The Name Game

Further to this post about language and the abortion issue, comes this email.

I have edited it because I believe it is the decent thing to do (the writer reveals much about his personal life) in this case:

From: ian
Sent: Fri 5/22/2009 2:38 PM
To: Zerbisias, Antonia
Subject: "I Am Pro-Life"; facile labels

Hi Antonia,

I shook my head while reading your recent blog post "I Am Pro-Life".  At the
outset, it seemed like you were going to repudiate the facile labelling and
name-calling that characterizes 98% of the content of abortion arguments.
But it quickly became clear that you're only rejecting the choice of label
of The Other Side, while foisting awful ones onto them. Do you believe this
is a contribution to the debate?

As for the label, you're (small p) pro-life, i'm pro-life, everyone's
pro-life. Of course. That's easy. I'm also pro-choice. How could i not be? I
support all kinds of free choice, even some that our levels of government
don't allow us. That's easy.

I have never called myself Pro-Life because of the associations involved,
political et al. However i believe life begins at conception (how could one
honestly believe otherwise?) and my other beliefs and actions stem logically
from that.  My wife is equally persuaded.

Am I a misogynist? Absolutely not.

<SNIP>

I hate misogynists, and it's a concept that's totally foreign to me.

Am i Anti-Choice? Am I Pro-Forced-Pregnancy? Those are facile terms that
don't capture the complexity of the issue we're dealing with. You seem to
acknowledge that complexity in your citations of David Frum, but quickly
back away by using those awful labels.

What about Fet-o-Phile? Disgusting. Every time i see it in one of your posts
and articles i am inclined to disregard the whole thing.

In short, please elevate dialogue by finding common ground. When you
use labels for The Other Side, you're hitting the wedge with your biggest
mallet, and that's not good for anybody. It makes you look like a hypocrite,
alienating everyone but your base.

Sincerely,

Ian

Fair enough.

But what does one call ''the other side'' when it denies women control over their own lives and bodies? What does one call ''the other side'' when it places more value on a clump of cells than on a living, breathing woman? What does one call ''the other side'' when it lies to women about the psychological and physical effects of abortion? What does one call the other side when it denies the reality that women will  seek out back alley abortions if they have no choice? What does one call ''the other side'' when it calls for prison sentences for doctors who save women?

Let's see ...

Pro-life? No, sorry. You can't co-opt that term, as I blogged yesterday.

Anti-abortion? Nope. That's because it implies that ''my side'' is ''pro-abortion'' which it's not. We would much rather that conception be prevented in the first place if a child is not wanted. (And yet, some factions on ''the other side'' are also demanding that The Pill be banned because it supposedly is abortifacient.)

Anti-choice? Maybe, but ''the other side'' will be the first to tell you that it is ''pro-choice'' -- for the ''unborn child.''

You see the dilemma here?

Which is why I use terms like pro-forced-pregnancy types, zygote zealots, fetus fetishists, etc.

No, they don't conjure pretty images.

But neither does a woman dying of septicemia.

The suggestion box is open.

Comments

[johnnykap]

"But neither does a woman dying of septicemia."

The odds of a woman dying of septicemia are 1 in 1,200,512, according to the Septicemia Control Board of America. The odds of a fetus dying from an abortion are 1 in 1. Septicemia deaths must be considered to be acceptable losses.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Esteemed and Beautiful Moderator,

some responses

"What does one call ''the other side'' when it places more value on a clump of cells than on a living, breathing woman?"

I value BOTH

"What does one call ''the other side'' when it lies to women about the psychological and physical effects of abortion?"

Yes ... what do we call the other side?

. . . . "What does one call ''the other side'' when it calls for prison sentences for doctors who save women?"

I don't recognise any side that I'm on here ... but if I framed the questions .....

[deBeauxOs]

johnnykap, I googled "Septicemia Control Board of America"; it does not exist. You wouldn't have deliberately fabricated that figure, would you?

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (an organization that actually exists) 34,234 people died of septicemia last year.

Even competently executed abdominal surgeries can result in death from septicemia. Ask any doctor or RN who worked in hospital emergency rooms before 1970, how many botched illegal abortions resulting in septicemia they treated every week. Hundreds of women died.

[Ian]

Antonia,

This is a false dichotomy, and you know it.

What you're saying is one either supports a) the woman's having control of her body, or b) death by septicemia.

Reasonable middle ground? Most people support some legislation around late-term abortions, with exceptions for the health of the mother. But with you it's black and white. The woman or the "clump of cells".

Very poor journalism.

- Ian
PS: johnnykap is a notorious troll, he'll say anything to elicit a reaction. why does anyone respond to him?

[Luna]

Ian: I agree with you that life begins at conception. Of course it does. Thing is, no human (fetal or otherwise) has the right to use another human's body for its subsistence. If we suddenly grant the right of a fetus to live, regardless of the wishes of the woman it is attached to, must we also grant people needing transplants the right to take them from their parents, regardless of their wishes?

And as for legislation around late-term abortions, I have to ask, why? What is happening now that this legislation would fix?