Pro-choice, Pro-life no more
Often in the past, as a simple courtesy, I would use the common phraseology in the abortion debate. Those for legal abortions I'd call "pro-choice," those against I'd call "pro-life."
Not any more. I was being overly-polite. Too politically-correct.
There is nuance on the abortion question. Back when I considered myself "pro-life," the people I had most respect for were those that were "pro-choice" but who also agreed that Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in all fifty states, was wrongly decided.
Wouldn't you know it, that is my position today. I do not believe the State has jurisdiction over a woman's body or over transactions between consenting adults. But I also know that the federal Constitution doesn't bar states from outlawing abortion, just as it doesn't bar them from doing all sorts of things that I disagree with. I do not pretend that my ideological preferences are the same as valid Constitutional law. I am more convinced that Roe was a poor decision, then I am with my own personal position on abortion.
The problems with "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is that they are loaded terms with implications far beyond abortion. In the theoretical world of libertarian thought, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" retains some merit, because both sides argue from many shared assumptions. But in the larger world of Democratic v. Republican politics, both words are hopelessly misleading and hypocritical. The reality is, Republicans are not "pro-life," they are "anti-abortion." And Democrats are not "pro-choice," they are "pro-abortion."
The Republican Party, and its conservative base, should not be offended by the switch from "pro-life" to "anti-abortion." Are they ashamed or embarrassed by being "anti-abortion?" Of course not. What "pro-life" does, is create confusion. Leftists throw the term back in their faces. "Pro-life? Than why aren't you for single-payer health care? Why are you for the death penalty? Or for the war on Iraq? Why do some of you want to even nuke the entire Middle East?"
The other problem is that, it seems to me, the anti-abortion crowd is confused as to what it really wants. Would both woman and abortionist be guilty of Murder One, even for early-term abortions? In all cases? I think it is closer to the truth that they are genuinely troubled by abortion, think it is an obscene form of birth control, and disagree with Roe. But relatively few have thought through what they would really want an anti-abortion law to look like. What would be the specific penalties? What exceptions, if any? I suspect that when push comes to shove, most people hate abortion as obscene and unnatural, but would not elevate all fertilized eggs to the status of a born citizen with full civil rights. Very few are consistently "pro-life;" rather, most are merely "anti-abortion" in most cases.
The rhetorical confusion is even worse with Democrats. Democrats, by and large, are not pro-choice on anything, except abortion. What you eat, what drugs you take, how you defend yourself, how you educate your own children, how much you earn, how much you pay employees - none of that falls into the realm of "choice" for most Democrats. They are rather, objects for State legislation. Abortion is about the only "choice" they would allow people, and even then it's not much of a choice, because Democrats want abortions to be funded by taxpayers. They would have the young women who don't get pregnant, see part of their paychecks confiscated to pay for the abortions of those who do get pregnant. Democrats would deny young women the "choice" to refuse to pay for the abortions of others.
If Democrats wanted abortion to remain legal, but wouldn't have the government pay for abortions, and if they would allow women (and the rest of us) greater control over their lives and bodies on other issues, they might rightfully be called "pro-choice." But they're not pro-choice. Their actions instead reflects instead that they believe abortion to be an objective good so important as to compel taxpayers to subsidize it.
Yes, there are people who are consistently pro-life. And their are those who are consistently pro-choice (which I consider myself to be). But their numbers are small, or their power is virtually nil. So let's be more accurate. Most self-described "pro-lifers" are merely anti-abortion, not pro-life, and most self-described "pro-choicers" are really pro-abortion, not pro-choice. So let's call them by their real names: anti-abortion, pro-abortion.
13 Comments:
Very interesting post, James. I think there is a great deal of merit to your argument that many on both polar sides are inconsistent with their own arguments.
Personally, I'm agnostic on the issue of abortion. I see some merits to both side's arguments and have yet to reconcile them into a cohesive whole because they're seemingly contradictory.
The one position which I am most comfortable with is the one expounded by the Seventh Day Adventist Church, and presumably by many other fellow evangelical Churches. Which is that of opposing abortion as a means of birth control but recognizing that principled exceptions can be made (ie. abortions performed) for rape, incest and where the life of the prospective mother is genuinely at risk. That would allow for some abortions and would not label them in a kneejerk manner as immoral, while not allowing arguably the bulk of abortions performed.
I'm not saying that I'd want that to be the law of the land per se. It is, after all, based on a religious viewpoint and I do NOT want civil laws being based on narrow religious interpretations. Rather it's a position which causes me no discomfort when I ponder it's moral and ethical implications... necessarily being viewed thru my own personal moral and ethical views, of course.
A couple years ago I approached this issue from what I think is a unique perspective: here. My primary goal was to test the allegiance of both sides to their own rhetoric by pushing an issue which I felt would force them to examine their own assumptions and beliefs.
Lets call them by there REAL names:
Pro-Life and Pro -Death.
The issue has far more to do than with just abortion. It has to do with on the most basic level: life and death. One group is for the promotion of life, the other for the right to kill the unborn.
I agree. They should be called pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
Barring that, we should use the groups' preferred names for themselves: pro-choice and pro-life.
Time Magazine, however, has given up all pretense of neutrality, and now uses "anti-choice" to disparage the anti-abortion side.
I'm gonna have to take issue with this whole idea of abortions being funded by tax-payer dollars.
I hate to break it to you, but you do really get to decide where your tax dollars go, and I hardly see why abortion should be the exception. It is really all or nothing.
Why should people who are extremely anti-war have their tax dollars goto funding wars? Why should people who are for the legalization of drugs have to pay for the drug war?
As I said, it is either all or nothing. So either there are no exceptions when it comes to tax-payer funded policies or everyone can pick and choose what they wish to fund with their taxes.
**you do really = you don't really**
OF COURSE I don't get to decide where my tax dollars go. But I can state my preference. As I wrote at Independent Country a couple of days ago: No prohibition, no subsidy.
As I said. It is either all or nothing. I tend to think that a person SHOULD be able to decide where their tax dollars go. But I do not think only certain issues, such as abortion should have this exception.
It is either all or nothing.
I don't understand what you're saying. A candidate or political party can easily say, "We support the freedom to have abortions, but the government will not pay for them." I didn't think I was suggesting that each person individually gets the right to select where his taxes go. That didn't enter my mind at all.
But what makes abortion so different that it should be an exception? Certain people don't want to have their taxes go towards it, fine. I don't want my taxes going to the Iraq War then. Why do anti-abortion people seem to have more pull?
This post has been removed by the author.
I do not understand DV's point at all. I believe, for instance, that the National Endowment for the Arts should be abolished. "Oh, no, you can't say that. Don't be ridiculous! You can't pick and choose where your taxes go! It's all or nothing!"
What does that mean, "all or nothing?" I believe the budget item which pays for abortion should be deleted. I believe a lot of budget items should be deleted.
FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, I'm not suggesting, and never did, that we have the right to pick and choose individually where are taxes go. But to say where they ought to go is as valid as saying what ought to be legal. I want marijuana to be legal, but I don't want government to subsidize it. I want abortion to be legal, but I don't want government to subsidize it.
Let me simplify.
Why should I have to pay for a bullshit, illegal war, that was built on lies then?
If your argument is that abortion is not discussed in the Constitution, then neither are illegal wars that are built on lies. My all or nothing statement applies to all issues that aren't outlined in the Constitution.
Following this logic, if taxes shouldn't be going towards abortion, then taxes shouldn't be going to illegal wars built on lies such as the Iraq war.
Well, yeah. We also shouldn't be paying for illegal wars. We shouldn't be paying for a lot of things. Including abortion.
The point being, however, that "pro-choicers" are actually anti-choice if they believe abortions should be funded by the government.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home