But I digress.
Language is crucial; it is a backbone; it is an infrastructure; it is a box. It not only communicates ideas from person to person, it forces those persons to think about ideas in certain ways. This was the lesson we learned from Master Orwell in that novel of novels, 1984.
So it is important not only that we use language precisely and delicately to communicate our own ideas, but also that we understand the control that language has over us when other people are telling us things.
And thus, my point: the language of abortion has long been dictated by those who are "pro-abortion."
I intentionally refuse "pro-choice." This changes the nature of the debate. When we talk about "pro-choice" we no longer talk about life and death, but we talk about choice, marginalized groups (women), and freedom. An attack on "pro-choice" is an attack on choice and on freedom.
Again, I refuse this. I refuse the "pro-choice" designation, because we ARE talking about life and death. We are talking, more specifically, about the life and death of people. We are talking, as per my last post, about human rights.
To take it a step further, I think "abortion," "pro-abortion," and "anti-abortion" may be too euphemistic, too sugar-coated. Abortion is a technical word for an act of murder. Passion and emotion are lost in this technicality. Our sense of life and death are lost in this technicality. Most tragically, millions of humans are lost in this technicality.
Our ability to feel horror at the massive tragedies happening in Sudan, Cambodia, Uganda, etc., comes from the descriptions we hear of them: "genocide," "mass-rape," "mass-murder." Our inability to feel rage at the senseless murder of tens of millions of human beings comes from the descriptions we hear of it: "abortion," "an act of choice."
This is why I refuse these words. I refuse to couch my argument in the terms of my opponent. Maybe a more appropriate label for abortion would be "pre-birth infanticide," as I have heard it described before. Certainly it is murder. Certainly it is genocide. Certainly, it is a crime. Certainly, a marginalized group, with no voice, is being oppressed by a dominant group that holds all power in the situation.
I feel I can go even further. Those who perpetrate these crimes are thus criminals. We can place them in the same category as Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin. This was something of the point of my last post, so I'll go no further.
Basically, I'm just trying to say that using "pro-choice" language is like trying to paint a sunset with a pencil someone else handed you. It fails to capture the utter magnitude of the situation.
19 comments:
I agree with you 100% I also refuse to use the word pro-choice or anit-choice. It is Pro-Abortion.
I wish I could express it as well as you do.
Love your MIL
Robin
But isn't the word "pro-choice" used to help signify that those who support it don't necessarily think that abortion is a good thing that they like having happen? Isn't this what Obama is trying to clarify when he says, "No one is pro-abortion?" Since you are talking about being precise with your words, this is an important distinction that should not be nullified by over-drawn rhetoric on your own side. Perhaps you ought to use the label "pro-option-for-pre-birth-infanticide." But that's probably too long, which is why the terminology "pro-choice" will prevail (unless you can create a shortened form that includes the nuance your present formulation leaves out).
Dear Anonymous,
Thanks for your comments and questions. I appreciate any comment that people leave on here. Who are you? I’d like to respond even though I don’t know who you are, if I may, and if I misinterpret or misrepresent something you intended, please feel free to correct me.
I do not think that “pro-choice” is meant to “signify those who support [abortion] don’t necessarily think that abortion is a good thing.” I take it to signify people who want women retain control over their bodies even when this means the death of another person.
I do, however, agree with you that not all people who label themselves as “pro-choice” are pleased with every abortion that happens. Unfortunately, this vague feeling of theirs does not very often translate into pro-life (using the term here not as the ideological position but as a simple modifier to the following noun) action, namely (as the least possible action, among others) voting for those candidates who would improve the current situation regarding abortions.
Further, “not being pleased” with all abortions is a bit weak. It’s like saying “I am not pleased that there are murders in my hometown. A few of them should stop.”
I must also disagree with Senator Obama when he says that “no one is pro-abortion.” The most apparent pro-abortionists are those who profit from the business of abortion-- doctors, nurses, abortion clinics, etc. There is also political profit to be made from being pro-abortion; some people will vehemently deny the vote to pro-lifers in the same way that others vehemently deny the vote to pro-abortionists.
I do not feel or think my rhetoric is over-drawn. Abortion does not deserve “nuance.” There is no subtlety in life and death. There are no shades of grey. You are either dead or you are alive. Pre-born humans are either allowed to live, they die of natural causes, or they are killed in the womb. This is why I don’t think there’s any room to allow pro-abortion nuance in my words. When pro-abortionists start allowing more people to live, I will start allowing their nuance into my words.
Also, the “pro-choice” label categorically disallows nuance for pro-life. It references the wrong debate, as I have said before—the debate of whether a woman should have control over “her own body” or not. This is not the debate that is crucial: sorry to beat a dead horse, but the crucial debate is whether or not an unborn person lives or dies.
Finally, to return to my original argument, I point out again that I do not think it fair or fitting for pro-abortionists to define the terms of the discussion. As unfitting as it would be for sportscasters to describe a “homerun” in a baseball game as a “touchdown,” it is far more consequential that we describe accurately the debate about the killing of unborn people. I think it largely an issue of language that so many people have such soft opinions on such mass tragedy, and I want to awaken the notion of what is actually going on while we are discussing the “control women have over their own bodies.”
jared I don't think it would be possible for you to be more dead on right. Language is so very important in this debate and the use of the right terms literally means the difference between life and death. By the way, the American people's general lack of critical thinking on any issue, much less this one, is what has caused some of us to be duped by politicians like Barack Obama, who in the last debate was able to lie directly to the public on national television and say that he did not vote against the baby born alive act in IL when he very clearly did. Barack Obama doesn't want less abortions or more abortions, my suspicion is that his thoughts on the matter have been little more than "what can I say in order to obtain the maximum number of votes"; to exhibit this claim I need only point the reader to his comment at the Saddleback forum when he said that he respected a baby's life from the moment of conception, then went on to say that he also wanted to fight for a woman's right to kill that human being... it doesn't get more ridiculous than that.
I honestly don't mean to sound rude, but if I wanted you to know who I was, I would have signed my name. Too many people make too many wrong inferences from internet posts for me to want to leave my name on one that contains more than pleasantries. (For instance, some people would probably have assumed that I consider myself "pro-choice" after my last post.)
That being said, I still don't think you that are doing rhetorical justice to your opponents here. Just because a person thinks that blasphemy should not be illegal does not mean that they are "pro-blasphemy." In fact, I would bet that most people are happy to call them "pro-free speech." It is one thing to perform an act, another thing to think of an act favorably, and quite another thing to think that something ought to be legal.
Obama says that he is not "pro-abortion" but "pro-choice" and explains it in exactly the terms I gave you. He doesn't think that unwanted pregnancies and the abortions that sometimes result from them are a good thing. He thinks, perhaps naively, that no one considers this to be a good thing, and that's why he says, "No one is pro-abortion." However, he does not think that abortion ought to be illegal, either. Now, I agree with you that he has not attached the proper value to the life of a child within its mother's womb and has thus made a terrible error in judgment on this point. But I don't think that this gives you license to bulldoze over the specific countours and nuances of his thought in order to reframe the debate to your liking. When you speak of being "pro-pre-birth infanticide," you are no longer talking about Obama's political position. He would not recognize his position in your statement, even if he accepted your presuppositions about what abortion is (I say this because I do and I don't, in reverse order).
In the end, I think that you are right that these issues need to be redrawn in order to reflect what is really at stake. Your proposal, however, falls short of accounting adequately for what your opponents are actually saying. If you want them to persuade them to do justice to unborn children, you will probably not get far until you do justice to their words.
i don't really care if obama 'thinks' abortion is a good or bad thing. i care that his voting record shows he is %100 percent unwilling to attempt to prevent abortion--even under the most brutal circumstances. how incredibly sad--young babies developing and on their way to soccer practice, piano lessons, college, jobs, families, etc., and the only thing preventing that(beyond natural circumstances) is this ridiculous notion that someone else has the right to determine whether they or born or come out in pieces.
what obama feels is completely irrelevent, and his position should be determined by his actions, which are definitely pro-abortion, more so than any other senator. i am ashamed that so many have overlooked this in favor of more 'important' issues. we are on our way to new supreme court justices who will continue to legalize infanticide because it's a 'personal choice.'
