Clarifying the abortion debate
I recently talked to a guy who goes to my college. He was talking about the "pro-abortion crowd". I explained to him the difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion", but I'm not sure I got through to him.
To be pro-choice is to believe that pregnant women should be allowed to choose to abort a pregnancy without penalty if she so wishes. "Pro-abortion", a relatively common term among conservatives and other folk who are against abortion, as well as among pro-choicers who don't know better, does not mean the same thing. The term implies the belief not only that abortion should be legal, but also that it's a good thing and women should choose abortion. I don't know of one person who believes such a thing. Quite the contrary, most pro-choice people I know don't even like abortion; remember Bill Clinton's advice that abortions ought to be legal, safe, and rare.
The term "pro-abortion" is either a sly trick from the anti-abortion crowd who wishes to cloud up the debate over abortion to their advantage, or simply a result of the cloudy thinking of neoconservatives in general. I couldn't tell you which. Either way, it doesn't take into account what pro-choicers truly believe, and anyone who wishes to talk about the issue in a clear, truthful, and sensible manner should refer to the pro-choice side of the issue by its proper term.
Notice that I used the term "anti-abortion" in the last paragraph. Many people who are against abortion label themselves as "pro-life", and others accept the language. This is also either a sly trick or a result of cloudy thinking.
People who call themselves "pro-life" usually aren't. Most in the "pro-life" crowd are also in favor of capital punishment, tend to hold beliefs antithetical to social and economic justice, are against quality pre- and post-natal health care in principle, and approve of the occupation of Iraq which is killing both Iraqis and Americans every day. You cannot be pro-life when you approve of things which result in poor health, injustice, despair, and death. The proper term for these people is "anti-abortion", not "pro-life".
There are a few people who can properly call themselves pro-life, however. These people believe in the consistent life ethic. They are against abortion for most of the same reasons anti-abortion people are, and they are against euthanasia. They also happen to be against capital punishment and any warfare which results in death (and nowadays, when doesn't it result in death?). They think of life as a seamless garment. I might argue with them on a few things, but I really respect sane and consistent ethics such as theirs. People who are pro-life deserve a lot more respect than the anti-abortion crowd, for sure.
I guess to that guy at my college, I was arguing that there's a difference between the belief that people should be allowed to choose to kill without penalty and the belief that people ought to kill. Honestly, there is a difference, but certainly not one that redeems the former belief, and indeed, I would agree that the difference seems quite frivolous from this angle. However, it's an important distinction for the anti-abortion and pro-life crowds to keep in mind in the abortion debate, the debate of whether or not talk of murder is even appropriate to begin with.
Because he was being told a distinction that was frivolous to him was actually very important, he probably assumed I was telling him that the difference is redemptive. Of course, it's not. He probably also assumed that to acknowledge the difference meant he would agree that abortion is not murder. It doesn't mean that at all. Although the difference between the hypothetical right to choose to kill and the hypothetical assertion that killing ought to be done seems horribly frivolous, there is a difference — and you don't have to give up the belief that abortion is murder in order to accept that.
— Athelwulf
Seed Newsvine
3 comments:
Sorry, had to stop reading this one after the second paragraph. I think you're delving a little too much into consperacy theory here. Pro-abortion, I don't think, is a construct of the right as much as it is just a general misunderstanding of the public. I'm pretty sure most on the right disaprove of the women's right to choose more than the positive aspects of abortion.
Oh yeah, the new blog I'm promoting is:
bryansophy.blogspot.com
How am I deviating too much into it if I'm saying it COULD be the result of some clever trick someone came up with? If you kept reading, you would see that I said "I couldn't tell you which", meaning I couldn't tell you if it was someone's brilliant idea, or if the right is just stupid. Criticism is fine, but I would appreciate it if you would please read the whole thing before you criticize.
To give credit to the "conspiracy theory" side, I think it's common knowledge that each political party has strategists, whose job is to figure out what the party and its members should do to win votes. If I were a Republican strategist focusing on the abortion debate, it would seem logical to somehow stigmatize the pro-choice side. Relabeling it the "pro-abortion" side would help.
But to give credit to the other side, most conservatives and other right-wingers have many of the major misconceptions a person could have. Also, a lot of people repeat the arguments and ideas they hear and like from others down to the very wording, so misconceptions tend to self-propagate.
It's an ambivalent situation. Both possibilities may be true. I would advise something similar to Occam's razor: Don't assume malicious intent when ignorance, stupidity, or incompetence are sufficient explanations. But who knows.
"How am I deviating too much into it if I'm saying it COULD be the result of some clever trick someone came up with"
By God, man, when you come up with such useless qualifiers, you should expect no less than the criticism you are receiving. For example, "I COULD assume all right wingers are a bunch of crackets by using the smae logic that concludes all people with the monkier 'athenwulf' are social rejects." It is a moot point. It tells the reader NOTHING. At best, this is poor writing; at worst, this is an obvious display of insecurity in the writer. To quote the old maxim: 'Grow a pair" and make a concrete assertion, man!
"Criticism is fine, but I would appreciate it if you would please read the whole thing before you criticize."
But if this is what you desire, then give us something to read instead of a bunch of ambiguous qualifiers. In fact, this whole article was a moot point; a theory backed up by nothing but an obscure personal opinion. This whole article could very well have argued against a straw man. Concrete evidence would have helped abundantly.
And again, in your comment you cannot help but indulge in the conspiracy theory side of the debate. Give us something concrete instead of some vague misguided assertion. Researh, man! You are in collegel, are you not? This should be your job. You can surely find some sort of accredited article that backs up your assertion, no?
Post a Comment