Even pro-aborts think “pro-choice” is uncool
After I wrote my post, “Has ‘pro-choice’ lost its cool?” I remembered something I read last week I meant to blog on but forgot about after the House Stupak/Pitts vote.
On November 4 Planned Parenthood NYC sponsored a “Voices of Feminism” fundraising event, “featuring 3 of NYC’s leading feminist voices, women’s rights activists and influential writers as they discuss what feminism means to them” – Gloria Feldt (former Planned Parenthood prez), Lynn Harris (feminist author and comedienne) , and Jessica Valenti (editor of Feministing.com).
In a piece entitled, “Three feminists on dirty words, pop culture, and the language of Choice,” the blogger at Jezebel wrote the following day…
The evening seemed to focus on how we talk about feminism, perhaps because it’s what all 3 panelists… do in their jobs, but also because issues of language and rhetoric are a really important part of being a feminist in the larger world….
Unfortunately, the panelists seemed to feel that a successful diminution had occurred in the linguistic fight between words “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” Harris said she had stopped using the term “pro-choice” in writing because “we lost that rhetorical war” – because anti-abortion advocates had successfully cast “life” as representing the moral high ground, and “choice” as somehow frivolous.
I get what she was saying – I, in fact, stopped using “pro-life” in writing a while ago, in response to a consciousness-raising comment on this blog, no less. But I still use “pro-choice,” because even though the opposition tries to frame the term as superficial – like choosing between different flavors of gum – I think it still stands powerfully for a woman’s right to self-determination and autonomy. And I think that any substitute term – Harris mentioned “pro-abortion rights” and “pro-reproductive rights” – will be demonized just as “pro-choice” has been….
Pro-lifers don’t argue that the term “pro-choice” is “frivolous” or “superficial.” We say it’s ambiguous, a purposeful attempt to obfuscate what a “pro-choicer” supports: abortion. Choice to do what? we ask. Why don’t you just say it?
I find it hard to believe Harris and Jezebel have missed our point. I don’t think they did. I think they’re obfuscating about the problem with their obfuscated terminology.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
As I said in a post here on Sept. 30, all abortion advocates have is words and emotions. They don’t have science, reason, Natural Law, or Equal Justice to support them.
As long as we’re on the side of life, they’ll be inventing a million ways to obfuscate the murdering of a pre-born child.
They’ll be inventing ways to obfuscate this (or just not acknowledge it), as demonstrated by Minnow.
And it’s not just in print, either.
Stand at a rally with a pro-life sign and as sure as the sky is blue a pro-abort will come screaming about “the war in Iraq.”
Hold a pro-choice sign at a rally and you can expect a pro-lifer to ask questions about THAT which is aborted.
Ideaology used as a means to tunr human beings into non-human entities, disposable and lacking any basic rights to life…hm, where has this happened before?
“But I still use “pro-choice,” because even though the opposition tries to frame the term as superficial – like choosing between different flavors of gum – I think it still stands powerfully for a woman’s right to self-determination and autonomy.”
Do they (pro-choicers) think we’re stupid? That’s as ambiguous as “choice”. Let’s see if it takes them 15 years to figure that out.
It’s absolutely HYSTERICAL how these nebulous nitwits are clucking away about how they must not use that old “pro-choice” label because it isn’t working any more, but they’re unable to come up with a substitute catch-phrase that describes this ongoing feminist soap-opera. I keep picturing Lady Macbeth wandering around in her bloody angst, muttering “Out, out damned spot!” Poor, poor misunderstood supporters of Planned Barrenhood. You’ve become as nameless as the fetuses in the biohazard bags that you greedily sacrifice for your “liberation”…
pro-abortion and anti-abortion. That’s what it comes down to.
Shouldn’t it really be “pro-child killing” and “anti-child killing”? I mean if we are going to get more clear with our words, why call it an abortion? If a choice is ANY decision, then an abortion can also be the ending of a number of things.
When the space shuttle calls down to Houston with a problem and they reply back “ABORT! ABORT!” are they telling the asronauts to kill a baby in outerspace? Or can that command mean a wide variety of things? Let’s start referring to child killing for what it is.
I call them Nolifers. It fits in so many ways. That, and Prodeath. Call it what it is.
Posted by: Sancta Maria, Sede Sapientiae at November 12, 2009 6:52 PM
Interesting point. The more concise, the better. Look at how many people equate miscarriage and abortion, for example, when colloquially they are two very different things.
That is so true. Pro-choicers always try to change the subject when you try to specifically address the issue of whether or not abortion should be legal.
I think that Sancta Maria makes a good point about pro-child killing vs. anti-child killing. Indeed, the more precise the better. Along those lines, should we refer to the unborn as “unborn children” and/or “preborn children,” or can we be more precise? How about “unborn boys and girls?”
“unborn boys and girls”
Definitely. Why not push the envelope? Let’s call them “unborn granddaughters and grandsons” too.
Many pro-choicers will also make great sweeping generalizations of pro-lifers and then accuse US of being verbally abusive.
We don’t call them terrorists, that’s fo sho.
If I’m arguing about abortion and someone starts to talk about War and Capital punishment and why I’m a hypocrite to call myself pro-life. I stop and look at them and then say: So are you agreeing that like being pro-choice is about killing a human being like War and Capital Punishment.
That usually ends that rabbit trail. Of course I do always clarify: I’m talking about Innocent Life. If they could show me why the the unborn child is a mass murderer then we’d have some comparison.