I’d like to thank everyone for their comments. I really enjoy having discussions like this, especially in written form because that enables you to sit and think for a while before responding, whereas were we in coffee shop (that forum of forums), we would all respond a bit too hastily, I think.
That said, it’s hard to respond to everyone, so please don’t feel left out if I don’t mention your point. I guess I’ll take the most time to respond to Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, because everyone else has agreed with me so far. Chuck, I do agree with you that Obama, as well as other politicians have used this issue, among many others, to garner votes. I’m not sure I could name a politician that I trust further than I could throw him or her. Jules, thanks for your thoughts as well—I completely agree. Vague feelings and ideologies that do not turn into action aren’t really that legitimate, and you could question whether they exist at all.
Now for Anonymous. You were Anonymous, and Anonymous you shall remain, as per your wish. Wrong inferences are at the heart of our discussion, so in some way I understand your desire to be Anonymous, even if I would rather you told us who you were.
My point was, and is, precisely that I do not want to do rhetorical justice to my opponents (neither do I want Obama to recognize his position in my language; this is intentional—I want him, very emphatically, to change both his position and his voting record. Lives depend on it). I do not feel they have earned it, and I do not feel I have been given the same justice-- I am not against women having control over their own body.
Let’s look again at the stakes of this debate. Do we afford rhetorical justice to people who have committed murders of passion? Do we tell them “We’re not going to call you a murderer because you didn’t really mean it—you were just really angry at the time, and you got carried away?” No. We do not afford them such linguistic luxury. After being convicted, they carry the same label as those we could possibly more legitimately call “pro-murder”; serial killers, people who planned murders, etc.
I do of course see nuance in who my opponents are. Let me try to draw them into three groups:
1) Those who profit from the act of abortion, whether politically, economically, or otherwise.
2) Those who are for abortion because they do not wish to have the consequence (a child) from their action (sex).
3) Those who have their children killed in a doctor’s office because they feel there is no other alternative, and those who have been led to believe there is no other alternative (this category includes victims of rape, incest, etc.).
I am primarily talking about the people in the first two categories when I label my opponents “pro-death.” These are the people who I do not think understand that the practice of infant-killing is barbaric, anti-progressive, and primitive. Or perhaps if they do, they have hardened themselves to accept the grim reality that if they’re going to get what they want out of life, they’re going to have to kill to get it. I think these first two categories make up an overwhelming percentage of those whom you would label “pro-choice.” I don’t feel that people in either of these categories have the right to feel offended if my label doesn’t include them.
So what about the third category—they are victims, right? No one can blame a victim. This is difficult. I have never been raped or molested. My lack of experience, however, does not change the truth. Abortion = death. It’s as simple as that. A victim of such horrific circumstances could turn to abortion, but there are other alternatives. There are people and organizations and (let’s pray) churches who will and can help. Even victims have the responsibility to make sure that evil done to them does not translate into evil done to others. I would of course add that the community around this victim has this same responsibility.
As you say, Anonymous, in the end, the issues need to redrawn. In the end, I don’t really care about what we label one side or the other. In the end, I care to see more human lives saved from the act of abortion. But in the end, I also do not think that focusing on the wrong debate, which the “pro-choice” label does, persuades anyone to do justice to unborn children.
Two comments:
1) Why does it matter who I am? Can we not just interact with one another's thoughts without me having to be judged on the basis of my sex, age, past actions, political affiliations (if any), denomination (if any), and level of education? I would rather you interact with my thoughts than take things personally, which is hard to do when you identify the person with whom you are dealing.
2) "I do not want to do rhetorical justice to my opponents (neither do I want Obama to recognize his position in my language"
I guess the point that I am trying to make is that I don't agree with this strategy. Instead of coming up with a more comprehensive framework within which the issues may be addressed, you are just creating your own reductionistic account of the issues and demanding that your terms be accepted. If you do not have room for a way to express Obama's position in a form that he will recognize, even if he grants your presuppositions about what abortion is, you have not created space in which to dialogue; you have crawled into a box within which others are not allowed. Again, I'm not saying that the issues don't need to be reframed; I'm just saying that they need to be reframed in such a way as to give a more comprehensive account, not another reductionistic one. Both the content of the discussion and the labels used need to reflect everything that is going on, not just the thing that you think is most important (although the way that you frame things certainly should emphasize what you think is most important). In the original post, you said, "it is important...that we use language precisely and delicately to communicate our own ideas;" I'm just suggesting that we love our neighbor as ourselves.
If I understand you correctly Anonymous (by the way, I think knowing who you are simply makes conversation easier, I'm not sure that it's quite as dubious a request as you seem to think) what you are saying is that Obama is not "pro-abortion" he is "pro-choice"; meaning, I think that he is willing to lay aside his personal beliefs in order to give more "freedom" to the people. The problem with this point of view is, I think, two-fold: 1. Obama seems to be more "pro-abortion" than you seem to think (or than he is willing to let on), now I know what you're thinking "he says he's not pro-abortion, but I'm going to say something here that may seem blasphemous to some, but which is plainly obvious to anyone that will actually take time to look at the important things: Obama is a liar. He lied about this issue in the last debate, and he continues to lie about it even now. His voting record shows him to be very pro-abortion. Not only will he make abortions easier, he wants to make not having abortions harder... please save your opinion until you have read the article found here (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama's%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml)
2. The other issue here is that if Obama were not pro-abortion, and pro-choice is more adequate, why is he not "pro-abortion"? If abortion is something we should all be against (a "weighty moral issue" is what he calls it), then what is wrong with it? The only objection that anyone has voiced to allowing others to have an abortion is that it ends a life. If Barack thinks this is true then why would he still allow people to have this choice? If he does not think this, then what other arguments has he espoused to being "anti-abortion but pro-choice"? Ok, that's all for now, I hope you read this far.
I have nothing to add to this conversation (except that I think "anonymous" has the same first two letters in his real name as he does in his pen name) but I would like to say that I'm very much enjoying "listening" to the discussion.
It seems to be a topic that everyone is intensely passionate about on one side or the other but which nearly always has to end in agreeing to disagree. Thanks for taking the time to talk out a detail of a greater issue and for all being more committed to truth than to your own opinions. It's quite refreshing.
i really liked what robin had to say. she should comment more often:)
hmm...i don't believe obama sees himself as pro-abortion. but, again, i do not think that really matters because he will fight to keep it alive and well--so ultimately who cares how he sees himself?
abortion has become a tiresome debate for many because it only goes in circles-- i often feel tired after talking about it-- but when i think about what actually happens when a child's life is destroyed i cannot in good conscience give my endorsement to someone who supports such a procedure--even if they claim not to like it personally.
11 comments. you are SO popular.
Mr. or Ms. Anonymous,
1) I think it matters. I think it matters because forums are not places where dehumanized, objective, naked ideas interact in a vacuum. Forums are for people. Living, breathing, subjective (as much as we would like to be, we can’t be anything else) people. It is neither desirable nor possible that we should divorce our ideas from who we are. Also, everything that you said about me interacting with your thoughts only applies to you, since I don’t know you are, and you do know who I am. That said, do what you want! Be Anonymous.
2) I think the only thing I can say here is that I feel I’m just repeating myself, so I’ll stop. I still feel that people must earn their own rhetorical justice through valid action before they can be rhetorically justified. Just “feeling bad” about abortion but still supporting it is not enough. I don’t feel that linguistically dubious categories (heck—even if they weren’t dubious) equal what Jesus meant by loving our neighbor; I do honestly feel that protecting unborn children both with action and word is loving our neighbor.
I'm afraid that our story is becoming too thick with sub-plots for me to be able to respond to each point satisfactorily in manageable posts; thus, a few summary statements will have to suffice.
1) Perhaps my fears of being misunderstood have already materialized. The way that some people have responded, it sounds as if they think that I am subtly campaigning for Obama. I am not. (I am sure the Obama campaign will be crushed that they did not receive a public endorsement from Anonymous.) I am simply trying to discuss language and the framing of issues, the main point of the original post. I have not and do not intend to say a word about who anyone should vote for, and what would be good reasons for doing so. If I wanted to do that (especially with respect to abortion), I would have commented on the previous post.
2) I just don't find any of the above arguments against anonymity compelling, especially in light of my point 1). The reasons given are all very vague. I don't see how the conversation would be improved in the least if I signed a name.
3) I am very sad that you (jared james) don't agree with the point that I have been trying to get across. "I still feel that people must earn their own rhetorical justice through valid action before they can be rhetorically justified." Your doctrine of rhetorical justification by works is quite odd for a Protestant, and I still strongly disagree. Words are tools, one of whose uses is to portray the world. When you use words to distort aspects of reality, you are bearing false witness. Bearing false witness is a grave violation of loving one's neighbor. Of course, killing an unborn child is also (quite literally) a grave violation of loving one's neighbor, but we are not to do evil that good may come. Re-framing issues in terms that do not give you room to express the views of others is using language to distort reality. Although your attempt was to do justice to the unborn with your words, I think that it comes at the cost of mistreating others. How you rhetorically treat those whom you consider the worst, the Samaritans (the liberals), is an answer to the question, "Who is my neighbor?"--a question originally asked by a man seeking to justify (rhetorically?) himself. Now, my reading is that your original intent was to swing the pendulum of language back towards doing justice to the unborn, but in the end, I have to judge your attempt to be a miscarriage of rhetorical justice. It does not provide the conceptual space needed to represent everything that is happening in the real world. Again, I'm not saying that the issues don't need to be redrawn; I'm just objecting to your specific proposal.
I leave you with these words from our Lord:
Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?" He said, "The one who showed him mercy." And Jesus said to him, "You go, and do likewise." (Luke 10:36-37)
As per my last comment, Jared said that Obama should be characterized as "pro-abortion", you say this is a mischaracterization because Obama says he is very much against abortion to which I reply, though he says that he is very much not against abortion (thus every time he says he is he is lying to gain political favor), his record shows clearly that he is pro-abortion (as I said, he even wants to make it harder from women NOT to have abortions). Now of course it would be unfair to say that everyone who is "pro-choice" should be considered "pro-abortion" as Jared mentioned earlier, but I'm not sure where that line should be drawn. But as for Obama, if you consider yourself to have any inkling of doubt about abortion in any of its forms then you should most definitely NOT vote for Obama ("you" here should be seen as the 2nd person plural, not "you, anonymous"). All that to say that Jared has not broken Jesus' command to love his neighbor, he has followed the command to speak the truth in love, and to abhor that which is evil... ABHOR! Christians just don't speak strongly enough about some really horrible things... but that's another topic altogether.
Jared, From what I read of your post and since I know you personaly I know you have a good samaritans heart.
Words are changed to make something horrid sound respectable.
Pro choice sounds better then pro abortion etc........
Robin
"chuck wade," I'm afraid you missed something (or maybe I did; I'm certainly willing to be corrected if I am wrong here). You write, "Now of course it would be unfair to say that everyone who is 'pro-choice' should be considered 'pro-abortion' as Jared mentioned earlier." I have re-read all of Jared's comments and the original post, and as far as I can tell, the whole point he is trying to make is to deny that "pro-choice" is ever an appropriate label for anyone who supports keeping abortion legal. The intention of the original post, if I have read it rightly, is to abolish the label "pro-choice" in favor of "pro-abortion" or something that sounds even more terrible (because abortion is terrible). He can clear this up if he wants, but I think your "of course" statement is precisely the sentiment Jared's original post was written to deny. Thus, ironically, my whole protest might be an expression of what you consider to be the obvious. I don't really care if you think that Obama is sincere in his comments about why he's not pro-abortion if you have room in your thinking for the category he describes when he makes this claim. Jared has denied that anyone who supports the legalization of abortion in any form deserves that kind of nuance. They must do anti-abortion legal works in order to receive rhetorical justification. As I said, I'm not trying to campaign here; I'm just trying to discuss language. How Christians speak about "horrible things" (and horrible people) is precisely the issue I have been trying to address, not "another topic altogether." I think that language is very important, and people often don't think through the ethics of how they use words. I was excited to see a post from Jared related to words and ethics, but obviously I wasn't completely pleased with the results. On that account, although I don't doubt Jared's motives and did not mean to imply in any sense that he lacks a "good samaritans heart" (I'm sorry if it sounded like I did, whatsoever), I don't think that Jared's framing of things squares with the good Samaritan's actions. However, if you don't like the Good Samaritan metaphor, perhaps a Republican political metaphor will help. The way I see the issue here is probably comparable to how you (you, "chuck wade") feel about liberal attempts to help the poor. They rob the rich to do it (in your opinion; I've read a little of your blog, too). Thus, according to this account, though well intentioned, the attempt to do good in one place brings about harm elsewhere. That's my claim about Jared's broad proposal for abolishing the term "pro-choice" and exclusively using "pro-abortion" and other labels more in keeping with the horific nature of this act. I don't think that it does justice all the way around. I think that the issues need to be reframed in a broader context that will both point out the atrocities of abortion and leave room to describe the nuances of the positions that different real human beings actually hold. Doing less than this on either side seems to me to be a failure to love our neighbor as ourselves.
