|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Anti-abortion rhetoric and violence
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
This Slate columnist sees a direct connection between the right wing rhetoric against Planned Parenthood and the recent shootings at one of their sites. I go further and think all the priests and pastors who call a three month embryo a baby and the abortion doctors murderers are inciting violence against them. I've always thought that encouraging people to think an embryo is the same as a five year old are naturally going to create this sort of hatred for doctors who perform abortions. Soon they're looked upon as worse than the Sandy Hook elementary mass murderer.
Move this to DH if you think it's necessary, but I just wonder what people both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice think about this.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The pro-choice/pro-life issue is a complex one and shouldn't be reduced to simple sound-bites nor to the kind of left/right rhetoric that it accrues - particularly in the US.
My problem with the OP here is that it is too binary ... if you regard a three-month old embryo as a baby, as a human being, then, by extension, you are effectively condoning the murder of abortionists by those who oppose abortion.
How does that follow?
I happen to believe that a three-month old embryo is a human being - what else are they?
Does that mean that I'd sanction the murder of people who work in abortion clinics? No, of course not.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
That's cobblers.* It's no more inciting violence to speak against abortion than it is to speak for it.
Either way, those with tendencies to violence will use it as an excuse.
* Cobbler's awls - Balls. Rhyming slang.
cross-posted with Gamaliel
[ 30. November 2015, 20:18: Message edited by: Raptor Eye ]
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Indeed ... and where do we draw the line?
I don't think anyone is saying that a three-month old foetus is the same as a five-year old - but they have the potential to become a five-year old, a 15 year old, a 25 year old, a 50 year old ...
At what point does the foetus become a baby? When it's born?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I'm pretty 'progressive'/lefty on most issues but I find it as hard to stomach some of the pro-choice rhetoric as I do some of the very right-wing pro-life stuff ...
I worry about the extremes in each case.
We need cool heads all round and not rhetoric. But that's easier said than done with emotive subjects like this.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
In general I find the rhetorical atmosphere of the US right now (particularly in connection with the blatant dishonesty of the media) terrifying.
I have some idea how we got here but very little idea how the hell we get out of this mess.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Host tags light on
The place for the rational discussion of abortion and pre/post-birth life is in Dead Horses. Hell is for screams and rants.
Do not think that Russ's Homophobia thread is a precedent. It's not. We are capricious by nature, and frankly, I've had it up to here with that thread, about two pages in, and the only reason it's lasted this long is so we can all call Russ an arse.
No shipmates are involved in this incident, so unless there's more heat than light here, I'll be damned if I'm going to read pages of what the Finns call 'comma fucking' - arguing over minute details.
DT
HH
Host tags light off
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
Heat, you say? *cracks knuckles*
Who the fucking hell thinks that they can call doctors murderers, call their actions a holocaust, and then sit back and watch them get FUCKING WELL SLAUGHTERED - and then reserve the right to give dainty little gasps of tut-tutting horror at these misguided folks who use violence? YOU SAID THEY WERE KILLING BABIES. WHAT DID YOU THINK WOULD FUCKING WELL HAPPEN.
Not to mention the people saying "oh, well, the woman who got killed at Planned Parenthood clearly deserved everything she got". SHE WAS THERE TO SUPPORT HER FRIEND. WHAT KIND OF PERSON DESERVES TO DIE BECAUSE SHE'S BEING A SUPPORTIVE FRIEND??? Even if she had been a patient - (1) Planned Parenthood provides services other than abortion; (2) abortion is sometimes the necessary aftermath of a much-wanted pregnancy going hideously, horribly wrong; (3) it's nobody's business why she was there at all; (4) how does she deserve to fucking DIE to justify your moral superiority?
...and (5) if she DOES deserve to die, how are you still maintaining that you're not spreading violent fucking rhetoric, you FUCKING ARSEHOLES????
(Hope that's sufficiently hellish. At any rate, I've been needing somewhere to say that for a few days now, so huzzah.)
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Oh, fucking hell. I believe that my unborn child who died at six weeks was a human being and a person; does that de facto make me a murderer or a rabble-rouser? Get a clue, get some nuance, get a rusty farm implement and use it to good effect.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dee.
Ship's Theological Acrobat
# 5681
|
Posted
What Lamb Chopped said.
Further more there are a number of us who are both pro life and pro choice but no matter where you stand on the issue you have to be fucked in the head to think that shooting or bombing a group of people who disagree with you is going to a. Fix the issue b. Give you the moral high or c. Win anyone over to your perspective.
Finally, you Yanks really have to do something about how easy it is for nutcases to get guns in your country. We all have nut cases but for some reason yours seem to find it so much easier to get hold of a weapon and shoot people up.
Your fucked up gun control laws are not helping you!
[ 30. November 2015, 22:36: Message edited by: Dee. ]
--------------------
Jesus - nice bloke, bit religious
Posts: 2679 | From: Under Downunder | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The pro-choice/pro-life issue is a complex one and shouldn't be reduced to simple sound-bites nor to the kind of left/right rhetoric that it accrues - particularly in the US.
Of course it isn't a simple issue. But, it suits some politicians to make it simple. Particularly in the US where the Republican party for many years has counted on the votes of a large number of evangelical Christians who have (for some bizarre reason I've never understood) made abortion the one issue that decides their vote. So, we have Republican candidates making strong anti-abortion speeches, promoting fraudulent videos about an organisation that (as a small part of their service) provide abortions and generally stirring things up to try and get votes from the same group of people. Yet, will any of those candidates propose policies that will ban abortions? Of course not, even if they actually wanted to ban abortion they'll never be able to do it. They're not even saying they'll do anything to reduce the number of abortions - the exact opposite in fact (you do not reduce abortions by being prudish about sex education, by cutting the funding to family planning clinics, by cutting funding to adoption services etc). It's that increasingly vocal appeal to the small minority who are considered to hold the key to Republican candidacy that is fuelling domestic terrorism in the US - the blatant racism of Trump may also be encouraging white supremacists in their terrorist activities as well.
The irony is that despite all their rhetoric to appeal to the religious right, the Republicans fail miserably to follow through. The idiocy of those who vote Republican because they talk tough on abortion is most clearly demonstrated by data. US abortion rates were highest under the Presidencies of Reagan and the Elder Bush (average about 360 per 100,000 live births), fell steadily under Clinton (to about 250 per 100,000 births), levelled off under the second Bush, and under Obama continued to fall (currently around 200 per 100,000 births).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
Where in the hell is there demonizing and incitement to violence on the part of the pro-choice movement?
The Colorado Springs murders are not the first killings by those influenced by "pro-life" inflamatory rhetoric. In addition, there have been plenty of arson and other criminal acts directed at providers of pregnancy termination.
I see a definite causal link.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
Worthy of a Hell call, too,are the pathetic "religious" leaders who claim that every major problem or disaster that occurs in the US is a result of God punishing us for permitting abortion (unless, of course, it's God's wrath for tolerating gays and lesbians).
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I'm pro-life. I just happen to believe the term applies to people after they're born, too.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Indeed ... and where do we draw the line?
I don't think anyone is saying that a three-month old foetus is the same as a five-year old - but they have the potential to become a five-year old, a 15 year old, a 25 year old, a 50 year old ...
At what point does the foetus become a baby? When it's born?
Yes. When it's born. Potential is not the same as actual. There is a shock value in saying that a doctor who performs an abortion on a ten week embryo has "killed a baby," that does produce a sort of horror that "performed an abortion," does not. Calling the fetus a baby is not accurate and I believe it is inflammatory.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
It's TERRORISM, but because he's a white Christian, we're supposed to pretend that he's mentally ill and never watches the news and the pro-life movement has nothing to do with it. <la la la fingers in ears la la la>
Well, fuck that shit. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) This is TERRORISM, pure and simple. The pro-life movement is associated with, encourages, and supports TERRORISM. They call doctors "murderers". They harass and attack doctors and their staff and patients and burn and bomb and vandalize clinics. They spread false propaganda. There are direct links between pro-life terrorists and leaders in the movement. And only after people are injured or killed do they clutch their pearls and say that of course they oppose violence, even though their next newsletter or email blast will celebrate the deaths of "baby killers" and brag about how many babies were saved by a soldier for Christ. Don't tell me that their violent rhetoric doesn't have an effect. Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining. There is no plausible deniability for them to hide behind, none.
And if any pro-lifers think it is terribly unfair to associate them with terrorists, well, now they know what it's like to be an ordinary Muslim.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Calling the fetus a baby is not accurate and I believe it is inflammatory.
For those who believe an unborn foetus has exactly as much value as a newborn baby, how is it inaccurate? Because they didn't use the medical term "foetus"?
Most people don't. Millions of pregnant women talk about having a "baby" inside them. It is entirely normal and commonplace to refer to the "baby" contained in a pregnant woman's bump. When expectant mothers proudly show off fuzzy ultrasound pictures, they talk about their "baby" - not their foetus.
Yes, I agree, talk of "baby killers" is intended to be shocking. But that doesn't necessarily make it unfair.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
When we are able to clone people, will we need to save every drop of blood and every scrape of skin because it all will technically have the potential to become a human?
No. Because that's stupid.
Creating a new human should be preferably a profoundly deliberate act. Sometimes it's not, and that's OK too, but the argument of no-compromise sanctity of all human life is rendered impossible by our shared reality in too many ways already. We suffer enough from preprogrammed urges that bypass our feeble individual wisdoms.
A focus on education and support for mothers (like, say, fucking realistic maternity leave) should be forefront. And, perhaps, where support simply isn't enough, let the potential mothers retain the right to make all their own profoundly deliberate decisions.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Egeria
Shipmate
# 4517
|
Posted
Anyone who violently attacks innocent, defenseless strangers on the grounds of their profession, religious affiliation, ethnicity, nationality, presumed cultural background...is a terrorist (read: cowardly barbaric little shit).
(Tangent: I'm a little annoyed just now because s recent post on the Psychology Today blog puts terrorism and the Charleston church massacre into different categories.)
Also, let's not forget what liars those anti-abortionists are. Examples: abortion supposedly causes breast cancer, women who've had abortions supposedly suffer horrible grief and guilt for the rest of their lives. Made up out of whole cloth. Liars. Liars. Liars.
And hypocrites too of course, because they don't care about those precious lives once they're actually begun. And it's always interesting how "pro-lifers" often turn out to be pro-capital punishment. Wouldn't be surprised if the whackos who advocate capital punishment for disobedient children turn out be "pro-life."
--------------------
"Sound bodies lined / with a sound mind / do here pursue with might / grace, honor, praise, delight."--Rabelais
Posts: 314 | From: Berkeley, CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Calling the fetus a baby is not accurate and I believe it is inflammatory.
For those who believe an unborn foetus has exactly as much value as a newborn baby, how is it inaccurate? Because they didn't use the medical term "foetus"?
Most people don't. Millions of pregnant women talk about having a "baby" inside them. It is entirely normal and commonplace to refer to the "baby" contained in a pregnant woman's bump. When expectant mothers proudly show off fuzzy ultrasound pictures, they talk about their "baby" - not their foetus.
Yes, I agree, talk of "baby killers" is intended to be shocking. But that doesn't necessarily make it unfair.
Intentionally calling someone a "baby killer" goes WAY, WAY, WAY beyond "shocking". Not even the ultra-damning label "child molester" is likely to stir up as much downright hatred.
"...that doesn't necessarily make it unfair..." - unmitigated BULLSHIT!
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Even if one believed that doctors are killing lots of little human beings, it wouldn't justify a piece of stupid vigilantism.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It's TERRORISM, but because he's a white Christian, we're supposed to pretend that he's mentally ill and never watches the news and the pro-life movement has nothing to do with it. <la la la fingers in ears la la la>
I do not give a flying fuck that he is white or Christian and certainly am giving no one a pass for anything because they are. But he IS mentally ill.
If he hadn't seen the rubbish "investigation" would he have done as he did? No way of knowing, but it is not a stretch to assume that he was influenced at least.
He is not a terrorist any meaningful way precisely because he is mentally ill. There have been bombings in the past, as well as shootings, that should be labeled terrorism. This is one that it doesn't fit.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
And if any pro-lifers think it is terribly unfair to associate them with terrorists, well, now they know what it's like to be an ordinary Muslim.
This is silly. I could be labeled Pro-Life, though I am not strictly anti-abortion.*
And there are strict Pro-lifers who are appalled by this and other violence associated with their movement.
Yes, there is crossover in the Venn Diagram that is anti-abortion and anti-Other, but they are not concentric, equal circles.
*I am Pro-Choice with the emphasis on preventing unwanted pregnancy.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Intentionally calling someone a "baby killer" goes WAY, WAY, WAY beyond "shocking". Not even the ultra-damning label "child molester" is likely to stir up as much downright hatred.
"...that doesn't necessarily make it unfair..." - unmitigated BULLSHIT!
Well, I'm not sure how you could accidentally call someone a "baby killer"!
Here's the deal. If someone views a foetus and a newborn baby as of equal status, then someone who has or performs an abortion is a "baby killer" - a person who kills a baby. You wouldn't agree with that, of course, because you don't agree with the premise, but the reason that it's shocking (or, perhaps, WAY WAY WAY beyond shocking) is that, if you think a foetus and a baby are equivalent, then the act of abortion itself is WAY WAY WAY beyond shocking.
Stop and think about that for a moment. If you think that a foetus and a baby are equivalent, then this label - the one you call more damning than being called a child-molester - is accurate.
I don't think everyone in the pro-life camp thinks this way. There seem to be plenty of people who aren't so much pro-life as they are anti-sex, and want to inflict the "penalty" of a baby on the "wanton sluts". Needless to say, that attitude is hardly pro-anyone's life.
I don't hold this opinion. I don't think a foetus and a newborn baby are equivalent, because you can't write the mother out of the equation - she counts, too. My opinion is probably not far from lilBuddha's: I don't want anyone to end up in a position where they feel they have to have an abortion, but I wouldn't prevent them from having one.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
My opinion is probably not far from lilBuddha's: I don't want anyone to end up in a position where they feel they have to have an abortion, but I wouldn't prevent them from having one.
Me too, absolutely.
But, say I really believed the people administering abortions were killing babies - would shooting them down advance my cause to save these unborns in any way?
Not at all - they are completely deranged - terrorists is a good word for them.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
When we are able to clone people, will we need to save every drop of blood and every scrape of skin because it all will technically have the potential to become a human?
No. Because that's stupid.
Oh, I'm sure the theologians will find a way of getting the answer they want to that question. That's usually how they work.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, you want Hellish, I can do Hellish.
Fuck off Twilight, you twat.
Are you telling me that when I felt my daughters kicking inside my wife's womb they weren't babies, that they weren't people? That they only became human beings when they emerged from the birth canal?
You call yourself 'Twilight' but you've got as much nuance as a solar eclipse. 'Black-and-white-Light' more like it.
Now, does it follow that because I believe that unborn babies are just that - people who just haven't happened to have been born yet - I'm justifying the antics of crazed anti-abortionists in the fucked up gun-law US-of-A?
Now I'm fucking not. And you fucking well know it - or at least you should if you've got any brain cells inside the echoing cavity you call your brain.
As Lamb Chopped says, get some nuance.
Arsehole.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Even if one believed that doctors are killing lots of little human beings, it wouldn't justify a piece of stupid vigilantism.
Why not?
I'm aware that moderate pro-lifers say this, and only the nutters appear to dissent, but I don't think that (unless they are strict pacifists in all circumstances) they are being consistent. It is, morally and legally, a fairly mainstream position that it is justifiable to use force, even lethal force, to prevent a murder. If there is a class of professional, state-licensed murderers, killing thousands of ordinary human beings every week, and no practical way to stop this (and certainly not to stop it now) short of violence, wouldn't it be right to fight against that? If we imagine a similar body-count as a result of government thugs booting down doors and dragging people to extermination camps or shooting them in the street, armed resistance to this would appear more heroic than stupid vigilantism.
Of course, I can't really see abortion as morally equivalent to obvious cases of mass-murder. But I would say that the widespread failure of the pro-life movement to take up arms and resist to the last drop of their blood is an indication that they don't really see it that way either. Most pro-lifers would be shocked and offended at the thought that they might react with any violence at all - yet if they actually believed that people were being murdered, it ought to be a difficult and painful principled stand not to fight back. They certainly shouldn't resent the suggestion that this might even be an option.
I would say that the 'abortion is murder' thing is rhetoric - it's not what most pro-lifers genuinely think, but is a result of the way that the debate has been framed. The proof being that when someone acts rationally and consistently with the view that abortion is exactly equivalent to other violent killings, we don't merely disapprove, we are shocked, pro-lifers included.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, you want Hellish, I can do Hellish.
Fuck off Twilight, you twat.
Are you telling me that when I felt my daughters kicking inside my wife's womb they weren't babies, that they weren't people? That they only became human beings when they emerged from the birth canal?
See how you do that every time? Quickly slide from "baby" to "human being?" No wonder you're confused Mr. Strawman. I've never said a fetus isn't a human being -- that's the dead horse argument we're trying to avoid here. I've said he isn't a baby and he is not. The dictionary defines "baby": quote:
A very young child, especially one newly or recently born."
What you felt in your wife's uterus was not a baby, a little girl, young woman or an old lady. Calling the unborn a baby, when speaking of a medical procedure, is just a way to make abortion sound worse and upset people more.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That's bollocks and you know it.
What are you saying? That an unborn child isn't a 'baby' until the moment the contractions start and it begins to emerge down the birth canal?
I am well aware that anti-abortion activists can be highly emotive and attempt to inflame opinion, but don't you think that your own brand of double-speak is in danger of doing the same sort of thing in the opposite direction?
You are an even bigger twat than I thought you were.
Of course it's possible to refer to unborn babies as babies. People say, 'So and so is expecting a baby ...'
It's part of common parlance.
Nobody goes round saying, 'She is carrying an embryo ...' or 'We are expecting a foetus.'
I'm surprised you even know how to use a dictionary - other than to wipe your own arse and I doubt you're even capable of doing that without assistance.
But now you have apparently mastered the art of opening Websters and looking words up you clearly haven't mastered the art of nuance of even of putting things into context.
What a pillock.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Of course it's possible to refer to unborn babies as babies. People say, 'So and so is expecting a baby ...'
It's part of common parlance.
Yes, it's common parlance for the majority of pregnancies where the mother wants a child. Parents (to be) talk about their baby in advance of the birth, it's part of the process of bonding with the child, for first time parents in particular of adjusting to this new circumstance (if they think they're prepared they're in for a nasty shock).
But, it's incredibly insensitive to talk that way where the mother does not want to be pregnant. Even when she isn't contemplating abortion, and is perhaps planning to put the child up for adoption.
The language we use is very powerful, and it's situational.
We will use the language of talking about the foetus as a "baby" when someone desperate for children has a miscarriage. We'll even go to the trouble of organising a funeral. Technically, the child never had an independent existence but we use the language for pastoral reasons.
No one with any shred of humanity will use the same language and approach for a 15 year old rape victim who chose to have an abortion.
So, Twilight is right. Technically right, in that the foetus is not a baby. Pastorally right that to call a foetus a baby within the context of abortion is to pile added layers of guilt on women (and often their partners and family) who have had to make a very difficult decision, often in trying circumstances.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Not sure it will help, but to me the important word is expecting - in the sense that in x months time we are "expecting" a child to be born.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That an unborn child isn't a 'baby' until the moment the contractions start and it begins to emerge down the birth canal?
There's no single moment at which something that clearly wasn't "a baby" suddenly becomes one, any more than there's a dingle moment that a sapling turns into a tree.
The degree to which we see the preservation of the unborn-whatever as important varies. Even though some of the criteria are controversial (such as disability), we almost all do in fact care more about wanted than unwanted pregnancies, late more than early pregnancies, pregnancies as a result of consensual sex more than those resulting from rape. So of course you felt that the children your wife was carrying were babies (I felt the same) and of course we sympathise with the mother who suffers a miscarriage and feels it as a bereavement. An unborn child can be loved. Everyone of ordinary human sentiment understands that.
But it is simply untrue to the psychological and moral reality of people on all sides of the debate (save the most ugly extreme) that we give the same value to all pregnancies. We just don't. They are not all 'people' to us. We don't react to their termination as we do to murder. We are seriously disturbed by people who do.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm with you up to a point, Alan ... the language we use in relation to these things will vary according to the circumstances.
So, yes, it would be pastorally insensitive to use the term 'baby' when dealing with a 15 year old who is having an abortion ...
But in the case of a miscarriage, as you say, we'll often say something like, 'I'm afraid they've lost the baby ...'
I get that. I take the point you're making here.
My beef with Twilight is that he is apparently unable to apply this sort of principle in both directions.
So, for instance, he'll say that to use terms like 'baby' to refer to an unborn child is emotive and is one of the devices that pro-life/anti-abortion lobbyists and spokespeople use to 'make abortion out to be worse than it actually is ...'
When the converse is equally true, that pro-choice/pro-abortion lobbyists and spokespeople will avoid using terms like 'child' and 'baby' for the opposite reason ... arguably, to make abortion more acceptable by, arguably, reducing the 'human' dimension by the use of less 'personal' and more medical terms such as 'embryo' and 'foetus'.
So, yes, the language we use can be highly charged and ideological.
I'm not sure how we avoid that in emotive circumstances and in relation to issues like this one.
What I'm saying is that Twilight is just as subject to that as those who take the opposite view. I'm not saying that he's on the same moral (or immoral) plane as some ding-a-ling who takes a gun along to their local abortion clinic. Of course I'm not saying that.
But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Twilight can't complain about pro-life/anti-abortion people using language emotively when his own use of language could be construed as equally ideological.
I'm suggesting that this is a flaw and a blind-spot in his argument.
That's the Purgatorial part.
I'm also accusing him of being a twat for apparently not seeing the contradiction in his own argument.
That's the Hellish part.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I'm not sure what's wrong with using different words for different circumstances.
It is also undeniable that "pro-life" advocates will use the word "baby" in pastorally insensitive ways, playing the emotional blackmail card to intimidate women who are already largely emotionally distraught - and, to cap off the insult, if they manage to terrorise the poor woman into not having an abortion they won't lift a finger to help her raise the child, or find an adoptive parent.
Doctors and other medical and counselling staff will use the technical language as a deliberate move to de-emotionalise the choice the woman has to make. They aren't trying to force her to have an abortion*, no rational person would actually try to force someone to have an abortion. They are seeking to dampen some of the emotional turmoil so she can make a free, informed choice.
There is an enormous distance between the two groups. I have a lot of sympathy for medical staff trying their best to help someone in emotional distress make the right decision for them - they know that some women will look back and regret the decision they made, especially if made in haste.
I have no sympathy at all for people who force their views on others, using emotional violence to intimidate and terrorise vulnerable women.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Babies being both joys and lifetime parasities on their parents regardless what you call them, this is absolutely the wrong end of analysis. Individual experience is not the way to inform public opinion. It's testimonial and not data. Ignorable regarding writing laws.
The complete lack of an abortion law and putting it entirely in the area of health in Canada is associated with lower abortion rates. So get the lawyers and politicians and eager religious knowitalls out, and legislate nothing about abortion and you can have lower abortion rates too.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is an enormous distance between the two groups.
Most of this is due to the nature of the argument. The abortion argument is not symmetric, just like other "rights" arguments.
The anti-abortion side wants to prevent women from having abortions; the pro choice side wants to permit, but not force, it. The anti-gay-marriage side wants to prevent gay couples from marrying; the pro-rights side wants to permit it, but has no intention of dragging random pairs of men off the street and marrying them against their will.
It is inevitable that the argument "you should be prevented from doing this thing you want to do, and forced to do this other thing, in the aid of the common good or whatever" sounds different from "you should be able to make your own decisions."
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
Where in the hell is there demonizing and incitement to violence on the part of the pro-choice movement?
Firstly it is in the use of language which dehumanises a baby which has not yet been born, in the same way as the 'enemy' in war is dehumanised, so that it is OK to destroy 'it'.
Secondly in the way some may caricature and demonise those who are 'pro-life', by throwing all of the labels at it that we've already seen in this thread, (which must inevitably end up without a neigh left in its body). This is bigoted and calls out prejudice, which could lead to hatred and violence.
If someone uses the word 'baby' to describe an unborn infant, it does not mean that they are doing so in a hateful way to try to make women who are going through abortions feel guilty, it does not mean that they are over-religious or nutters, it does not mean that they are inciting violence.
If someone thinks that abortion is wrong and therefore they would not condone it but condemn it, they are allowed their pov and allowed to give their pov as much as those who think that abortion is an acceptable method of birth control and condemn those who think otherwise. I do not stand at either extreme end of the argument.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
That's bollocks and you know it.
What are you saying? That an unborn child isn't a 'baby' until the moment the contractions start and it begins to emerge down the birth canal?
I'd go a few seconds later and wait until it had left the mother's body.
quote:
It's part of common parlance.
Nobody goes round saying, 'She is carrying an embryo ...' or 'We are expecting a foetus.'
I'm surprised you even know how to use a dictionary - other than to wipe your own arse and I doubt you're even capable of doing that without assistance.
But now you have apparently mastered the art of opening Websters and looking words up you clearly haven't mastered the art of nuance of even of putting things into context.
What a pillock.
Of course it's common parlance and expecting parents can refer to their coming child as the holy angel of heaven if they want. We're not talking about sentiment or endearments here, were talking about medical and legal terms and that's where the baby leaves the fetus.
I think that pastors, like doctors and lawyers, should use the correct terms, not the emotional ones. That's the nuance you aren't getting.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Not joining your attackers Twilight, but you are missing the nuance as well.
Determining a point where abortion is permissible is a necessary thing. But it is arbitrary. Loads of people on both extremes use language to minimise the opposition and maximise their own POV.
Neat legal lines are necessary, but we should be cognizant that life is a little sloppier.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight;
I think that pastors, like doctors and lawyers, should use the correct terms, not the emotional ones. That's the nuance you aren't getting.
I know this is hell and I don't do hell really but felt I should point something out.....not sure if you are saying that pastors should follow the lead of doctors and lawyers who already use these terms or if you are saying that all of them should use these terms because they are not doing so already?
Most lawyers I know would use foetus in a technical discussion about abortion law but might well move to using baby in another context
Basically I have heard both doctors and midwives talk about babies rather than foetus on many an occasion especially in obstetrics departments- and it is not always inappropriate IMHO.
I think perhaps the choice of words depends on both context and stage of gestation.
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Medical times and absolutely not legal times.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, I get the nuance Twilight, it's you that don't.
I'm with Raptor Eye on this one.
You're also painting yourself into corner.
If I wanted to be really emotive I'd accuse you of suggesting that it's ok to abort an unborn child right up until a few seconds before it leaves its mother's body ... but I know you're not saying that so won't accuse you of it.
I stand by my previous remarks though.
The trouble is, one could argue that the logical conclusion of your argument is that it's ok to abort foetuses (or whatever else you'd prefer to call them) right up until the moment of birth - but not ok to kill them once they've emerged into the cold light of day and are no longer foetuses (or whatever you prefer to call them) and become babies ...
That's what you're not getting. That the rhetoric on your side of this argument can lead to extremes just as it does on the other side.
I know you're not saying that unborn children aren't human beings until they're born ... I'm simply suggesting that your language can be just as ideological as any of the emotive terms used by the pro-life/anti-abortion crowd.
It runs the risk of becoming euphemistic ... in a rather sinister way. The US Air-force didn't fly bombing raids in Vietnam, it flew 'pacification missions' ...
There was that notorious piece of reportage/double-speak during WW2 when the BBC announced, in relation to a British defeat and withdrawal, 'our troops successfully disengaged the enemy ...'
I fully accept what Alan Cresswell is saying about the medical profession having to take the 'heat' out of these things by using clinical and non-emotive language ... his point is well made.
However, there is still a 'however' ...
I find myself in a dilemma with much pro-life/pro-choice debate as I find both sides can incline towards a very hard-line and binary position.
I wouldn't be true to myself, though, if pretended that I found abortion acceptable as a generally applied means of contraception - although I appreciate the complexities and the horror when, say a teenage girl is impregnated by a rapist and so on ... ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I also know that people find themselves in desperate straits and that for some of them a termination is the only way out ...
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
I do have friends/former colleagues who have had abortions - one couple while they were students and before they wanted to start a family - and someone else who'd been married for years, had 3 kids and didn't want any more ...
I'd be lying if I didn't admit to having a problem with that ... it's not for me to judge though. I think we have to judge each case on its own merits and I don't envy the people who have to make these kind of decisions nor those whose professional role it is to help them choose a way.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
I don't pretend it's an easy or clear-cut issue - not for one moment.
But what I don't agree with is the implication you've put forward in the OP that anyone who apparently has some kind of moral qualms about abortion and says as much is somehow fuelling the gun-nuttery of certain pro-lifers and the US religious right.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No, I get the nuance Twilight, it's you that don't.
I'm with Raptor Eye on this one.
You're also painting yourself into corner.
If I wanted to be really emotive I'd accuse you of suggesting that it's ok to abort an unborn child right up until a few seconds before it leaves its mother's body ... but I know you're not saying that so won't accuse you of it.
I stand by my previous remarks though.
The trouble is, one could argue that the logical conclusion of your argument is that it's ok to abort foetuses (or whatever else you'd prefer to call them) right up until the moment of birth - but not ok to kill them once they've emerged into the cold light of day and are no longer foetuses (or whatever you prefer to call them) and become babies ...
That's what you're not getting. That the rhetoric on your side of this argument can lead to extremes just as it does on the other side.
I know you're not saying that unborn children aren't human beings until they're born ... I'm simply suggesting that your language can be just as ideological as any of the emotive terms used by the pro-life/anti-abortion crowd.
It runs the risk of becoming euphemistic ... in a rather sinister way. The US Air-force didn't fly bombing raids in Vietnam, it flew 'pacification missions' ...
There was that notorious piece of reportage/double-speak during WW2 when the BBC announced, in relation to a British defeat and withdrawal, 'our troops successfully disengaged the enemy ...'
I fully accept what Alan Cresswell is saying about the medical profession having to take the 'heat' out of these things by using clinical and non-emotive language ... his point is well made.
However, there is still a 'however' ...
I find myself in a dilemma with much pro-life/pro-choice debate as I find both sides can incline towards a very hard-line and binary position.
I wouldn't be true to myself, though, if pretended that I found abortion acceptable as a generally applied means of contraception - although I appreciate the complexities and the horror when, say a teenage girl is impregnated by a rapist and so on ...
I also know that people find themselves in desperate straits and that for some of them a termination is the only way out ...
I do have friends/former colleagues who have had abortions - one couple while they were students and before they wanted to start a family - and someone else who'd been married for years, had 3 kids and didn't want any more ...
I'd be lying if I didn't admit to having a problem with that ... it's not for me to judge though. I think we have to judge each case on its own merits and I don't envy the people who have to make these kind of decisions nor those whose professional role it is to help them choose a way.
I don't pretend it's an easy or clear-cut issue - not for one moment.
But what I don't agree with is the implication you've put forward in the OP that anyone who apparently has some kind of moral qualms about abortion and says as much is somehow fuelling the gun-nuttery of certain pro-lifers and the US religious right.
What in the whole wide world are you talking about?
Your conclusion that by calling a child in the uterus a fetus I am saying it's okay to abort it is completely out of left field. You, not me, are coming up with the idea that because this unborn fetus is a fetus, it's okay to abort it. I never heard of such a thing. Are you that easily swayed by terminology that you've decided the word "fetus," means "something you can abort," or "something not human?" Don't put your own messed up definitions on me. You may scorn the use of a dictionary all you want but I think maybe you need to refer to one about now, before you get any deeper into your phony "I'm sure you're not saying [some ridiculous thing only you thought of]..." foolishness.
My OP did not say or imply that anyone who is against abortion was fueling "gun-nuttery." (?)
The subject here is rhetoric. It is about using exaggerated language to make abortionists sound like child murderers and incite hatred toward them.
Yes, Mrs. Beaky is right, doctors and lawyers do use the word "baby." I was thinking more about their text book language, medical journals that show "the development of the fetus," sort of thing.
What I'm most upset with is pastors who preach angry sermons about "baby killers." That's not about whether or not someone has a moral issue with abortion it is about inflammatory rhetoric.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not joining your attackers Twilight, but you are missing the nuance as well.
Determining a point where abortion is permissible is a necessary thing. But it is arbitrary. Loads of people on both extremes use language to minimise the opposition and maximise their own POV.
Neat legal lines are necessary, but we should be cognizant that life is a little sloppier.
Where have I said a single word about "a point where abortion is permissible?"
All I've talked about, is the definition of the word baby. I happen to agree with the dictionary that it's a child that has been born, and while, yes, life is sloppy, I think it's pretty clear, even to non-medical people whether or not a child has been born or is still inside the mother's body.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Where have I said a single word about "a point where abortion is permissible?"
But that is the whole point of defining what term to use and when to use it. Otherwise baby is the right word at least from viability onward. Foetus is specific to one side of the labia, baby isn't.
You might think it neutral, many people don't. The topic isn't neat or neutral. And, to almost everyone, it is contextual.
The point shouldn't really be you must/cannot use X terminology, but that love and respect be the driving motivations despite disagreements.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dee.:
Finally, you Yanks really have to do something about how easy it is for nutcases to get guns in your country. We all have nut cases but for some reason yours seem to find it so much easier to get hold of a weapon and shoot people up.
Your fucked up gun control laws are not helping you!
No, they're not. But have a look at this list of the terrorist acts committed in the US against abortion clinics and doctors in the last 40 years, and you'll find that arson and bombs seem to be the terrorists' weapons of choice.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've re-read your OP Twilight and to be quite frank, can understand why I received the impression I did ...
Sure, I get the point about inflammatory rhetoric from right-wing preachers in pulpits ... of course, that goes without saying.
Perhaps it's the internet 'flattening' things but the way I read the OP it did look as if you were saying that the unborn were somehow less deserving of care and attention than five-year olds or new borns ...
That's how it came across to me.
And no, I doubt disparage dictionaries. I was disparaging your ability to use one.
Particularly when you can't even spell 'foetus' properly ... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Chuck out your Webster and get the Oxford English - it'll learn you to talk the Queen's English tidy like what I do do ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Chuck out your Webster and get the Oxford English - it'll learn you to talk the Queen's English tidy like what I do do ...
Erm, not quite. Whilst it is often assumed that the older culture is in the right, it is not so neat and simple in practice.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
All I've talked about, is the definition of the word baby.
I think you may be taking things a little bit too far in asking people to not refer to a fetus as a baby - it's too common. Now, not calling abortion providers 'baby-killers' or 'murderers' (even if that's what people think) is a bit more realistic.
But then I could do with everyone toning down the implications of actual physical violence in their rhetoric.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
