General Question

flo's avatar

Why is it only about one issue that some people argue "You can't call me pro something?

Asked by flo (12280points) 1 week ago

A vegetarian doesn’t argue “I shouldn’t be called pro vegetarianism” Why is it only pro abortionists who argue about the pro part?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

32 Answers

Zaku's avatar

It’s not only that issue. (e.g. people do tend to object to being labelled “pro-war” or “pro-taxes”.)

It’s just the most popular issue for the “anti-abortion” people to try to evoke negative associations with the straw-man notion that pro-choice people are “pro-abortion”, which is usually not accurate, hence the arguments.

Yellowdog's avatar

There are many shades of belief regarding abortion, and extremely few who are absolutley pro-life or abortion-on-any-demand,

Therefore, it is best to call people what they want to be called, irregardless as to what the position actually means, as long as we understand what that name or label (“Pro-Choice“in this case) means. Pro-Choice generally emphasizes the definition of not wanting any restrictions on abortion. The emphasis, therefore, is on one’s right to choose abortion, rather than on their belief about abortion.

Call people what they want to be called. That’s a good rule to follow.

Darth_Algar's avatar

The usual argument it that they are not “pro-abortion”, they are pro-choice. Note the common word there.

kritiper's avatar

Pro abortion is not an accurate term for those who consider themselves pro choice, hence the argument. Anyone who tries to use the “pro abortion” stance is probably a confrontational individual who is looking for a fight.

cookieman's avatar

“Anyone who tries to use the “pro abortion” stance is probably a confrontational individual who is looking for a fight.”

^^ Yes, that.

Yellowdog's avatar

The emphasis is on unfettered choice, not on one’s position on abortion.

But obviously, pro-choice people ARE okay with abortion under certain circumstances, whereas pro-lifers are not, except under the most extreme of circumstances, if at all.

gorillapaws's avatar

I would assume that someone who is “pro-abortion” would advocate aborting as many fetuses as possible: “happily married? have the means to raise a child? pregnant? abort!”. Maybe they hate the human race, are nihilistic, or just really hate fetuses. I’ve never met anyone like that. People who are pro-choice often would never have an abortion themselves, but recognize that it’s important not to push their own concerns onto others. For example, I don’t think modern technology is inherently evil, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to try to force the Amish to start using blenders.

That’s why the label doesn’t fit.

KNOWITALL's avatar

I have no idea and think it’s self-denial personally.
Especially based on comments I’ve read here.

tinyfaery's avatar

Pro-lifers are rarely pro-life in general, they are pro-birth or anti-choice.

I think the terms pro-choice and anti-choice best represent the 2 sides of the abortion debate.

gorillapaws's avatar

@tinyfaery “I think the terms pro-choice and anti-choice best represent the 2 sides of the abortion debate.”

That’s exactly right. There is ultimately one fundamental question: does a woman have the right to make the decision to terminate her pregnancy? Is she allowed to make that choice, or should the government make that choice for her?

Yellowdog's avatar

“Right to choose” is superfluous, actually—making it a euphanim

The question is about the legality of ABORTION. Are you pro-abortion or anti-abortion?

“choice” could be added to the legality of everything. e.g. do you think men making the transgender transition into girlhood have the right to enter girl’s restrooms and locker rooms?

Well, don;t you think they have the right to CHOOSE? That could be called Pro-choice, and you could claim that you are not saying you;re in favor of men entering adolescent female locker rooms. Just in their ‘choice; to do so.

gorillapaws's avatar

@Yellowdog ” Are you pro-abortion or anti-abortion?”

So what would you label someone who is against abortion personally, but who is against the Government from making that decision for everyone and thinks women have a right to choose?

For example, I think everyone has the right to be racists if they want. That doesn’t make me pro-racist. See how your framing eliminates the nuance of the position? Some of us who aren’t as inclined to authoritarianism are able to support the right of people to do things that we don’t ourselves agree with.

flo's avatar

Which side is similar to the so called “pro choice”, is it “pro tax”, or “pro war”?

flo's avatar

Edited to remove.

flo's avatar

@gorillapaws
So what would you label someone who is against… personally, but who is against the Government from making that decision for everyone and thinks…. have a right to choose?”

What else could go in those blank spaces but “abortion” and “women” according to what gets in the discussion public or not? I never hear “pro or anti war” and “pro or anti tax” etc.? It’s just about abortion isn’t it?

flo's avatar

…I mean ” I never hear the term “pro-choice” when it comes to war, or taxes, front lawn related bylaw, anything else, for example.
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2009/03/04/list-of-banned-pesticides-made-public/

flo's avatar

See @KNOWITALL‘s post: “self denial”.
and @Yellowdog Yes, to your 2nd post, not your your 1st, because if a 6 feet person says “My driver’s licence etc. should read “5 feet” because I f_eel_ like a 5 ft person, most of the time anyway, (sometimes I feel like7 feet, and people should write and or describe me as a “7 ft” tall person.”

janbb's avatar

@flo since the law is that women do have the right to choose, we don’t really need to have this stupid argument, do we? Your brain is mush.

flo's avatar

If you eliminate all proceesed food what’s left?
https://www.wikihow.com/Eliminate-Processed-Foods-From-Your-Diet

canidmajor's avatar

What @janbb said. You are making less and less sense, @flo. Reproductive autonomy for women is still established law. Don’t like it? Too bad. Deal with it.

flo's avatar

Not defensive versus defensive.

kritiper's avatar

@flo I think you’re trying to be too literal with the “pro” thing…

flo's avatar

@kritiper Wouldn’t that be the reverse? Isn’t the ones who object the “pro” who’re being too literal?

flo's avatar

Some people want to do whatever they feel like, and want government to stop others from doing what they don’t like. Is that the definition of “being pro-choice”?

flo's avatar

@kritiper I think you’re thought the OP re. guns/“pro killing” (link) in one of the above posts is mine. It’s (@janbb‘s OP. The reason I posted the link is to demonstrate that the so called “pro-choice” is too defensive, scared.

kritiper's avatar

@flo No. I think it’s you. You’re trying to apply one “pro” definition, that you see, to all things “pro.”

flo's avatar

@kritiper I think it’s bettet to quote a statement and then respond to it. I don’t know which statement your “No” is for.

flo's avatar

https://www.fluther.com/215669/is-someone-who-is-for-gun-rights-pro-killing/
“All I know is this OP has proven my point. That the term pro gun is used by the the OPer, means there is no “Don’t call us “pro gun” since we’re not pro killing, don’t mislead the public call us “pro-choice”.”

janbb's avatar

I’m too weak to argue but I meant just the opposite Flo.

flo's avatar

@janbb How does that help your point? You meant to show 2+2 is 5, but you helped demonstrate that 2+2= 4? Ok.

flo's avatar

…By the way the link in my post above my last should be the permalink not the OP although it’s OK that the OP is posted too.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther