No, access to choice above all is about practicality, freedom, and women's lives -- not death, darkness, and misanthropy.
Likewise, true-blue pro-lifers oftentimes seem to be the ones who are unfailingly consistent in their adherence to preserving life, and even quality of life, and would most likely have borderline beliefs about fetus rights versus a women's right to choose. The difference however, would not be contingent upon how the child is conceived in a moral or amoral atmosphere. Instead, the *choice* as it were would instead factor in physical dangers to the mother, fetal birth defects and abnormalities, and the duration of gestation before abortion takes place -- otherwise known as the nebulous and mysterious cut-off point for "when is it actually alive?"
Indeed, if we had a concrete answer to that question, perhaps our opinions would be less divided. Or maybe, they would be more complicated than ever before . . .
Either way you look at it, one thing is for certain: the mother is alive. So how can both sides of the political spectrum, with or without labels, revere her body, her freedom, and her life when the going gets tough?
Other articles of interest:
Poll: Which label best describes each side of the abortion debate?
The right to anti-choice displays? A school district is sued for banning a pro-life t-shirt
Juliette Frette
Comments
This is why a huge portion of the pro-life/anti-choice movement makes no sense. A substantial portion are against abortion UNLESS the woman was "innocent" in becoming pregnant (e.g. rape). However, the fact that a woman was raped doesn't make any difference in the assessment of whether the fetus is a life or not.
So either they believe that the fetus is a life - in which case "killing" it because the woman was raped would not be justified (since when does rape justify murder?) Or they believe that life does NOT in fact begin at conception, but still somehow believe that abortion should only be allowed if a woman was raped or there was incest, which also does not make sense. If it isn't a life, what's the problem? With these people, it seems involuntary pregnancy just serves as punishment or something.
there are still places in the world that have whack cultural norms regarding rape. i literally just a few days ago saw an article on cnn.com about a girl who was disowned by her family because she was raped- somewhere in africa i think.
i think both us and western religions recognize that forcing a woman to have a baby from rape- which back in the day may have been analogous to being out of wedlock- would only further the crime committed by the rapist.
which is why laws have exceptions. im pretty sure rape was an exception to the rule before abortion became the rule. the question is can we do the same thing for pro choice beliefs. is there a commonly accepted situation where women have the ability to abort but shouldnt. or is that choice absolute?
The focus is on the word 'fetus', the standard arguments about disabilities, and risks to the mother's health. Add to that the suggestion that only 'pro-lifers' can be hypocritical about their position, based on some continuum of immorality or innocence, definitely explains why certain terms 'catch on'. It is certainly about personal power, and not choice at all, because all the power and all the choice are on the pro-abortion side.
We do have concrete answers, just not ones the pro-abortion side wants to hear. The new human person is alive when two 23-chromosome gametes unite to form the 46- chromosome being. The rest is development, no different in kind than the cellular changes undergone in any other transition of life, such as puberty.
Neither rape nor disability is an excuse to kill an innocent human. If the mother is in danger, the only ethical course is to try to save both. If in the process of saving the mother, her child dies, that is not murder. Killing the child would
Virtually every American on both sides of the abortion debate can be considered to be both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" to some extent if the terms are taken literally. But obviously catch-phrases that become popular should not to be taken literally. The historical context of a term is essential to its actual meaning. As I see it, the key to the abortion debate is this: I see women as the natural (or "God-given" if you prefer) gatekeepers of new life, given the facts of biological reproduction. It is a simple fact of reality that women do, in fact, make life/death decisions when it comes to their reproductive capacity. And this is just as it should be. Society's role is not to make decisions for a woman, but rather, to make sure she is well-educated and taken care of so that if she does choose to give birth, the baby will be a healthy and well-raised as possible.
The bizarre paradox for the 'pro-life' movement is the radical action of some of its members, such as the killing of Dr. Tiller as has been discussed by this forum earlier. Whilst it must be admitted that this is the 'mad fringe', it's noticible that you don't seem to have a similar situation amongst the pro-choice section of the populace. Perhaps because the law is in their favour currently? Or maybe it's because of the religious leanings of those who take such radical action? Religion doesn't seem to be as strong an influence on the pro-choice lobby. Please, feel free to correct me.
wotchit, thank you for availing yourself to correction. i, who adamantly protested the actions of dr tillers killers will devilishly advocate but only to pursue truth.
the context of the legalization of abortion, from when rape was the exception, is necessary. at the time doctors who freely aborted were seen as the terrorists and this might still the view of the right. the law as an expression of the majority opinion only tells us which group most view as the terrorizers.
religion is obviously not virulent within the pro choice camp as it requires adhering to enlightenment tenets. but logic and rationality can produce an equally harmful mindset in society. there was and still is a strong eugenics movement in america- a brave new world. we claim to respect the handicap and yet would abort a defected fetus in an instant. this effectively denies them their choice to struggle, achieve and learn responsibility.
exceptions, exceptions.
Until Men are more socially punished for their sexual deviants, the men in power have no right to take the right to choose from women. Im sorry but paying child support, which alot of men dont, is not near the same kind of punishment as pregnacy, child birth, and child rearing.
This was a very well written and insightful article.
@ dancingcrane:
"The new human person is alive when two 23-chromosome gametes unite to form the 46- chromosome being."
This is completely absurd! your skin cells also have 46 chromosomes full of human DNA! Does that mean i shouldnt exfoliate at night for fear of killing those 46 chromosome skin cells?
your name just happens to be cute, you know... capital t "_____".
Why thank you ashanymous! I will take that as a compliment!
the deviance youre referring to must be when a man acts unlike a man and doesnt raise his kin even while keeping up with child support payments. but if the context was strictly religious would not the couple to be having the child after the lock of wed? in which case both would bare the burden of pregnancy and offspring.
if the context is say a modern rational polis youre likely to have more divorces and single parents in general. it is in this society that the deviance you concieve of flourishes. absolute freedom will only collapse on itself as people divorce themselves from obligation. there has to be some balance between responsibility and autonomy.
youre welcome, it wasnt too hard to actually deduce
Excellent article as always. Newt Gingrich had guidelines for Republican candidates and the words to use. Right now, there are "code words." The phrase of the day is "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench" to describe "pro choice" candidates.
"Legislating from the bench" implies that a judge is going to keep going after encouraging abortions and then raise your taxes
By the way my examiner column is doing real well, but I won't provide a link, unless it's cool.
@ T
You amply demonstrate that you know the difference between yourself as a living being, and your skin cells (haircuttings, nail parings or what have you, which all have 46 chromosomes). Surely you can apply this knowledge to the living being in the womb, who also exfoliates skin cells of his own, and has the same right to life as you.
now that is a quandary, when does life begin? how many stages of cell replication have to occur before you reach personhood. does killing a few cells qualify as abortion and accordingly "murder"? or are you only a human after you start to look like a human. youre suddenly worth saving because you have an endearing form that people can connect with. when has enough shape been taken for a fetus to be a legal human.
i dont know at what point we ascribe it the right to life. trimesters are an expedient marker. but rights are relational trump card and require an assertion. i assert my right to life against some claim of yours, like to kill me. obviously a fetus cannot assert its own rights, which makes it both understandable as well as preposterous that others would act in their stead. if anyone's rights are paramount in the conflict of abortion it's the mother's. as the carrier and caregiver, entrusted with the child's best interest, the assertion of her choice is paramount.
There is no quandary as to when human life begins, nor when killing becomes murder. Destroy a sperm or egg, or a skin cell, and you have killed nothing. Once sperm and egg have united their chromosomal material, a new living being of the species human is formed, needing nothing more from the mother than what we all need. Food, water, oxygen, and basic physical protection.
Murder is the willful killing of innocent human life. The new life just described qualifies.
