Republicans Against Contraception, Reproductive Freedom
Mitt Romney
Photo: Getty / Scott Olson
Unfortunately, too few Americans realize this. Anti-contraceptive activism has existed mostly on the fringes of the anti-choice movement, but their beliefs are becoming more solidly incorporated into anti-choice rhetoric, ideology, and policy proposals. This hasn't been difficult because the anti-choice organizations have never been supporters of reproductive freedom anyway — if they were, they would strongly support increased access to contraceptives in order to reduce the need for abortions in the first place.
It's an obvious move for anyone concerned with reducing abortions, but an impossible move for anyone concerned with reducing sexual and reproductive liberty. This is why Republicans presidential candidates have been telling anti-choice groups about their own opposition to birth control — though subtly. This was all made quite clear when Republicans appeared at the 2007 National Right to Life conference.
[Mitt Romney] implied an opposition to the birth control pill and a willingness to join in their efforts to scale back access to contraception. There are code phrases to listen for - and for those keeping score, Mr. Romney nailed each one.
One code phrase is: "I fought to define life as beginning at conception rather than at the time of implantation." The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists defines pregnancy as starting at implantation, the first moment a pregnancy can be known. Anti-abortion advocates want pregnancy to start at the unknown moment sperm and egg meet: fertilization. They'd also like you to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that the birth control pill prevents that fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.
Mr. Romney's code, deciphered, meant, "I, like you, hope to reclassify the most commonly used forms of contraceptives as abortions." In fact, he told the crowd, he already had some practice redefining contraception: "I vetoed a so-called emergency contraception bill that gave young girls abortive drugs without prescription or parental consent."
No matter that emergency contraception has the same mode of action as the birth control pill and every other hormonal method of birth control. To the anti-abortion movement, contraception is the ultimate corruptor. And so this year, the unspoken rule for candidates seeking the support of anti-abortion groups is that they must offer proof they're anti-contraception too.
Source: The Baltimore Sun
Tom Tancredo (R-CO)
Photo: Scott Olson / Getty Images
This isn't a minority position, unfortunately — eighty-six different anti-abortion organizations have committed to opposing contraception because "contraceptive acts and reproductive technologies that manipulate or replace conjugal union are a rejection of the gift of life," "most often include the foreseen deaths of tiny children," "the practice of contraception means children are unwanted and provides the rationalization for abortion," and "it is a violation of human dignity to promote or accept the use of contraception."
Why does the Christian Right oppose contraception? The answers are pretty obvious once you start from the religious, authoritarian principles which typically lie behind Christian Right policies. When a woman chooses to use any form of birth control, she is exercising power and authority over her life, her body, and her ability to bear children. This allows her to engage in and even enjoy sexual activity without the risk of pregnancy and perhaps even with a lowered risk for sexually transmitted diseases. In a modern, liberal society where individual liberty and autonomy are not only valued, but preconditions for democratic secularism, such behavior would occur without comment or question.
For religious authoritarians, such power and authority properly belong with God, not with individual women. It is wrong for a women to presume to choose when she will or will not have children — children are a gift from God and it is up to God when and if a woman becomes pregnant. Although it may be legitimate to enjoy sexual activity, sex does not exist for pleasure and should not occur without being open to the possibility of pregnancy because reproduction is the ultimate purpose of sex. Trying to avoid pregnancy or disease is thus in fact an attempt to engage in consequence-free licentuousness and depravity. This is also why abortion is opposed, though with the added argument that criminalizing abortions would save lives.
Mitt Romney has, until very recently, demonstrated a reasonably pro-choice position. Now he has to express anti-choice extremism because he won't get the Republican nomination for president unless he comes out against women's sexual and reproductive liberty. Naturally other Republicans are doing the same:
Presidential hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, beefed up his anti-contraception resume by co-sponsoring a bill to de-fund the nation's largest contraception provider, Planned Parenthood, by excluding it from Title X family planning for the poor. Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain's campaign officials boast he has "consistently voted against taxpayer-funded contraception programs." And Mr. McCain reports that his adviser on sexual-health matters is Sen. Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, who leads campaigns claiming condoms are unsafe and opposing emergency contraception.
Another presidential candidate, Rep. Tom Tancredo, like Mr. Romney, has ventured far into the "contraception-is-abortion" territory. According to Mr. Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, emergency contraception "cheapens human life and simply uses a woman's body to dispose of the child instead of a doctor." By the same logic, so do the birth control pill, the contraceptive patch, the IUD, the NuvaRing, and the Depo-Provera shot - which, it's worth noting, together account for 40 percent of the birth control American women use.
What does eliminating contraceptive funding for Planned Parenthood have to do with abortion? Nothing
What does voting against taxpayer-funded contraception have to do with abortion? Nothing
What does opposing emergency contraception have to do with abortion? Nothing
None of this is relevant to any "right to life," supposedly the basis for Christians' opposition to legal abortion. All of it is integral, however, to Christians' opposition to women's autonomy, sexual equality, and reproductive liberty. Sometimes, that opposition is hostile enough for people to tell obvious falsehoods:
Leslie Hanks, vice president of Colorado Right to Life, said her organization will continue its opposition to Planned Parenthood and likely would fight efforts to build a clinic.
“Let’s face it, they’re in the business to kill babies for profit,” she said. “First and foremost, they get young girls hooked on their birth control pills, which don’t work,” Hanks said.
Source: Denver Post
Amanda Marcotte breaks out the three basic claims being made here and explains how each of them are false:
- Planned Parenthood “kills babies”, i.e. performs abortions, for profit.
- Birth control pills “hook” young women, i.e. create a chemical dependency, like drugs such as heroin.
