“Well it’s 1, 2, 3 — what are we fightin’ for?” That answer may be … your choice.
Planned Parenthood has announced its plan to discard the term “pro-choice.” I don’t think that it’s especially controversial that the anti-abortion side of the argument has had the better of the framing battle when it comes to establishing terms for the respective sides. “Pro-Life” sounds like something that everyone ought to be — despite it’s being a poor name for the anti-abortion position — while “pro-choice” sounds even more abstract and puzzling, as well as subject to caviling. (“Pro which choice? Pro whose choice? What about the baby’s choice?”) Good arguments exist, for example this one from Amanda Marcotte, for retaining the term “pro-choice” — or at least for regretting its departure, if that happens:
I can see why Planned Parenthood might want to shed the term in order to get these conflicted people to realize they are on Planned Parenthood’s side. But I’m afraid that the desire to go label-free is doomed to fail. I’m not going to start writing pieces where I describe pro-choice organizations as pro-whatever-the-situation-is organizations or help-people-understand-the-circumstances organizations. Labels are simply part of language, and shorthand rhetoric is part of the political debate. As long as abortion is a contested issue, there’s no opting out of that.
The only real choice you have is to label yourself or let others do it for you, and of those two options, smart folks will pick the former every time. Pro-choice has its drawbacks, but at least it’s accurate.
And she’s right: trying to promote a movement bare of labels will last for long. (That’s why people pay good money to have their positions branded well.) Not-herself-a-feminist (but abortion-rights-favoring) Katie Roiphe — writing, like Marcotte, in Slate — gives her own suggestion here:
[H]ow should the movement better express the crucial and complicated idea of a woman’s right to control her own body? I think “pro-freedom” would be better, closer to what we mean, though still not as transcendent a term as “pro-life.” (It would be excellent if Planned Parenthood somehow had the power to obliterate the term “pro-life” as well.)
(My emphasis — and I hope that you’ll take the time to read all three links.)
I don’t much like the term “pro-freedom” to replace “pro-choice,” but Roiphe’s closing parenthetical comment in that paragraph struck me like a thunderbolt. Yes! That’s exactly what we need to do — and we can! We supporters of the right to choose an abortion do have the power to obliterate the term “pro-life,” the way that competing brands and message campaigns often do — with a slogan that co-opts the message of the competitor while highlighting its flaws.
I am “PRO-REAL-LIFE.”
I couldn’t find this term in a Google search, so maybe it actually is something new. Here’s what I like about it as a term (and as a slogan): (1) it renders the term “pro-life” feeble by taking over its use of the word “life”; (2) it points to the “fakeness” of many anti-abortion scenarios in how they understand the real-life considerations that lead women to choose abortion, and (3) it trumps “pro-life” in terms of positive buzzwords because “real” and “real-life” are probably as positive as the word “life” itself, at least when it comes to public policy.
“Pro-real-life” is “anti-fake-life” — and anti-fake”-scenarios offered to justify denying abortion that are uncommon in real life.”
“Pro-real-life” seeks to ensure that every woman, not-yet- or already-pregnant, can have a “real life” of their own.
“Pro-real-life” recognizes the real-life choices that women have to make, such as those between supporting their existing children and having another child that could slide the whole family into poverty.
“Pro-real-life” recognizes that in real life, some people who are pregnant are not equipped to have a child at that moment due to age, mental competency, or violent environment (including conception due to rape.)
“Pro-real-life” recognizes that in real life some young women and girls would rather risk death than consult with their parents (or even a judge) about whether to have an abortion, especially in instances of incest or prospective ostracism.
“Pro-real-life” recognizes that in real life some women, young and old, can’t consult with their husbands because of the possible reaction they may face — including violent death.
“Pro-real-life” recognizes that some women can’t afford a needless “waiting period” before being allowed to have an abortion because in real life it may require too much time and too much money for a trip that, thanks to restrictions on
Pro-real-life recognizes that not to allow a mother to protect her own right to life over that of an embryo, fetus, or even late-term child is, in real life, cruel, barbaric, and a deprivation of both dignity and health.
Pro-real-life recognizes that some fetuses, such as those whose brains are developing outside of their skulls, may in real lifeface short and painful lives that their parents may choose to spare them as a simple matter of mercy.
