IMO: Words and phrases to NOT use when discussing the abortion issue:

[Hepburn]

1. I am pro-choice, "but..."

2. If a woman "wants" an abortion...

Since abortion is a hot topic right now for the obvious reasons, I am finding some phrases and words that to me smack of anything but being pro-choice and supportive of women's rights.

My position is as follows: Abortion is strictly limited to a discussion between the woman and her doctor. It is a right of privacy totally protected by the U.S. Constitution and whatever medical decisions are made are exercised as a Constitutional right. Any agreement and/or disagreement with this type, sort and form of decision is not open to any third party in-put. Things like the forced viewing of ultra-sound pictures, etc., interfere with this Constitutionally protected right and such laws requiring this need to be eliminated.

BTW: Please add to this list of questionable language uses ~~ the above just happen to be the ones that hit me totally WRONG. Maybe it is just me, but when I see that kind of language use in connection with abortion issues, it hits me the wrong way.

JMHO

[Hepburn]

1. Thank you for the recs....

...I posted this thread solely because I believe in the total and complete control that each person has over his/her body.

Imagine the reaction IF suddenly vasectomies were treated as the abortion issue has been treated.

It is NOT a moral issue open to the public to discuss the medical decisions any woman ~~ or any patient ~~ makes with his/her medical provider.

JMHO

[BrklynLiberal]

27. A looooong time ago I heard someone say....

"If it were men that had abortions, it would be a sacrament."

[Hepburn]

28. Yep...

...I totally agree.

Can you imagine if it were a 50/50 toss up ~~ or even a 90/10 toss up ~~ as to whether the male or the female got pregnant after sex?

Yep, abortion would have been labeled a sacrament loooooooong ago!

:hi:

[AwakeAtLast]

45. and covered by insurance

just like Viagra..... :yoiks:

[boston bean]

2. Does anyone know when the Conscience Rule will be rescinded.

or is it still being tossed around by the WH Faith Based Group, looking for some common ground?

[VelmaD]

3. I would like people...

to stop referring to it as always being a difficult/heartbreaking/etc decision.

People also need to can it with the assertion that most women have regrets. The research simply does not back that statement up.
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/post_abortion_issues.html

[Hepburn]

7. Totally agree with you....

...I know a lot of women who have had abortions. Not ONE of them regrets the decision. And not one of them "wanted" an abortion ~~ it was a decision that was well thought out for their particular life situation.

I think it demeans the right to make that medical decision when it is painted as a regret, etc.

:hi:

[DURHAM D]

33. I completely agree with you.

I had an abortion before Roe v Wade. I have never regretted for even one moment.

JFTR - I do not like the way Obama refers to it as a choice to be made with clergy, doctor, family, etc. He fundamentally does not get this issue and it worries me.

[alsame]

4. Great post, Hepburn. I personally refuse to use the term

'pro-life' because it sets up a false dichotomy that a person who believes in choice is somehow anti-life.

Instead, I always use the phrase 'anti-choice', because that's exactly what it is.

K&R

[Hepburn]

9. I have used the term "anti-choice" for a lot of years.

IMO, with a pregnant woman, she is the one with the Const rights and to not protect her right to make a choice? That to me is totally ANTI-choice. They don't give a shit about HER life ~~ they just want to deny her right to choose.

[alsame]

18. They don't give a shit about the baby's life

after it's born either.

Born into poverty? Too bad - no welfare, no food stamps!
No healthcare? Too bad, no CHIP for you!

"Pro life" my ass. It's about denying choice to women.

[Hepburn]

20. Absolutely agree with you.

They are pro-fetus....but do not give shit about a baby once it is born.

I think anyone who is anti-choice should be mandated to place his/her name on a list and when a women has a child instead of having an abortion which was prevented by some anti-choice activity or laws, that anti-choicer should then be mandated to send support money each and every month for the support of that child. They wanted that child to be born, but bitch about the necessaries of the child's life? Well, let's change that!

They want life??? NO: They want punishment of women, IMO. Control, etc ~~ that is what is going on here.

JMHO

[BrklynLiberal]

30. yes yes yes. We have been aware of this for so long now. I cannot believe

that these hypocrites have been getting away with this BS for so long....
Amazing how many of these anti-choice groups are led by and controlled by men!!?? Kind of gives away the
true purpose, dontcha think?