- Birth control pills don’t even “work”, i.e. birth control pills do not prevent pregnancy.
Even worse, though, is how reporters simply don't inform their readers that these claims are false — the so-called "liberal media" is allowing itself to be used as a mouthpiece for anti-scientific, anti-democratic, and anti-liberty propaganda. There's no truth to the above claims, but readers of the story won't learn that from the media. As a consequence, the anti-contraception, anti-choice, and anti-autonomy messages of the Christian Right spreads further, enters the public's consciousness more deeply, and acquires a stronger chance to taking hold.
It's good when reporters avoid giving a biased presentation of a story, but an effort to avoid bias should not cause reporters to avoid revealing facts or calling people on their falsehoods. Journalists have a duty to inform the people and challenge those in power to support their claims about how the people should be governed. The reporter behind the above story wasn't doing their job, yet they also weren't any worse than most reporters seem to be these days.
Comments
But I’m sure the “killing babies” term is no more meant to evoke images in a broader context than the “anti-choice” term is. (I.e. both terms are manipulative by design.)
As for life, I recognize and use the scientific definition of life, but also recognize that most life forms are not protected. Roaches are alive; but we buy bug spray to make them dead.
I am fully supportive of contracaption (including the morning-after pill). But I notice an agenda here too. The major organizations (on both sides) tend to be committed to extreme positions. They represent people looking for power. They do not represent the population in general.
It’s ironic that I just responded to a letter last night from someone asking about abortion stances. There really are only two stances a person can take: Pro-choice or Anti-choice. I either believe it’s a personal decision or it’s a decision the government needs to be involved in.
The problem is that the Constitution allows for individual rights and freedoms; and when you start asking everyone “What is an individual?” You get myriad different answers. Once someone is born, it’s a no-brainer. Prior to that–there’s no consensus.
The writer asked “why don’t the mother’s rights end where they child’s rights begin?” And I explained that it is because the mother’s rights are uncontested. She has full Constitutional rights–and no one disputes that. But a fetus does not have full Consitutional rights–and so it’s not really a “tie”–the mother clearly trumps the fetus under U.S. law.
It also got into a discussion of law vs. morality. I tried to explain that in matters that are not cut-and-dry, and where personal opinion is the determining factor (at what point is something with human DNA an “individual” under the Constitution?)–we would just be legislating one person’s opinion onto others. Law is not meant to legislate morality (how people feel or think about an action), but to promote the harmonious interaction of people within a society (how they behave in relation to other people and/or their property).
He compared it to slavery; but I contended it was more along the lines of animal rights. While slave owners certainly made claims about African Americans–that they couldn’t be educated for example–those claims about why African Americans were not “people” could be observed to be false. We clearly had a case of humans infringing on the rights of other humans. Whereas with animal rights, there is no consensus about how someone should view other species: friends, food, nothing? I can’t dictate to other people whether or not they should feel that other species are equal to their own. There’s no way to prove this point or create consensus. It’s very different than the slave issue in that regard. Someone can still insist that one race is inferior–but they’re hard pressed to prove it. Whereas proving we’re all autonomous humans, despite our race, is easy to illustrate.
Where a person becomes an individual is NOT as easy to illustrate. Where brain activity begins? At conception? At implantation? At birth? When the nervous system develops? When the heart and lungs can function independently?
Saying that abortion is murder, is very similar to saying meat is murder. It has everything to do with one’s personal assessment and nothing to do what anything anyone can actually verify as true. And we really need to think long and hard about whether or not we want to get into the quagmire of using our legal system to strip individual rights and liberties due to one segment of one group’s unverifiable opinions about what they think should constitute an “individual,” prior to birth–the one time when virtually nobody seems to dispute it.
When discussing abortion, “anti-choice” is accurate because it’s the political position of those involved: opposed to women being permitted to choose to have an abortion.
Pro-choice says: It’s OK if you think a fetus is an “individual” at conception. Nobody is going to force anyone to have an abortion. It’s up to each person to decide what’s right for themselves, because it really is a matter of personal opinion when you regard a human as an “individual.” And each of us should have the right to do what we choose in such personal matters.
The other side says: Nobody (except perhaps in narrow circumstances) can have access to abortion because it’s my opinion that stage X of an unborn human is an “individual.” The government will decide for you (basically forcing you to do what _I_ would personally do in this situation).
I finally adopted the “anti-choice” label for the anti-choice crowd, after many years, when I could no longer think of any more appropriate label for what the group is actually trying to accomplish. They want to decide for other people and take away everyone else’s right to choose, based solely on their personal, unverifiable opinion about what constitutes an “individual.”
It’s pretty nearly universally accepted that you have Constitutional rights and freedoms to some pretty great degree at the point you’re born. But there is no consensus regarding how to treat a human in the developmental time prior to that. Question 1,000 different people and you’ll get 1,000 different opinions on who has which rights when.
Not everyone sees it how the anti-choice crowd sees it–and they have presented no nothing whatsoever to prove that their opinion on this is any more than an opinion–on the exact same level as everyone else’s personal opinion about it. And yet, they blanketly refuse to accept/respect that anyone else’s view could possibly be as valid as their own. They represent one of a ton of differing opinions about what constitutes “personhood”–but somehow they take the stand that their opinion is the only one that matters–and all others should, literally, be outlawed.
They do present reasons why they see it the way they do; however, they fail miserably to present any reasons for why other people can’t legitimately see it very differently. Still, they would stop anyone else from choosing any path that strays from what _they_ would do.
I have never been presented with any reason this group should not be legitimately labeled as “anti-choice.”
I finally adopted the “anti-choice” label for the anti-choice crowd, after many years
Tracie. How about “pro power”?
The problem with “pro power” is that they actually want to remove power from the people. I’d see that label as confusing. Initially I was confused by what you meant, but then realized you were getting at the fact that they want the power; but I think “pro power” sounds like (or could be confused with) a movement to empower people. And this movement is, ironically, as far from that motive as you can get.
Actually, there have been societies that denied a person as an individual until well after birth.
“Law is not meant to legislate morality (how people feel or think about an action), but to promote the harmonious interaction of people within a society (how they behave in relation to other people and/or their property).”
I just want to clarify. Are you saying that all animal cruelty laws should be removed from the books. Laws stating that you cannot be cruel to your own animal are, arguably, a legislation of morality. They certainly do not meet your stated criterion. As a society, we grant that some animals have some rights. We don’t grant all the rights of people. If it is a human life vs. an animal life, we protect the human at the expense of the animal. We do not, however, permit actions taken against an animal based on “I felt like it.”
Oh, and if you want to be seen by those who do not agree with you as engaging in honest debate, drop the “anti-choice” rhetoric. I see the same technique to denigrate outsiders as the fundamentalist christians use.
I don’t need to adopt the terms you personally prefer in order to engage in honest debate.
I use the label “anti-choice” for specific reasons and will only cease to use it if a better, more accurately descriptive term comes along. You know what my reasons are because you tried — and failed — to argue against them before.
“When discussing abortion, ‘anti-choice’ is accurate because it’s the political position of those involved: opposed to women being permitted to choose to have an abortion.”
No, it carries the assumption that the legitmacy of the action is not in question and so a general opposition to choices. But the term “baby killer” would be similarly justified. The “fetus” is obviously the baby in the given context; and is being killed.
————————
“Nobody is going to force anyone to have an abortion.”
In just the same manner a wife-beater might say “Nobody is going to force anyone to beat his wife.” The question is whether the “fetus” warrants protection, and, if so, how much. Someone committed to legalizing “post-natal abortions” could use your claims of “unproven opinion” to much the same effect.
——————–
There is no “anti-choice crowd”. I defy anyone to find people who apply the label to themselves. The label is deliberately misleading. By its nature it sounds like it’s being applied to choices in general (”anti-abortion” would be more accurate; after all it is the one choice that all the people you apply your label to oppose). And it sounds like a religious group agreeing on a label to use on outsiders.
No, it carries no such assumption.
In fact, this very article is an ample demonstration that there is indeed an anti-choice crowd — where “choice” is defined quite broadly.
You made that claim before and I responded to it before. To bring it up again as if nothing previously had been said is disingenuous at best. Indeed, It is quite wrong for you to abandon a conversation on this subject just a few days ago and then start it up again here as though it were all new again.
You gave no actual reasons. As I have stated “anti-abortion” is more accurately descriptive. I failed to convince you in the way you fail to convince fundamentalist christians to stop their rhetoric. I expect that by “better” you mean more prejudicial.
The fact is that when having a debate, one can either ramp up rhetoric so that people draw up battle lines and no one is listening, or one can tone down rhetoric so that the actual perspectives come through. Using highly emotional terms like “anti-choice” (or for that matter “anti-life”) are ways to ramp up the rhetoric. It is clear that those who adopt the mechanism are not interested in honest debate.
So, no, selecting a label that they would reject as inaccurate for a group of people is not a way of seeking honest debate. But, you are surrounded primarily with supporters and they will support the use. I’m sure you have reasons for your beliefs, but as long as you use inaccurate terms, you are just rallying those who already agree with you. I am willing to listen to reasons, not rhetoric. In fact, I would like to hear your reasons, but when you say “anti-choice” you describe no one but an invention of your own mind.
Comment #13.
Also addressed in comment #13
I don’t discuss that matter with fundamentalist Christians. I don’t make any effort to get them to change their terminology.
Talk about being prejudicial. I clearly stated “more accurately descriptive” and so you are misrepresenting my words deliberately. You’re the last person who should complain about the words others use.
Maybe that’s due to the very nature of being anti-choice in matters of abortion.
I could just as easily say “people who complain about the label ‘anti-choice’ are clearly not interested in honest debate.” Is that a substantive statement? Of course not - it’s just empty rhetoric designed to inflame and bully.
Depends on whether good arguments can be offered for the idea that the label is inaccurate. You can’t, so you cannot insist on this conclusion.
I honestly don’t believe you. If this were true, you’d wouldn’t consistently misrepresent others and engage in empty, inflammatory rhetoric yourself.
So long as there are people who are opposed to choice in matters of abortion, I’ll be describing people who exist outside of my own mind. If they, like you, are bothered by being reminded that they are opposed to others making choices about the state and future of their bodies, that’s not my problem.
“You made that claim before and I responded to it before.”
Your response was only to claim that it doesn’t sound like it applies more generally. Again, I defy you to find those whom you use it on that agree that it sounds restricted to the particular topic. As your respone was non-responsive, I do not regard it as a rebuttal.
The fact is the label itself introduces a concept “choices” that is more general than the topic at hand and there is no reason (if it is left unqualified) to believe its meaning to be restricted. The label does evoke imagery outside of the topic at hand and I have seen people, in supporting abortion rights, use the label and then attack based on that imagery. So, when you say that the implications of the label consist only of opposition to abortion, even when the topic at hand is abortion, I find that disingenious.
A true anti-choice crowd would be opposed to all choices, right down to what you eat for breakfast. I have not met or heard of anyone who believed that every action should be dictated (a “whatever is not forbidden is compulsory” attitude).
An additional point, since you use one label “anti-choice” to apply to all people who oppose abortion, you unfairly lump me in with people acting in a way I oppose. Even a comment similar to “There are a few people in the group that don’t believe in this,” doesn’t really change the lumping. And you are talking about two different beliefs, opposition to abortion and opposition to birth-control.
I did not say “sound.” Once again you blatantly misrepresent. In the future, I recommend that before you try to complain about the words others use, you pay closer attention to whether you are using words in an honest and accurate manner.
I don’t need to — they don’t use “pro-choice” to mean that they necessarily support choice in every an any thing else. Everyone opposes the ability to legally choose some things and supports the ability to legally choose other things. You argue that this invalidates the use of “choice,” but you are unable to explain why. You act as though the context of discussion were completely irrelevant and that’s just absurd. Were I to adopt this as a general principle, I’d never be able to use general terminology without endlessly qualifying it — and looking like a complete moron because I’d just be repeating things everyone knows based on context.
Language and communication are contextual. If you ignore context when reading words, then you aren’t really using language in an honest and serious manner.
The concept “choice” is the political issue being debated.
Talk about ramping up the inflammatory rhetoric to draw battle lines…
No more than if I use the label “American” or “human being” with you.
I know they are different. However, they are related. I explain how they are related, in particular in the question of “choice” and I make it clear that not everyone who opposes legal choices in abortion also opposes legal choices in birth control.
“I honestly don’t believe you.”
And I honestly don’t believe you when you say “anti-choice” is not meant (by you) to be a more sweeping label. Taken literally, it means an opposition to all choices, not just choices about the topic at hand. You give no actual reason to suppose an implicit restriction in meaning. You only reiterate that there is a topic at hand. That it has a broader meaning and is used in an unqualified manner is a good reason why it is a misleading term. If each use of the term were explicitly qualified, you could reasonably assert that the term was not misleading. You claim that the term is fair because you speak of people who are “anti-choice with regard to the topic of abortion,” but then generally use the term “anti-choice” without such an explanation.
“If this were true, you’d wouldn’t consistently misrepresent others and engage in empty, inflammatory rhetoric yourself.”
Example please. I would love to know what I have said that you consider a misrepresentation.
“If they, like you, are bothered by being reminded that they are opposed to others making choices about the state and future of their bodies, that’s not my problem.”
I am bothered by being accused of opposing people making choices of whether to eat a salad or a sandwich. I have been so accused, in conjunction with the “anti-choice” label. This is a demonstration that it has been used (in an abortion “debate”) more broadly than the topic of abortion. To suggest that I should not consider how the term has been used before is quite unfair. I am not in any way bothered by being reminded that I oppose a choice ostensibly over someone’s own body that kills another. I am quite comfortable with opposing a choice like that. So, by all means, remind me of the choice I actually oppose.
And that quote from you is my example of what I consider as rhetoric and a misrepresentation from you.
I believe it is called, “spin”. Example: If I am anti choice, then,I will say that I am pro life which would be the same as saying that my opponent is pro death. Tracie, you read me right about pro power in place of anti choice. THEY want all the power. But, I suspect that my attempt at sarcasm kind of went over your head?
Only if you pretend that context is irrelevant - something not done by anyone interested in honest debate.
Actually, I’ve repeated it numerous times. I’ve even pointed you to where I’ve given my reason.
You act like that’s an unusual situation for you when engaged in conversation.
I don’t believe that you are unable or unwilling to take context into consideration when interpreting words. I’m sure you do it all the time, so that can’t be your problem here. The only problem I see is that it highlights the fact that the political debate is over whether a particular choice should be legally permitted. So long as that does remain the political and legal issue, though, labels which differentiate between those opposed to choice and those supporting choice are the most accurate ones (aside, perhaps, from pro- and anti-criminalization).
I’ve pointed it out when you’ve done it and I don’t need to do it again — you’re able to scroll up and see.
Only if you pretend that the meaning of words is not determined in part by the context and topic of conversation. People interested in honest debate don’t do this.
The word “ostensibly” means “outwardly appearing as such; professed; pretended.” Ergo, you are saying that abortion is only a “professed or pretend choice over one’s own body,” that it only “outwardly appears to be a choice over one’s own body.” I wonder if you can defend the idea that a person choosing to have an abortion isn’t actually making a genuine choice about their own body.
“I don’t need to — they don’t use ‘pro-choice’ to mean that they necessarily support choice in every an any thing else. Everyone opposes the ability to legally choose some things and supports the ability to legally choose other things. You argue that this invalidates the use of ‘choice,’ but you are unable to explain why.”
I say it invalidates using unqualified terms like “pro-choice” and “anti-choice” because it suggests support/opposition to a broader concept (choices in general). You may disagree with my assertion that it evokes the imagery, but I have given a reason.
“I did not say ’sound.’”
No, as I recall the words you used were “have the implication”. I am not pulling it back up for a verbatim quote, so you may just have used the word “imply”. The meaning of the assertion is the same in any case. It refers to what someone hearing you is likely to regard you as saying when you use the term.
If that is your idea of a misrepresentation on my part, that I chose a different word (and you didn’t say how you thought it changed the meaning), then I would say that you are grasping.
“Talk about ramping up the inflammatory rhetoric to draw battle lines…”
If I were using my argument against the term “anti-choice” to state something like “therefore there is no reason to support abortion”, then yes. As it stands, I use it only to try to get you to remove the term. The term “choice” implies various types of choices, from what to eat to whether to go on a rampage. I correctly state that the term is inherently broad. You state that the word “choice” only brings to mind choices about the political topic at hand. I disagree.
With all the semantic related arguing…
Considering the fact that those Oh, so loving and kind…”Life is such a Wonderful Gift”, “Pro-Life” fundie types are so intent on dragging EVERYONE ELSE’S fetuses into the world; no matter what possible terrible birth defects might be involved…
I prefer to call them “Pro-STRIFERS”. And they just LOVE to poke their noses into everyone elses private life. They’re so “Know it All”, of course…from their biblical mumbo-jumbo, ancient mythology! [Of course; once they’re born…why…they’re on their own, regarding any lifetime medical costs etc.]
Here’s something from Freedom From Religion Foundation on that Bible (Babble?) subject:
http://ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php
None of them, of course, ever mention…or RATIONALLY deal with…the reality of the oh-so-common abortion…called “MISCARRIAGE”! That’s OK to them, of course; those are GOD’S ABORTIONS!
And if it weren’t for Science, of course, most, if not all, premature babies would not survive; and women who, by “Gord’s Nature”; who can’t conceive normally, would not be giving birth to quintuplets…or litters…of little blessings!
Talk about “Playing God”…yeah…however…I guess, the invisible Sky Daddy just LOVES to watch all the suffering and arguing. He’s the “Infinite Voyeur”, after all…erm…just like Santa Claus!
“Hey Gord!…did I wipe my a$$ OK? By the way…did Jeebus ever get Sh*t on his middle finger? And…Did he, perhaps, use…
leaves?…HUH?…Oh, I forgot…he was poifect!” (He probably used one of Judas’ extra robes!) Sheesh!
Then there’s that little unproven, and unmentioned, religious ’shadow’ item related to “Ensoulment”; which I think Austin has touched upon previously.
OK…’nough already! Just my little old opinion, after all!
You keep asserting this, but you don’t support it. Furthermore, I don’t think you really believe it. If you did, you’d object to the use of otherwise general terminology in any political context. You’d object to the use of “decriminalization” in drug policy debates because it suggests support for the decriminalizing things generally, not just drugs. You’d object to the use of “abolitionist” in capital punishment debates because it suggests support for abolishing criminal penalties in general. You’d object to the use of “amnesty” in immigration policy debates because it suggests support of amnesty for criminals generally.
I don’t think you do that, though. No one does that — people stop making such arguments when they are about five or six:
Sometimes ignoring the context of words can make for a clever joke. It never makes for a valid political argument.
I would recommend that you take the time to check quotes before you pretend to quote people. I didn’t use the words “imply” or “implication” any more than I used “sound” — and they don’t mean the same in any case. To say that something “doesn’t sound like it applies more generally” merely expresses a vague personal opinion; to state that something “doesn’t have that implication” is to make a specific, objective claim.
Actually, two conclusions are suggest, neither of which include me grasping: first, you don’t put in the effort necessary to check quotes before pretending to cite them and base arguments off them; second, your understanding of English isn’t very strong.
Only if you pretend that context doesn’t affect meaning. If that’s the case, then you aren’t interested in serious, honest discussion because no one could ever effectively communicate if they took such a principle consistently. In other words, if you are trying to apply the principle here, you are only doing it here and only for partisan, personal reasons.
Ron:
I reject the terms “pro-life” and “anti-life” for the very reason you mention. I find the terms “abortion-rights supporter” (or “abortion-rights activist”) and “anti-abortion” to be descriptive without applying a spin. Incidentally, if you were to accept that the fact that the topic of abortion restricts meanings (as Austin Cline claims) it would mean that the term is equally accurate.
But I have been arguing against using spin, as I find that it distracts from the actual issue.
Austin Cline:
I object to the unqualified terms. Even when discussing drugs, I would speak of “decriminalization of drugs.”
I have stated before that in discussing abortion, some people use the term “anti-choice” and then use a false example of denying someone a choice agreed to be innocuous. As that meaning is used in the context of discussing abortion, the term carries that meaning in the context of abortion. But I have stated that before and you ignore it claiming I have given no reason to object to the term.
The mother and kid example doesn’t really work as the actual response of the parent is likely to be on the order of “You know I want you to go to bed at this time. I shouldn’t have to spell it out for you.”
Context distinguishes between multiple meanings of words that have multiple meanings. It does not alter the meaning of words with single fixed meanings. It is also the case that, in arguments, people do accuse a stance on one issue to come from a wider stance. In the abortion debate people do make the accusation that the opposition to abortion comes from a general opposition to allowing people to make choices for themselves. I have seen the accusation made explicitly, but the normal dictionary meaning of the term “anti-choice” covers the broader position.
>I just want to clarify. Are you saying that all animal cruelty laws should be removed from the books. Laws stating that you cannot be cruel to your own animal are, arguably, a legislation of morality.
I’m not saying anyone should do anything. I’m just pointing out that morality is not law. They are two different things. Morality is how I feel about a thing and determines my personal behavior; it cannot be imparted to someone else via force. Law is about smooth operation of society and may or may not cross over into someone’s morality. If it does so, that’s not because they are suddenly the same thing.
The Constitution provides for individual human liberty. It might not be pretty, but make of that what you will.
Regarding animal cruetly, there are links between human behavior toward animals and human behavior toward people. Someone may use this as a reason to oversee animal treatment. Animal rights are a tenuous thing under the Constitution, however. It’s difficult to legislate humane animal treatment in a society that condones eating animals and treating them as a commodity/resource.
All sorts of regimes have laws that I may or may not personally view as moral. The U.S. has laws I may or may not view as moral. Law and morality are not interchangable and should not be confused.
>No, it carries the assumption that the legitmacy of the action is not in question and so a general opposition to choices.
Actually, those who are anti-choice make the assumption there’s no question but that the action is murder. The choice side accepts it’s totally in question. In fact, they accept that it’s _so much_ in question that nobody can’t make a determination for someone else.
>In just the same manner a wife-beater might say “Nobody is going to force anyone to beat his wife.”