Pro-real-life recognizes that in real life many women whose economic lives may be destroyed by giving birth are going to try to have illegal abortions if they can’t have a legal one, and really lose their lives.
Pro-real-life recognizes that in real life a young woman or girl who has gone through a full-term pregnancy may find it emotionally impossible to give up a child (perhaps especially a first child) for adoption, and may regret it more than she would an abortion.
Pro-real-life recognizes that in real life we are not running out of babies to care for and to continue our civilization.
Pro-real-life recognizes that in real life even those who proclaim their costless expressions of morality by opposing abortion for others often manage to come up with exceptions then it’s themselves or their loves ones — or mistresses who need one.
Pro-real-life recognizes that woman and girls know much more about their real lives at the moment that they are deciding whether to terminate a pregnancy, and that most of them are adults who should be able to make their own real-life decisions and the rest deserve respect for how they want to order the real lives they have ahead of them.
I think that “pro-real-life” makes our arguments very well; in fact, it makes our opponents’ arguments seem wan. I think that it frames the argument exactly how we want it framed.
I accept that “pro-choice” may not have done its job for defenders of reproductive self-determination In real life, you have to accept that sometimes the public doesn’t buy your message or your framing. In real life, if you care about the outcomes, you may have to change it. In real life, you can adapt to new circumstances and come out ahead.
I am pro-real-life! Are you?
Too many syllables. Let’s just be “REAL LIFE.”
You have to be for something, Vern.
“I don’t have time for a baby. I have a real life!”
Probably not the best idea. You really can’t be serious about this.
It’s about as offensive to Pro-Life groups as you can get. You might as well label yourself “Pro-God is Dead” or “Anti-Christian”. It certainly can’t help mellow a debate that has a very long and passionate history.
Maybe you’ve got some great ideas for the Greeks and the Turks? Maybe the whole middle east could use some tuning as well?
No, real life includes babies too, lots of ’em!
With all their needs….
“It’s about as offensive to Pro-Life groups as you can get.”
Ryan, the term “pro-life” intentionally invites people to contrast their view to one that is “not pro-life,” which would linguistically would usually be parsed as “anti-life,” and you think that THIS is “as offensive … as you can get”?
Sorry, but the “choosing terms offensive to the other side” ship sailed long ago when “anti-abortion” was replaced with “pro-life.” This is an overdue next move.
(And what’s wrong with “I don’t have time for a baby. I have a real life!” if that’s what a woman believes? Wanting to live one’s “real life,” whether it’s a matter of providing for existing children, clinging to a job, or pursuing a career, is not a good enough reason for you?)
I’d prefer not to get down into the weeds of logic with you on this one. Perhaps it’s justified retaliation, perhaps it’s just ridiculous.
In the end, should this actually happen, it’s a losing maneuver.
(That part you have as a parenthetical is exactly what the Pro-Life camp objects to. So, no, that’s not a good enough reason for them.)
I’m not part of the pro-life camp. We’re supposed to disagree on that. I also disagree with them that my favoring a woman’s right to have an abortion renders me not “pro-life.” I also disagree with many of them the government can be trust to decide between supposed “good reasons” and “bad reasons” for abortions, meaning that I think that we have to trust women to make their own evaluation of their motives. And I’m willing to have all three of those debates.
When I was a professor I had counseled pregnant students of mine — yes, it comes up in college teaching, at least if you’re approachable — that they probably should not get an abortion if, for example, they believe that it would be an act of murder and that they did not think that they could live with their guilt. But the choice remained theirs.
Just a little word play . . . Not exactly appropriate, but hopefully you’ll cut me some slack.
**I also disagree with many of them the government can be trust to decide between supposed “good reasons” and “bad reasons” [for owning an AR-15], meaning that I think that we have to trust [citizens] to make their own evaluation of their motives.**
Anyway, I hope you’ll forgive that stretch. I didn’t see a question up there for me, so while (again), I don’t doubt your good reasons, I think the slogan exchange is not a winner.
The courts should enter an injunction against all women stopping them from giving birth until the time that men’s right to give birth is established, and then men are allowed to make the same choice as women in the reproductive game.
Equal rights? Since there is supposed to be no difference between men and women. Correct?
I think that you should expand this thesis for an Op-Ed in the Register. Why not? You can’t make the Republican Party look any stupider anymore.
I find this amusing that men are discussing this issue…as usual. I have been to numerous pro-choice rallies and I stood outside Planned Parenthood with other women to make sure patients could enter the building when I lived in Modesto. We faced off against men…lots of them. This is a womans decision and I am proud to say I am pro-choice. My body-My choice.
I made that decision 30 years ago and its one of the smartest decisions I made. I stand by it and have zero regrets.
“This is a woman’s decision.”
Ethics aren’t exclusive to one sex.
While a woman has a unique and often superior position from which to express her opinion, this is an issue that applies to humanity– mothers and fathers included.
No, it really isn’t — at least not equally so.
I’d say more, but I have Y-chromosomes. Inge, he’s all yours.
Greg doesn’t believe in equal rights.
cook believes in making a joke out of “equal rights.”
You’ll note I conceeded “not equally so”.
Dear Ryan,
This is a woman’s issue. If a man could get pregnant we wouldn’t be having this discussion, there would 24 hour “on demand’, no questions asked abortion clinics in every city.
If a woman (in this case me, 30 years ago) finds herself pregnant and does not for ANY reason want to give birth, she has the right to end the pregnancy without PERMISSION from anyone. It is her body and her choice.
The pro-life group came up with this slogan so anyone who disagreed with them would appear to be anti-life. These same people think its alright to kill abortion doctors…like they did years ago. There is nothing pro-life about this group. They are fanatics (much like Westboro Church) who want to control others, (women) because they beliEve they know better than anyone else whats best because they have a direct line to their God.
Why planned Parenthood would even engage these nuts is beyond me. They have been under attack since Roe v. Wade became law and its gotten worse these past few decades..mostly by the fanatic branch of the GOP. If I were head of PP I would stand up to these assholes. I don’t care what PP decides to call themselves, I still call myself pro-choice, because thats what its about. Choice. My choice.
You have your own body and you get to choose what happens to it whether you are male or female. Its none of my business what you do or who you do it with.The decision to have an abortion is nobodys business but the womans.
And I repeat…she can have an abortion for whatever reason she chooses.
As for those who run Planned Parenthood, I say they stop worrying about semantics and focus on womens healthcare — thats their main reason for existing.
“This is a woman’s issue.”
Morality is a human issue. Sex has nothing to do with it. You’re confusing the ability to make the decision (one does indeed have to be a woman in order to make the decision) with the right to participate in the make up of the ethical fabric of a community.
Breast feeding is also not just a woman’s issue.
Neither is child rearing or pay equality.
Neither is cancer, breast or otherwise.
“She has the right to end the pregnancy without PERMISSION from anyone.”
That’s what the law says. Even if she’s 13.
“It is her body and her choice.”
Unless she’s 13 and wants to get a tattoo . . . or some other elective surgery– like breast implants. Then it’s someone else’s choice.
Or better yet, if she’s 6 months old, and some careless individual who didn’t get a flu shot happens to pass on an infection. Then it’s her body and not her choice . . . but I guess we don’t have the right to be disease free, as easy as that might be to achieve.
If the goal here is to come up with a new label that more accurately frames the complexity of the conversation, the proposed label is going to be a miserable failure that just makes things worse.
If the goal here is to come up with something cute to make a group feel more righteous, while flipping the bird to everyone else. OK, fine. Go for it. The world will be worse of for it, but hey– those are the choices we make, right?
See your arguments are from your point of view and you are a man. You do not have to carry a child to term that you don’t want. You are frankly typical of the males who show up at Planned Parenthood, without throwing Jesus into the mix.
Breast feeding is not a womans issue???? really??/ When is the last time YOU breastfed????
I think we would all be better off if people munded their own business and worried about themselves. i frankly don’t care what you do with your body…I don’t face the consequences. I do take full responsiblity for my actions and to be responsible I sometimes make choices you don’t agree with.
As for your argument about 13 year olds..I will agree that an adult needs to be part of that decision. What if that girl is raped??? I am guessing you may believe that child is “a gift from God” and force her to conceive it.
And by the way abortions are not cheap! I seriously doubt a 13 year old has enough money in her piggy bank to pay for one. As for your 6 month old remark..I won’t even bother to answer such a stupid comparison.
My guess is you will be the first crying foul if someone tells you what you can or cannot do with your man parts.
You have a knack for polorizing your opposition.
You’ll note that I neither advocated the ProLife vienw or the ProChoice view.