[BrklynLiberal]

29. Absolutely right!!!

Once that baby has taken a breath, they could not care less about its health, its education or its welfare.

Of course the irony is that so many of these {ahem}"pro-life" hypocrites are gung-ho for capital punishment
and war, and against birth control. Interesting how they only fret about the life while it is still inside the womb of
some woman they do not know!!

[InvisibleTouch]

Anti-choice is a much better term than "pro-life."

How is it "pro-life" to force multiple people to ruin their lives with an unwanted pregnancy - everyone from the mother to the baby itself and the surrounding society and the overburdened planet suffers.

When some of these rabid "pro-lifers" start offering to pay the pregnant woman's medical expenses and compensation for missed work, and then are willing to adopt the baby after it's born, they'd at least be walking the walk rather than just talking the talk and meddling in other people's business. But I haven't heard of a one who has a houseful of adopted kids. (Not that I think they'd still have the right to tell another person what to do with their lives. They wouldn't. But if they were really serious in their cause, they'd be out there offering to spend money and adopt kids rather than just shoving their agenda down everyone else's throat.)

[Hello_Kitty]

5. 'I don't think abortion should be used as birth control'

That phrase sets my teeth on edge because, essentially, the person is saying slutty women should be punished with pregnancy.

[Hepburn]

17. That just grates on me, too.

It it is a choice, then it is a choice for any woman to make with her body. And, yep....like having sex makes a female a slut...and getting pregnant is the punishment. Exactly the kind of sick thinking that goes along with that BS phrase!

:hi:

[BrklynLiberal]

32. That primitive belief is the reason for "original sin" and the pain of childbirth.

Women are 'evil"....wasn't it Eve who tempted Adam with the apple of knowledge?
The Bible..which was written by men....if filled with examples of the "evilness" of women.

http://books.google.com/books?id=eUVrj1R8f2oC&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=original+sin,+women,+origins&source=bl&ots=-5LO6hrpBP&sig=DxpZYASQTkQnLte86fFLrFcU9Ac&hl=en&ei=SUAkSrejH6WmNbjoyZ0J&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

fascinating article.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Adam,-Eve-,-Original-Sin,-and-Mythology&id=91945

[Hepburn]

38. Yes....

....as punishment, the Bible does go on about how childbirth will be a painful process.

What has always given me pause to think is the following:

OK, so if god did this for HUMAN sinfulness, why do ANIMALS have pain giving birth? Did they knowingly eat the apples, too?

:shrug:

Or did god supposedly punish ANYTHING female cuz of Eve?

:shrug:

[BrklynLiberal]

39. Fascinating point.... :D

[InvisibleTouch]

6. I've never added a "but."

I am pro-choice, period. What another woman wants to do with her body is none of my business, just like I wouldn't want someone telling me what to do with mine. And until a baby is born and is independently viable, it is her body.

Not sure what's wrong with #2, though. "If a woman wants an abortion...."...she should be able to get one, safely and without hassle. Perhaps "needs" is a better word than "wants"?

[Hepburn]

13. To me, the term "wants" makes it sound like a simple choice...

...and I see it as a choice to have or not have a certain medical procedure as it fits one's situation after consideration. Maybe I am overly sensitive ~~ but to me, it demeans the right to choose since I consider it solely a medical decision between the patient and her doctor. Frankly, just like a root canal ~~ no one WANTS that procedure ~~ but at times it is essential in order to do what is necessary for one's well being. I hope that makes some sense as to why I find the term "wants" offensive.

[BrklynLiberal]

35. excellent explanation. The root canal analogy is perfect.

[Hepburn]

41. Thanks....

...considering I had a root canal last Thursday, somehow that procedure just came to mind!

:hi:

[OKNancy]

40. If I got pregnant right now, I'd WANT an abortion

It's my right to want it, and to have it. No questions asked.
I think you are being a little sensitive to it.

One of my irritations on the subject is that abortion seems to always be discussed as an issue for unmarried teens.
I know three women who were married and in their thirties and forties who had abortions. Two for health reasons.
For all of them it was NOT a hard choice or was there any hand-wringing or regret. I'd say they were pretty happy they had the choice.