Hitler changed words around to cover the horror of thousands of Jews being butchered. I feel that the word Pro-Choice is used to cover up the fact that we are allowing innocent babies murdered.
Loving your neighbor doesn't mean you let them make a choice that they would later regret. You tell the truth to your neighbors.
You tell the truth to those you love. I don't lie to my kids about things that would do harm to them and hurt them for life. I tell them the truth because I love them. It isn't always easy.
Love, Robin
"I do of course see nuance in who my opponents are. Let me try to draw them into three groups:
1) Those who profit from the act of abortion, whether politically, economically, or otherwise.
2) Those who are for abortion because they do not wish to have the consequence (a child) from their action (sex).
3) Those who have their children killed in a doctor’s office because they feel there is no other alternative, and those who have been led to believe there is no other alternative (this category includes victims of rape, incest, etc.)." - Jared
I accept his nuances and I think they leave a category for some who are not "pro-abortion" but perhaps see no other option, it's very gracious and gives the benefit of the doubt to some, though I think the number in this category is probably very small.
You also say that you don't care what I think if I think Obama is sincere yet I thought that your first comment was saying that it was unfair to characterize his view point in a way that he would not characterize it. Perhaps I was mistaken.
So, while I see a place for some nuance in this debate I don't want the true issue to get hidden in them. In the end, if you have had an abortion (as in the case of those falling into #3 above) or if you have spend your entire political career fighting for someone else's right to have an abortion, or if you are anywhere in between you have done a terrible thing and the conversation needs to be framed in such a way that makes this terrible act unthinkable. This issue has become far too political and I'm starting to wonder why we feel that we have to slip morality in under the radar.
Thanks for your thoughts, Chuck, I like what you say. Thanks of course to my lovely wife for her ability to see through a situation. And thank you as well Robin, I definitely agree that we need to tell the truth to our neighbor to love them.
And thank you as well, Anonymous. I appreciate and agree with your point that we need to "re-frame" the issue more broadly. A couple thoughts:
- As per an earlier post, I want to say as well that this post was indeed about language and abortion, and was not intended as an attack on Obama. I think he comes up because of his likely presidency, as well as his aggressive pro-abortion stance (I do not think he would deny this label).
- As for "earning," let me plead a subtle distinction. I hope that I am being consistent in this. When I said "earn" I did not mean it in the sense that a boy "earns" an Eagle Scout badge. If this were so, I agree with you, pro-abortionists would have to do legal works to earn rhetorical justification.
I meant something more along the lines of how an expert in wines receives the title "connoisseur." He or she does not "earn" the title like in the first example, but rather s/he is called this because it's the best description of his or her activities.
It is in this last sense that I expect "pro-choice" people to "earn" their rhetorical justice.
- Finally, I think that "abolishing the term pro-choice" is a necessary start to holding a different conversation that uses language in a way that takes away the comparative advantage of the group in power (the born) and gives a voice to the group being oppressed (the unborn).
As I said, I agree with your point that we need re-invent our language so that all parties are represented well. "Pro-choice" does not represent any party well, and more than than that, it serves to further marginalize another group in the discussion. Therefore, it needs to go.
Post a Comment