You did not read my post closely. I addressed this: “He compared it to slavery; but I contended it was more along the lines of animal rights. While slave owners certainly made claims about African Americans–that they couldn’t be educated for example–those claims about why African Americans were not “people” could be observed to be false. We clearly had a case of humans infringing on the rights of other humans. Whereas with animal rights, there is no consensus about how someone should view other species: friends, food, nothing? I can’t dictate to other people whether or not they should feel that other species are equal to their own.”
You are missing that an uncontested individual infringing on the rights of another uncontested individual is not the same as an uncontested individual infringing on X—which is a very much contested individual. Your analogy is not applicable because nobody disputes the husband and the wife are both individuals with personhood. But nobody agrees that a fetus has personhood—that’s a personal judgment call each individual must make for him/herself.
> There is no “anti-choice crowd”. I defy anyone to find people who apply the label to themselves.
I didn’t say they apply it to themselves. I don’t believe that’s relevant. If they deny what they do—does that mean they aren’t actually doing it? I’m calling them anti-choice because they are anti-choice. And you have failed to illustrate I’m wrong in my assessment—even though I took pains to elaborate on my logic for the label. You are asking the label not be used, but you’re not explaining why.
You indicated “anti-abortion” would be a better description. But I disagree. A person can be anti-abortion, and not try to take away someone else’s choice. If they were just anti-abortion, I wouldn’t have a problem with them. The problem occurs with those who are “anti-abortion” when they begin to try to remove the ability of others to choose whether or not THEY want to be anti-abortion. It’s the choice issue causing the contention—not their stance on abortion.
Adrian: Just fyi, I would be OK with “anti-abortion-choice” as a label–if that helps?
>Actually, there have been societies that denied a person as an individual until well after birth.
I forgot to reply to this. I agree and am aware. In fact Hebrews didn’t even accept birth as personhood.
I’m talking in terms of the U.S. and the Constitution–where the abortion debate is happening. I didn’t mean to imply this covers the whole world for all time–and it is fair of you to ask for clarification of that.
“What does eliminating contraceptive funding for Planned Parenthood have to do with abortion? Nothing
What does voting against taxpayer-funded contraception have to do with abortion? Nothing
What does opposing emergency contraception have to do with abortion? Nothing”
It sounds to me like they oppose all of those things because they believe those things to be murder, which is the same reason they oppose abortion.
411314: That’s a fair point as well. Maybe “Anti-Reproductive-Choice” is a more accurate label?
Tracieh:
The term “anti-abortion-choice” is quite acceptable as I find nothing misleading in it.
I read your post closely enough. The general form “Nobody is making you do X,” does not address whether there are reasons why X should be banned.
You had said, “Once someone is born, it’s a no-brainer.” My point was that it is not a “no-brainer” but simply a legal decree. Legal decrees are disputed and sometimes changed.
“That’s a fair point as well. Maybe ‘Anti-Reproductive-Choice’ is a more accurate label?”
That is a different view. I oppose abortion. I am in favor of contraceptive methods and think they should be more readily available, so “anti-reproductive-choice” would be inaccurate if applied to me.
It is false that they are descriptive without applying spin because it’s possible to be anti-abortion but also an abortion-rights supporter. People who are anti-choice sometimes like these terms because it creates a situation in which they can pretend that debate over the appropriateness or morality of abortion necessarily decides that political/legal status of abortion, which is the actual question at issue.
You’d be the only one who never uses “decriminalization” in an unqualified manner. Indeed, you’d be the only person who uses general terms that are always qualified. In biology, people use “evolution” all the time even though they actually mean it in a specialized sense.
Yes, you have made that claim, but you have never even attempted to establish that it is enough of a problem to make a difference. The existence of even occasional errors in this regard has not been established to be a reason to qualify the term every time it comes up. Creationists treat “evolution” in a broad way and that hasn’t become a reason for biologists to qualify their ever use of the term “evolution,” even when debating creationists.
That’s precisely why it works here because that’s been my response to you all along: you know that context helps determine the meaning of words and you shouldn’t need every term qualified every time they are used.
Indeed. “Choice” can mean many things, but the context of debates about abortion distinguishes what choice is meant: the choice to have an abortion.
The issue has not always been about a womans right to have control over her body. It was in the 1960’s when my wife and I decided that we had all the children we wanted, and our decision was that I would have a vasectomy. You would not believe the trouble I went to, to find a doctor who had the courage to do it. Then, it was after hours in his office, behind locked doors without the benefit of adequate anesthetic. This is when I started to become aware of religious power. It is why I was being sarcastic in an earlier post. In other words, I had a feeling that the Pope was poking his pious nose into my business.
>I read your post closely enough. The general form “Nobody is making you do X,” does not address whether there are reasons why X should be banned.
Correct. But in the case of abortion, there is no consensus about the reasons given that it should be banned–it rests on personal opinion without verification. It’s purely subjective when you consider X to have attained personhood on the level of when the Constitution should recognize their right to life.
Your analogy applied more to telling people they can’t smoke in their own homes than telling people they can’t have slaves. The Constitution makes slave ownership problematic even in its earliest form (which eventually became one of the factors leading to the Civil War), and bans it outright later on, when it recognizes people are equal without regard to race, sex, etc. This is not the case for embryos.
Your analogy does make a your point that just because I don’t force someone to do X, doesn’t make X somehow healthy/unhealthy for society. But if there is not sufficient evidence to illustrate X is unhealthy for society—except in some individual’s highly subjective opinions, and not at all in an objective, verifiable way—then there is not cause to ban X. In fact, there is clear cause that smoking causes social harm—-but we still don’t ban it, because the harm caused is not considered sufficient to infringe upon individual rights/freedoms provided by the Constitution. So, it’s not just showing harm-—but showing harm on the level that it requires an activity must be banned to ensure public order or public safety. (For example banning smoking in public places vs. in someone’s own home–to lessen the potential harmful impact on nonsmokers.)
We do legislate mores for this reason. In fact public decency laws are based mainly on mores. The idea is that if people go out naked it would cause a public disturbance (as an example) and society just isn’t quite ready for that–even though walking naked doesn’t conflict with anyone’s rights. The Constitution also ensures things beyond rights–such as promotion of the general welfare and domestic tranquility. These things must balance with the rights of individuals. However, our decency laws have waned significantly over the last 100 years—because it takes quite a lot to really freak out a whole community (luckily, in my opinion) to the level they’ll lose public order. AND it takes quite a lot for the courts to accept an infringement upon individual rights and liberties. The anti-abortion/reproductive-choice movement has so far failed to come up with any verification of their claim that we all must veiw eight cells as constitutionally protected under U.S. Law.
I also considered further your question on animal welfare and had to note that without being familiar with the arguments for/against the treatment of animals, I couldn’t say if the laws should stand. But I can say I don’t support that any law should stand on “it violates my morality.” The U.S. is not to be confused with Tracie-topia. A much better, more Constitutionally supported argument MUST be presented. If the argument is from personal morality–that’s simply not sufficient justification to pass a law. Even if I “feel” like something is right—that is in no way sufficient cause on its own to impose that view/behavior onto anyone else. For many years, I did not eat meat, because I sincerely believed “meat is murder.” However, I was completely aware that this was based on how I personally viewed other species at the time–and that for others who did NOT view other species on the same level, it was NOT murder. Others had the same information I had, but were not personally convinced by it that animals should be treated like people with regard to the right to life. Now, years later, I hold a different view and I don’t think animals have a right to life. If I did, I’d have to condemn every predator as a “murderer.” I see it differently now. It’s a subjective judgement call. And even when it violated my morality–it was still a subjective judgment call. How I personally “feel” about it cannot be included in the “reasons” why I think something should affect other people. It can only apply to _me_.
>That is a different view. I oppose abortion. I am in favor of contraceptive methods and think they should be more readily available, so “anti-reproductive-choice” would be inaccurate if applied to me.
But it does apply to the group that is organized and politically actively opposing abortion. I addressed a group. I can’t reasonably be expected to come up with labels for every individual view of this issue–since there is almost no consensus on every aspect of it. However, if you personally are anti-abortion-choice then I wouldn’t expect you to accept the anti-reproductive-choice label for yourself—-however I do think there is sufficient cause to apply it to the movement to which I am politically opposed. The view that only abortion should be affected is not the view of the American Family Association and the many other major groups who are actively rallying for laws to restrict abortion. I do agree that you don’t have to be on board with their entire agenda to accept a portion of it. But at least be aware of what your support is actually being lent to, politically, when you become active in trying to ban abortion.
>The anti-abortion/reproductive-choice movement has so far failed to come up with any verification of their claim that we all must veiw eight cells as constitutionally protected under U.S. Law.
I should add to this that in addition to proving the embryo’s right to life, they would also have to prove that the embryo’s rights usurp the rights of the mother. Currently, to do so would give the embryo more rights than a recognized human child that has actually been born.
Any mother, for example, can legally deny her child a kidney donation even if her child will die as a result. A mother is not legally compelled to donate any part of her body to save her own child’s life.
So, the problem of the woman’s right to her own body versus the embryo’s right to life would still pose a problem even if the embryo’s right to life could somehow be indisputably established.
This is why I pointed out above that the real debate is over “choice” - the ability of women to legally and safely choose to have an abortion - and not over the relative morality of abortion, appropriateness of abortion, a right to life, etc. Those debates are all relevant to the political and legal question of choice, but answers to those debates don’t force any particular answer to the debate over choice.
This is why “pro-choice” and “anti-choice” are not only accurate, but also so very relevant. They cut right to the heart of what divides people over the political issue of abortion: do you favor or oppose choice? The only more accurate labels might be “anti-criminalization” and “pro-criminalization,” since the question of choice comes down to whether abortion is made a crime or not. It may be an obvious point, but not always obvious enough because many of those who favor criminalization don’t seem to have through the point through and can’t explain what sorts of criminal penalties they’d impose on women who break anti-abortion laws.
However, because such labels would serve to highlight a serious problem with anti-choice activists, they would actually be susceptible to the accusation that they are used in part to score rhetorical points. I don’t think that it’s mere “rhetorical points” to note that people haven’t seriously thought through the implications of their own beliefs and of the laws they want to see imposed on the entire nation, but it’s not necessarily an issue that needs to pointed out in labels themselves.
Do note that Adrian regards a woman’s ability to determine whether she remain pregnant or not as an “ostensible choice over one’s own body.” I don’t think he’s alone in treating a woman’s choice here as not being a “real” choice. I don’t know if Adrian agrees with them or not, but Christian Right leaders have tried to argue that women having an abortion are being forced into it by other or are literally mentally impaired. It’s just another attempt to weasel out of the fact that “choice” is the issue and that these people are trying to deny women the right to decide what happens to their own bodies.
Tracieh:
Interesting train of thought. However, abortion methods that dismember the “fetus” constitute a direct attack on the life form and not just a denial of access to the mother.
There is also a post-birth analogy. As infants breast-feed, starving a newborn could be construed as merely a denial-of-access. If the “fetus” were legally recognized as having the right to live, the parallel would likely be considered.
Still, your suggestion is new; and I will add it to my considerations.