Your comment re: breast feeding is just plain ignorant.
Tone it down, please. Opinions require a brain, not a vagina. Please tone it down a notch or eight. A six month old dying of the flu isn’t stupid. Have a heart.
Ryan, I have to assume then you are capable of breast feeding, since you believe breast feeding is not a womans issue.
I won’t even address your stupid remark about a brain and vagina.
You really need to give the flu shot remark a rest. We are not talking about 6 month old children either. Your comparisons are simply…stupid.
Well, ma’am, you know what happens when you assume.
What I said was: Breast feeding is not JUST a women’s issue.
I’m sorry to hear your prejudice has gotten in the way of civility.
This is the most contentious breastfeeding confrontation in OC politics since the Kiger vs. Flory showdown of October 2012!
You really need to get over this “breast feeding is not just a women’s issue.”
Yes it is.
Stop giving men a bad name by trying to force your beliefs down everybody’s throat. Open your mind and look at why this is truly the purview of new mothers. Here is another perspective…
http://www.waba.org.my/resources/activitysheet/acsh4.htm
You may have your own beliefs, but you’re on your own with this one.
Now if you want to talk about something that is a man’s issue, discuss your next prostate exam. Inge will give you no advice on that.
As far as your irrational flu shot hysteria goes, we all know where you stand on that….give it a rest.
Try not to be so polarizing by calling Inge ignorant, then telling her to tone it down. You’re giving men a bad name here.
…..and I’m all for public breast feeding.
What, are we ashamed that kids get hungry, and that is how mothers feed their babies?
Dema,
In the link you provided there is this statement : “Men have an important role to play in changing conditions for women and in changing their own attitudes toward breastfeeding and women’s work.”
Would this angle of the issue be interpreted as a men’s issue as well?
I have a friend diagnosed with prostrate problem, his wife simpathizes with his pain, and consequences of adjusting their sexual lives. It is a men’s problem but involves women as well.
There is no need to disqualify each other when we disagree.
D,
Please quote the part where I attempted to force an opinion on breast feeding down anyone’s throat.
I’ll expect your apology in the mail.
–RC
And RT for the win!
Ricardo Toro, I previously read that statement as well, and here’s how I took it.
The important role that men have to play in changing conditions for women is to be less onerous in their writing rules that dictate to women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
They also have to “change their own attitudes about breast feeding” in public, which again is an example of men sticking their noses into women’s business. It’s a women’s issue that they have taken it upon themselves, to tell women what they are “allowed” to do. When babies are hungry they want their mothers. Not their daddy’s.
“Would this angle of the issue be interpreted as a men’s issue as well?”
I don’t think so, unless you’re a man who thinks that he knows what’s best for women. Some guys think that they do. I don’t think that you’re one of those.
So your friend with the prostate problems, is his wife calling the shots on his treatment? So if she thinks that the best treatment is to remove his testicles, I think that he may opt for something that he thinks is better, like hormones, or radiation, or drugs. That would make it his issue, a man’s issue.
Now, he might choose to involve her in HIS decision about what the best approach is, but I guarantee that his opinion will carry the day.
Ryan…
“And RT for the win!”
This discussion has been going on for decades. What do you think you’ve won?
RT had no trouble making an inclusive observation about the problem with our culture of care.
I thought that wasn’t going to be lost on you. I would have called that a win, but alas– you reverted to a dichotomous position.
Anyway, you still owe me a quote or an apology. You can get my e-mail address from Vern or Greg.
By the by . . .
” ‘Would this angle of the issue be interpreted as a men’s issue as well?’
I don’t think so, unless you’re a man who thinks that he knows what’s best for women. Some guys think that they do. I don’t think that you’re one of those.”
That’s half right. I’d help you with the other half, but odds are you don’t care or you aren’t willing to listen.
Sure, I’ll apologize to you for the remark on forcing your opinions on breast feeding down our throats.
You write:
“Breast feeding is also not just a woman’s issue.”
“Your comment re: breast feeding is just plain ignorant.”
Those are just strong opinions, I suppose.
You go on to say…
“That’s half right. I’d help you with the other half, but odds are you don’t care or you aren’t willing to listen.”
I’m willing to listen.
Well, you didn’t list her ignorant comment. It wouldn’t look so strong then, but that’s between me and Inge I suppose.
Here’s the short version of the other half:
There’s a substantial difference between not telling a mother how to feed her baby and supporting a mother’s choice in how she feeds her baby.
Defining what good support looks like isn’t easy. It demands attention, an education, focus, empathy, courage, and patience. Assigning the issue to the “woman only” column only reinforces the stereotype that women take care of babies and men go to work. It provides an excuse for a father to abdicate responsibility for caring for his offspring, to support his partner, and to ensure that his daughter’s foundation of care isn’t biased by traditional patriarchy but rather by mutual responsibility.
So while a woman decides if, how, and when she’ll use her breasts– the issue of breast feeding isn’t exclusive to nursing mothers. Mothers who choose formula and their partners who support them all have roles and responsibilities in the grander argument contributing to improving the American culture of care.
I understand where you’re coming from as far as having the responsibility of the nurturing of a child being the decision of both the parents. When the child is past breast feeding age that is certainly true.
When the child is a newborn though, the ultimate decision of breast feeding is the mother’s, which makes it the woman’s issue. She can certainly ask her mate for input, but she ultimately decides. You can’t make her breast feed.
It just occurred to me that all of this discussion on breastfeeding is taking place in my post on something else. Oh well — that’s Real Life also.
That would make it a mother’s decision, not exclusively a woman’s issue. They’re distinct.
**You’re abdicating feeding responsibility! While a mother may not wish (or be able to) breastfeed her newborn, that does not necessarily preclude the parents deciding to breast feed their child.** (Edit add)
I know you love links, so here’s the long version. I don’t agree with everything here, but it’s a decent representation and does a good job expounding on issue.
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/08/26/why-breastfeeding-is-a-feminist-issue/
Of note– one need not be a woman to be a feminist.
I think that your link pretty much proves my point.
Maybe we are quibbling over semantics here. What is your definition of “women’s issues”?
Please give an example.
Alas, it proves my point describing breast feeding as a feminist issue and rejecting a _solely_ individualistic approach.
Again– I don’t know why this isn’t abundantly clear, the issues on this thread are clearly issues for women.
They’re just not exclusively issues for women.
To answer your question, you’ll have to ask a woman what her issues are. I wouldn’t be surprised if they varied from woman to woman, based on the diversity of her experience. The the pre-21st century assumption that politics, ethics, and philosophy have strict sex/gender divisions is no longer accepted as appropriate social science.
“Again– I don’t know why this isn’t abundantly clear, the issues on this thread are clearly issues for women.”
Therefore…. they are women’s issues.
I feel like Bill in this exchange…
D– That’s what I said. I actually said it three times if you scroll up.
The clip really isn’t applicable.
It’s more like this one.
*Here is a crazy vision: Everytime a Pro-Life person says anything against abortion….they have to immediately go out and date or take in a currently Pregnant unmarried person….that lives in a ghetto!
As we said: Just a crazy vision…
Too deep we suppose!
So…50’s!!!
It sounds crazy … but it might work! But what’s the penalty if they refuse?
(Note: my role in this emerging comedy routine does not allow me to take on the “doesn’t the unmarried person have a say in this?” question.)
*We said it was a crazy vision…….not a prescription…. OK,… maybe make them put their rejected pregnant date or live in – post on their FACEBOOK page!
Inge,
On this one we agree, it’s not my place in sectarian society to tell you what you can or can’t do with your body. You own you, nobody else. Makes no difference if it’s your choice to get or not, a vaccine or to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. SCOTUS spoke, it is the law of the land. Why we are still hashing this one out is beyond my comprehension. I do however have problems with taxpayer monies being used. I understand it, but I am uncomfortable with it.
Ryan,
I understand your concerns, BUT there are limits on how far you can push a religious opinion, like all life is sacred. Or that the protection of it, by our sectarian form of govt. begins when sperm and egg combine. I understand it, but it’s not going to be our choice ultimately. I also have huge problems with any prohibition of procedures by medical personnel. I never want to hear that someone died because they couldn’t receive a medical procedure, by competent medical staff, because of a legal issue. I don’t think that’s defensible from a religious point of view either.
I may not like something but there are limits in sectarian society that are placed on all of us. Like it or not it’s the price we pay to all get along together.
Carl,
Look at that. You just contributed a worthwhile opinion, all while (presumably) having a penis.
Well done. I don’t disagree with anything you just wrote.