The quandary arises when those in power arrogate to themselves the right to divorce life from legal personhood. The American Dred Scott decision of 1857 declared black people legal non-persons; the Stalinists did the same to the Ukrainian peasants in the 1930s, as did the Nazis to the Jews in the 1940s. The unborn are just the last in a long line of voiceless victims, sacrificed on the altar of our personal power. We murder, because we can, because their life is not as important as our desire to be rid of a burden.
its brave of you to argue that the beginning of life is at insemination. but im going to force you to defend it. youre literally claiming that one cell constitutes a legally recognizable life, can assert its right to life and that people can be legally punished under the definition of murder for killing that cell. you then have to claim that this cell can have its rights upheld over a mother's choice.
theres a host of legal problems involved from definitions to representation. we only legally understand life through its relation to abortion. regardless the moment you give way and say its 2 or 10 cells you fall prey to the grey area and it becomes form and shape as the benchmark- which is untenable.
to conclude, you demean the struggles of those various groups by your comparison. the obvious differences being that their oppression was systematic. dr tiller is hardly the same as adolf hitler. and u dont at all recognize their immense suffering or that of the mother.
These arguments are the very reason why deciding to have an abortion is such a difficult decision (or at least should be). The very quandry of whether or not the fetus is 'alive', what constitutes 'existance', this is the core of the problem. And ultimately, it must be up to the individual to decide where their own standard lays. Therefore, the choice must be with the prospective mother. Only she can decide where she stands.
I've just realised how off base I've gotten. The original article was about political terms. Why'd do they not catch on? Beats me. Its the same as any buzz-words. Why is everything a 'solution' now? Where did that come from? 'A box - your packing solution'.
???? Are we all chemists? (OK, now I'm off base).
i think its juliette's fault for engaging in a discussion of discourse but using abortion as her context. my only exploration in reproductive political terms would be anti-life. im surprised the right doesnt sling this term more often. it is better to phrase things proactively, and its underlying assumption is largely debatable, but anti-life is a decent slander and is surprisingly underused.
i dont know what slogan regarding boxes youre referring to. but if youre off-base and worried about the solution then i must be acidic- but then does that make me the solution? in a lot of ways we inherit or are subjected to terms with psychological baggaging like "terrorists". but at the same time people and cultures generate that value surrounding lingo.
LOL 'acidic', very good. As for 'anti-life', I reckon Juliette's opinion is probably about right, it makes anyone using it sound a bit fundamentalist, and that immediately makes non-aligned folks (the target audience) a bit wary that the person talking is a nut. Besides, like all good insults it only works if you don't use it too often. To be reserved for special occasions (rallys, preaching etc, etc)
Hey Juliette. I'm gonna start participating in yer column now. Promise. :) You know who I am.
The thing that I find interesting about the use of words is summed up on a bumper sticker: Aren't you glad your mother was pro-life?
o rly? How do you know, anonymous driver of the other car? Even I don't know my mother's political opinions at the time.
See, what it shows is that the perceived opposite of pro-life must be anti-life. All the time. All Feti Must Be Destroyed. (And cooked and eaten or sacrificed to heathen bloodlords.)
And don't get me started on pro-life folks who support the war. Or who don't support comprehensive, quality, FREE health care for all American kids. Or working mothers' rights. Or...
One last thing -- be careful about statements like 'in modern times'. It's 2009 wherever you are, but modernity doesn't always mean American values. And hey, what are those anyway? Uh-oh... :)
diminishing marginal returns are a fact of almost every aspect of life. its like if a woman always wears her favorite pant suit to work, eventually it loses its allure. which could actually be best for the work place.
but words derive returns from an intangible source- thoughts, serotonin, nerve impulses-however u describe mental pleasures. because discourse isnt bound to economic constraints of output, like the amount of material required and the amount of goods produced, returns dont necessarily diminish and are potentially infinite.
i remember this episode of the simpsons where marge went to an outlet store and bought this outfit that everyone complimented her for. and was invited to a prominent country club solely for wearing. after she had worn it out, not physically but socially, she started resowing the material to make her own designer outfits. but in the end she had reused the cloth so much that there was literally nothing left to wear.