Austin Cline:
Here I don’t know whether you misunderstood me or are diliberately misrepresenting. I will clarify.
I am in no way asserting that the choice is a fake choice, but rather that it is a choice over the body of another — the “fetus” — as opposed to being genuinely over the woman’s own body.
You don’t need to clarify. I understood you and your “clarification” represents exactly what I described. You are, however, misrepsenting me:
I didn’t say you were. I wrote:
Note the bold-faced text. They create “context.” I didn’t say you made a general assertion that the choice is “pretend” or “fake,” but rather that abortion doesn’t involve a genuine choice about one’s own body. That it might involve a genuine choice of some other sort not only doesn’t change this, it in fact reinforces the accuracy of my description of your position.
Is it just a coincidence that this involves context transforming a general statement into something much more specific?
So, you are denying that it involves a choice over the women’s own body. In other words, it is a “pretend choice” about the woman’s own body.
Only if killing an infant is the only way for the mother to deny access to her body. Courts cannot force a woman to breast feed, but they can punish her for refusing to turn the infant over to others who will feed it. Turning over the infant to others does not deny the woman an ability to make decisions about her own body and life.
Adrian:
My point wasn’t that there’s no possible way to argue it–I’m merely pointing out that even if “right to life” if granted, that isn’t a resolution to the abortion rights issue. That doesn’t automatically negate the mother’s right to remove the embryo/fetus. And using a proactive method does not automatically tip the scales.
However, if you are anti-abortion-choice, then the method actually has no bearing according to you–you’re against it now matter how the procedure is performed. So, it would be disingenuous, for anyone with your stance, at least, to argue that this somehow has any bearing.
I forgot to address breast feeding. Many mothers don’t breast feed and there is no law requiring them to even try. Starving a person in your care to death is sometimes allowed in this nation (Chiavo). Parents are considered to have obligations under the law, however, to the children for whom they accept care–but they are not legally obliged to donate their body parts in the way a pregnant woman is being told she’d have to oblige an embryo.
I also don’t mean to drag this discussion off into a ditch. My intention was not to start a hypothetical discussion based on an assumption of “what if we could establish an embryo has a right to life…?” That’s a quagmire–and unproductive, I will admit, since the premise has to first be established for such a discussion to actually be meaningful.
Sorry if I unintentionally derailed anything at this thread.
Austin:
“I don’t think he’s alone in treating a woman’s choice here as not being a ‘real’ choice.”
Those are your exact words. I used a qualifer and you did not. The actual context of your statement reinforces the plain language that you are claiming I am denying something to have been a choice at all, as opposed to what the choice was about.
Tracieh:
“However, if you are anti-abortion-choice, then the method actually has no bearing according to you–you’re against it now matter how the procedure is performed. So, it would be disingenuous, for anyone with your stance, at least, to argue that this somehow has any bearing.”
Except that my views are always subject to possible change given new information. (Anything else would be dogmatic, and many people on all sides of the issue are dogmatic.) My opposition to abortion isn’t even absolute. I would not extend protection to blastocytes, because (based on a lack of nerve endings) I do not believe they can feel pain.
So, I don’t start with an opposition to abortion and try to make all my other beliefs fit that. I am opposed to abortion (in general case) because it fits the information I have. So, if it becomes a case of conflicting rights, method may be important.
This is also why I read perspectives other than my own. I know that I will sometimes find information that I had not previously considered. Sometimes it serves to alter my own perspective.
>Except that my views are always subject to possible change given new information.
This is reasonable. I was using the “anti-abortion-choice” label we’d agreed to earlier. But I respect anyone can adjust their views at any point. Only, I may not be aware they have done so.
And you are ignoring the context of my original comment, which I graciously quoted for you.
So, it wasn’t a coincidence.
This thread may be dead now it has dropped off the main page, but it sounds like your concern is less about personhood and rights and more about your feelings of compassion regarding the potential for an unborn to feel pain”
>I would not extend protection to blastocytes, because (based on a lack of nerve endings) I do not believe they can feel pain.
(Unless I’m misreading this.)
If this is the case, you may not be anti-abortion at all. You may simply be something more along the lines of “anti-pain-to an unborn.”
I take stray and feral cats to a local vet who will spay regardless of the cat’s pregnancy status. He has spayed for me on at least one occasion where he told me the unborns were perhaps only one day away from birth. At first I felt badly about this; then he said: “When I anesthetize the cat, the drug kills the kittens–they’re not alive when she’s spayed.” And I felt much better.
If pain is your issue then I wouldn’t call you anti-abortion, because if the pain were subverted, you wouldn’t mind the abortion. The abortion or the unborn’s right to life are not issues for you in that case.
Now, it could be that pain is only one factor, and you have other factors that are also relevant. You did also note:
>I am opposed to abortion (in general case) because it fits the information I have.
I don’t know if that was a reference to the information you have about nerves/pain–or if that includes other information that you simply didn’t get into at this point.
Anyway–_IF_you’d allow abortions so long as they were guaranteed pain-free for the unborn, then an anti-abortion or anti-choice label on you would be pretty misleading as most people would consider that you have some stance on Constitutional personhood. And perhaps you do not?
I cannot even believe that this debate is going on in these modern times in the USA. Freedom is the most important thing there is. Why are we debating whether women have freedom or not?
If the anti-choice (that is what they are, like it or not) crowd had their way, our country would be stricken with even more poverty as people would have more children than they can afford. Morality is up to the individual, not the fundies and not the government. Make your own choices and leave others alone.
Education is the real answer here. Girls and boys need to be taught about proper contraceptives and encouraged to use them. I’m not sure what is so hard about that concept. Fundies seem to have a lot of hang ups with sex. Maybe they just have self esteem issues and need therapy?