[tblue37]

15. If a woman *needs* an abortion. . . . " nt

[boston bean]

8. just sent this to the greatest! K&R

[Hepburn]

10. Wow....

...thank you! :hug:

[sallylou666]

11. YES!

I agree! Women should not be judged in any way for any reproductive choice. It is a very personal decision and you may not know all of the facts.

[izzybeans]

12. What if I were to say, I'm pro-choice, but

I'm a man so it's not my right to make that choice for any woman. :)

[Hepburn]

16. Then I would give you a hug....

...cuz there is always and exception to every rule! :hug:

[Gregorian]

14. So why aren't "pro-lifers" forcing people to get coronary bipasses?

A lot of people have coronary artery disease but don't want to go under the knife. Shouldn't they we forced to have the surgery? Come on, pro-life is pro-life, no exceptions~!

I don't "want" a bypass, I need one. And an abortion is no different, except in the tiny minds of those who are taking the bible literally. You know, "thou shalt not kill" doesn't mean one cannot eat meat, or defend oneself.

This is second grader mentality. It's beneath a sophisticated, modern society. Grow up!

[Hepburn]

22. I am surprised that some of them are not on some kick about...

...preventing vasectomies, tubal ligations, etc.

[Hello_Kitty]

23. Why aren't they trying to pass laws that force people to donate organs, blood, or bone marrow?

Does it strike anyone else as curiously inconsistent that the anti-choicers want to force women to incubate fetuses for 9 months yet no one is required to surrender a kidney, or even blood or bone marrow, to keep their own child alive. Seriously, you can refuse to give your own kid a blood transfusion, even if you are a match and s/he is about to die.

[Hepburn]

25. Usually child protection steps in when there is a refusal to give...

...generally accepted medical treatment to a minor ~~ such as a blood transfusion. Child becomes a ward of the court and the medical treatment is ordered. Just like the recent case of the cancer treatment for a minor child the parents were refusing to allow. Cannot remember the name of the child ~~ sorry.

However, your comments about MANDATING that a parent give up an organ to a child to save a life ~~ that rather fascinates me. I am curious how the anti-choicers would view an issue such as that.

:hi:

[Hello_Kitty]

46. You can't refuse medical treatment but you don't have to give your own blood or tissue

Seriously, you don't.

[Hepburn]

26. Usually child protection steps in when there is a refusal to give...

...generally accepted medical treatment to a minor ~~ such as a blood transfusion. Child becomes a ward of the court and the medical treatment is ordered. Just like the recent case of the cancer treatment for a minor child the parents were refusing to allow. Cannot remember the name of the child ~~ sorry.

However, your comments about MANDATING that a parent give up an organ to a child to save a life ~~ that rather fascinates me. I am curious how the anti-choicers would view an issue such as that.

:hi:

[boston bean]

19. Common ground.....

I really can't stand that when talking about abortion.

There is no common ground to be found between anti choice and pro-choice.

The anti choicers want NO abortion, you cannot negotiate, reason or resolve anything with them.

[Hepburn]

21. Good addition to that list, IMO.

I agree ~~ there is no common ground with most of the anti-choicers. They would NOT find common ground if the life of the mother was at issue and the child would not survive 5 seconds after birth. They would be chanting "choose life."

I simply do not understand the control they wish to have over the wombs of others.

:hi:

[BrklynLiberal]

37. Absolutely right. And like most fanatics/controllers, they see any willingness

to compromise as a sign of weakness.

[Hello_Kitty]

49. And then there's the ones that oppose contraception

Which is most of the well-known "pro-life" organizations. They either outright object to it or discourage its use.

[BrklynLiberal]

24. Message control via semantics may seem frivolous, but it is a very powerful communication skill.

The repukes have been using it for decades. George Lakoff needs to be on everyone's reading list.
The very terms "pro-life" and "right-to-life" are semantic tools that these fanatic terrorists use
to promulgate their ideas and incite their minions. These people are ANTI-CHOICE, and feel they have the right to control
women's bodies, choices, and their very lives.