Good Article! The term Pro-life caught on because a great majority of people believed in a christian world view, but as time passed, prayer and religious teaching no longer allowed in school, the term Pro-choice gained ground thru the years. Because alot of christians wrongly misinterpet 'Turn the other cheek', preaching the gospel without getting involved in politics(too "unspiritual")they thus allow those of an evolutionary world view get a stronghold in our public school systems via school board and high positions in state/federal government, which give them oppurtunity to legislate laws that call 'Bad' 'Good' and 'Good' 'Bad' taking away the guilt feelings instilled by G-d and saying "its Okay" don't feel bad about having abortions. Does'nt the author of life know better? If there is a G-d, we must prove which one religion has the evidence of truth to back its claims. Once we do, then we will know how "HE" feels about abortions.
Having said that, If the Christian religion is true, many of us are in trouble! In their bible it says 'He' is coming back in the form of Jesus with judgement for ALL who have did wrong, man, woman, jew, gentile. Being a reader of past legends of all sorts, those who had abortions for 'birth control sake' suffered most cruelly in the afterlife, being boiled in hot substances(may not be true, but it does give an idea how they felt about abortion practice in times past, wrong or right) Maybe thats why some pro-lifers act the way they do--could be they feel they are doing the persons a favor of avoiding 'Judgement' for abortion. Who Knows... Maybe we need to spend more of our time finding out if maybe there really is a G-d and if he authored any books he or she wanted past down to us...just my opinion...:)Peace.
Alas Dave, a noble idea, but humanity's been doing that just about f-o-r-e-v-e-r. And no luck yet. And of course, there's always the possibility G-d will one day go 'Hey, well done, you figured it out!', and turn out the lights.
i think its interesting that at times you distance yourself from what youre obviously promulgating by claiming that it is said in "their bible" but then performatively follow tenets of the bible for example by not using the lord's name in vain. there are two things to draw first (something i happen to think of), religion uses this specific rule in a discursive fashion, creating something (or in this case someone) that is both forbidden while at the same time to be desired. second this is obviously a recruiting tactic to try to identify with your audience by claiming to be a third party.
the tale you weave of how pro-life and pro-choice came to be is a fantastic one. suddenly out of nowhere there are people who believe this other thing. like aliens they took over the government and began instituting mind control in the schools. if you admit that people of different beliefs could be legitimately pursuing truth, then you have to admit its possible 'he' doesnt exist.
@ dancingcrane:
You can think and say whatever you want, but a Zygote is not a human being. It is a small colletction of cells, not much different than any other cell in the human body. It has no self awareness, no brain, no heart, no thought process. IT is NOTHING more than a collection of cells.
"Words, words, words". When I was younger, I spent a lot of time with Vietnam Veterans. They speak with their own euphemisms, words used to convey an internal meaning without the underlying emotion. One example I recall was "Kool-Aid". As a teen, I thought that when someone said so-and-so was "Kool-aid" in that low tone with that faraway look it meant that so-and-so was A. Cool and B. helpful. Well, yes and no. It actually meant that so-and-so was Killed in Action. Where, when and how Kool-Aid became the term of choice for veterans to say someone, a comrade, a friend, was KIA I have no idea. When, where and how "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" became the slogans of the abortion debate I have no idea either, but there they are. I do see why and how the terms may have been chosen, but they really do not reflect well on each other. If on an SAT (or GRE, MCAD or LSAT) exam one was asked to find the appropriate term to describe the opposite of "Pro-life" I am sure it would antibiotic would be...
...more appropriate than "pro-choice". Likewise, I sincerely doubt that the opposite of pro-choice equals out to pro-life. What is the opposite of being for choice if not against choice? What is the opposite of being for life than for death? The problem is that the argument has been dumbed down to such an amazing level. As a nation and a people, we have allowed ourselves to in many ways give up our independence of thought in favour of easy, catchy phrases rather than actually listen to each other, to try and understand what the person sitting opposite us is actually saying. As a man, I cannot imagine what I would feel if I was a woman, pregnant, but conflicted over carrying said pregnancy to term. As a man I cannot imagine what I would feel if I was a woman who had carried a pregnancy nearly to full term only to find there was a serious issue that could only be resolved by terminating said pregnancy. As a Taoist with generous helpings of Buddhist, Quaker and Methodist tossed in, ...
...I am "pro-life" but I cannot impose my beliefs on anyone facing such a monumental life-changing situation (how could I?), thus I am also "pro-choice". And thus, the terms bandied about by activists on either side ring hollow to me. I know of many people who are pro-life meaning they would prefer to keep death at bay just a little longer, and I know many in our free and open society who cringe at the thought of their freedoms and liberties being curbed, so where, precisely, does that leave us? With a conundrum of morality, ethics, theology and law that most likely will not be solved with soundbites, angry rhetoric and hyperbole.
@T
May I see the science behind your words, because I can show you the science behind mine. A collection of cells from any part of the body can only remain that particular collection. Technological manipulation aside, they can not and will not become anything else. Even a tumor just becomes a bigger tumor.
Only the living being called a fertilized egg, (later called blastocyst, zygote, embryo, child adolescent, adult) has the fully activated blueprint of humanity in continuous development. Development that never changes in kind, but only in location and form of life support.
The reason you have a brain, heart, self awareness, and thought processes is that the zygote that you were developed them.
When a fertilized egg, or anyone else along the continuum to adult is killed, a person is killed. Abortions happen precisely _because_ a person is developing. A person who is unwanted, or tragically, wanted _until_ a disability/deformity is found. In any event, a burden to be got ri
rid of.
the problem with your analysis is that it operates on potentiality. your argument reduces to, these cells are "a human" because they have the potential to become "a human", which is incoherent. even though you ignore my numerous legal qualms, ill adopt a scientific rebuttal.
your first statement is false, embryos as well as adults have these things called stem cells which can take the form of any organ or tissue which surround them.
your second regarding technological manipulation is actually an area of concern. what if that "human" had the ability to grow in a petri dish? in those cellular stages would you still consider them human.
third the blueprint for humanity you speak of is within almost every cell of the body, its called dna. what if the cell doesnt use sperm/egg fertilization(cloning), is it still human?
in the end, its a question of whether preventing potential life is a crime. reminds me of minority report- preventing potential "murder" is a crime.
@ashanymous
An egg or sperm have the 'potential' to become a human. Once fertilized, the new life is not potential, but actual; having the DNA of both the woman and the impregnating man in a combination that is from that moment a unique and actual human person. The DNA of this unique individual begins immediately to program cells to form themselves in the same way your DNA directs your development.
No collection of cells in your body can spontaneously generate a human life separate from you. They are already programmed by the fertilized egg that you were, to be only you. Unless technologically manipulated, your heart stem cells will only form cells of your own heart, your skin stem cells will form only cells of your own skin. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent for one reason, their purpose is to migrate and form those collections of cells that are the physical being of that particular person.....
If technology intervenes, a human can be cloned. They are indeed still a human person. If cells are manipulated such that the human develops bat wings or is even physically unrecognizable as a human, save for T's "brain, heart, self-awareness and thought processes" they are still a human person.
Legal qualms do not enter in, until terms are defined, and truth is discerned. I have put the burden of proof on science alone, since you can look up the facts as well as I can. Law can be perverted to deny rights to anyone, the facts of which you can also look up. Blacks and women still smart under remembered injustice. It grieves me to see how readily members of both groups can extend that injustice to those who are now where they once were.
Pro-life, pro-choice, it's all relative. Most people who believe either are hypocrites in some way or another. I really wish men would step out of the debate though-because until you bear a child, you really have nothing relevant to say.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!