Whoever defines the terms wins!
Whoever defines the terms wins!
I try not to get involved in the debate over abortion rights for a variety of reasons. The biggest one is simply the fact that I am a man and therefore get the distinct impression that nobody really cares what I think. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I can't voice an opinion on the subject without being assigned an ulterior motive by women on the opposite side of the argument. If I say I support a woman's right to have an abortion, it must be because I want to be able to "force" a woman I impregnate to have an abortion, thereby relieving myself of responsibility. If I say I don't support a woman's right to have an abortion, it must be because I want to keep women powerless and force them to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. See what I mean? Either way, as a guy I'm not entitled to an opinion on the subject.
One thing I do have a strong opinion about, however, is the way that both sides of the issue often try to win the argument by creative selection of terminology instead of actually trying to support their argument with pesky things like facts and statistics.
Those who support a woman's right to have an abortion like to call themselves "pro-choice," which thereby allows them to claim that anybody on the other side of the argument must therefore be "anti-choice". The problem with this, however, is that many people who are against abortion rights do believe that a woman has the right to choose when it comes to things other than abortion, including such basic rights as choosing where to live, whom to marry, where to work, whether to vote, what to wear, etc. In addition, even so-called "pro-choice" proponents don't all think a woman should have the right to choose to do anything she wants (rob a bank, drink & drive, take illegal drugs, etc.) But calling the opposition "anti-choice" instead of, say, "anti-abortion" is a way to preempt any argument.
Similarly, people who do not support a woman's right to abortion like to call themselves "pro-life," which thereby allows them to claim that anybody on the other side of the argument must therefore be "anti-life" or "pro-death". This, however, totally ignores the fact that the life in question is still inside the body of the woman and that whether or not to have an abortion involves a intensely personal decision about one's own body. Most pro-lifers don't think that all life is equally valuable (many support the death penalty, eat meat, wear fur, and do absolutely nothing to stem the tide of disease and starvation in the world), while many people who support abortion rights do, in fact, care a great deal about life in general when it doesn't conflict with a woman's right to have control over her own body. But calling the opposition "anti-life" instead of, say, "pro-abortion rights" is a way to preempt any argument.
How about we just say that people either support or don't support a woman's right to have an abortion and then discuss the actual merits of each side of the issue? Nah, that would never work. Then people would actually be forced to think about their positions and possibly even acknowledge that the other's side's position has some merit as well. And where would the fun in that be?
I try not to get involved in the debate over abortion rights for a variety of reasons. The biggest one is simply the fact that I am a man and therefore get the distinct impression that nobody really cares what I think. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I can't voice an opinion on the subject without being assigned an ulterior motive by women on the opposite side of the argument. If I say I support a woman's right to have an abortion, it must be because I want to be able to "force" a woman I impregnate to have an abortion, thereby relieving myself of responsibility. If I say I don't support a woman's right to have an abortion, it must be because I want to keep women powerless and force them to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. See what I mean? Either way, as a guy I'm not entitled to an opinion on the subject.One thing I do have a strong opinion about, however, is the way that both sides of the issue often try to win the argument by creative selection of terminology instead of actually trying to support their argument with pesky things like facts and statistics.
Those who support a woman's right to have an abortion like to call themselves "pro-choice," which thereby allows them to claim that anybody on the other side of the argument must therefore be "anti-choice". The problem with this, however, is that many people who are against abortion rights do believe that a woman has the right to choose when it comes to things other than abortion, including such basic rights as choosing where to live, whom to marry, where to work, whether to vote, what to wear, etc. In addition, even so-called "pro-choice" proponents don't all think a woman should have the right to choose to do anything she wants (rob a bank, drink & drive, take illegal drugs, etc.) But calling the opposition "anti-choice" instead of, say, "anti-abortion" is a way to preempt any argument.
Similarly, people who do not support a woman's right to abortion like to call themselves "pro-life," which thereby allows them to claim that anybody on the other side of the argument must therefore be "anti-life" or "pro-death". This, however, totally ignores the fact that the life in question is still inside the body of the woman and that whether or not to have an abortion involves a intensely personal decision about one's own body. Most pro-lifers don't think that all life is equally valuable (many support the death penalty, eat meat, wear fur, and do absolutely nothing to stem the tide of disease and starvation in the world), while many people who support abortion rights do, in fact, care a great deal about life in general when it doesn't conflict with a woman's right to have control over her own body. But calling the opposition "anti-life" instead of, say, "pro-abortion rights" is a way to preempt any argument.
How about we just say that people either support or don't support a woman's right to have an abortion and then discuss the actual merits of each side of the issue? Nah, that would never work. Then people would actually be forced to think about their positions and possibly even acknowledge that the other's side's position has some merit as well. And where would the fun in that be?
posted by Barry G. at 7:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home