We do have to be constantly aware of the language that is used.


http://www.alternet.org/media/19810

<snip>
He reminded us how, over a period of forty years, the radical right and its rich patrons had invested many hundreds of millions of dollars in think tanks, young talent, spokespeople, and communications capacity that had essentially transformed the language of American politics. And when you control the language, you control the message, and the corporate media does the rest.

Lakoff knew better than anyone else how and why this transformation had happened, and more importantly, what could be done about it. He took it upon himself to become the pied piper of media framing — how we have to be cognizant about how we communicate, the words we choose and the framing we evoke, at all times. Progressives have been under the illusion that if only people understood the facts, we'd be fine. Wrong. The facts alone will not set us free. People make decisions about politics and candidates based on their value systems, and the language and frames that invoke those values.
<snip>
We now understood how terms like “tax relief,” “partial-birth abortion,” and “death tax” were invented by the right to invoke frames and dominate debates. Even our allies were using language invented by the conservatives, shooting themselves in the foot every time. An important element of understanding framing is that you can learn a valuable aspect in thirty seconds. If nothing else, if we all can understand the lesson of "Don't think of an elephant" — that attacking our opponents' frame reinforces their message — we will have taken a giant step forward. Our job is to frame our own values, vision, and mission, and to avoid attacking theirs because if we do, it only keeps their ideas in the forefront.
<snip>

[yodoobo]

31. Walking on semantic eggshells is silly and has consequences

its a civil right and thats that.


Anytime I hear someone walking on semantic eggshells to communicate with me (about anything) instantly signals deception and puts me on watch to be careful, because that person is not being honest with me.

Hand wringing and delicately crafting prose only reinforces the view that its something to be ashamed of.

Ever hear a lawyer carefully craft a response to question that doesn't answer anything but sounds eloquent? Did you feel like you were getting an honest answer or a dodge to something shameful?

It is what is and the rightwing just needs to get over it.

[MindPilot]

34. I hate the phrase "a woman's right to choose."

Choose? Choose what? It is like the word "abortion" is not to be uttered. Abortion is a medical procedure, the performance of which is between the patient and the doctor. That phrase makes it sound like terminating an unwanted pregnancy is some special privilege granted by a benevolent authority which meters out rights as it sees fit.

On edit: IMHO, I prefer "reproductive rights" or "reproductive freedom" because this issue encompasses far more than just the particular procedure described by the word "abortion".

[Raine1967]

36. Actually, I prefer that to "Pro-Choice".

Saying that I support a woman's right to choose goes above the word abortion. It goes straight to the issue. I means that I support what a women chooses when making reproductive decisions. It includes birth control, abortion and even having a baby.

Pro Choice includes ALL of those things, this we know, but the semantics and the framing of the phrase have set it up to be a line drawing statement.

I often tell people I support the right for women to choose.

[MindPilot]

42. I agree with you there. "Pro choice" is so generic.

I mean who isn't "pro-choice"? It's good to have choices.

I think I added my edits while you were posting...

I like those terms because when you turn them around to describe the fetus-fetish crowd, you have words that more accurately represent them, anti-reproductive FREEDOM, and anti-reproductive RIGHTS.

Instead of simply trying to influence a "choice", they get rebranded as anti-FREEDOM, and anti-RIGHTS!

[Hello_Kitty]

48. Yes, reproductive freedom includes contraception, disease prevention, and access to information.

No one but a small percentage of authoritarian misogynistic wackos oppose those things.

[northernlights]

43. it's not an "unborn child" or "unborn baby"

because there is no such thing. It is a zygote or an embryo or a fetus. It will not be a baby or a child until *after* it is birthed, not before.

It is not a "partial birth abortion." It is a late term abortion.

I also hate the use of the biblical, emotional "womb." It is a uterus. (And all those anti-choice control freaks can keep their stinkin' noses out of my uterus. As can my clergy and my family. My doctor can outline the risks for me. The final decision is mine, and mine alone. My uterus; not theirs. Mine.)

[BrklynLiberal]

44. yes....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5763397&mesg_id=5763397

[myrna minx]

47. K&R n/t

[aka-chmeee]

50. Scary memory

Once told my sister to consider the definition of the word "parasite" when arguing with her about choice. Got very ugly very quickly.

[omega minimo]

51. .

:kick: