NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/abortion/53555

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-30 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!ncar!noao!amethyst!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!news
From: [e-mail] (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:19:14 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group
Lines: 65

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Joseph F. Mays):
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Lebow) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian
>>Kendig) writes:

>>> I am NOT pro-abortion.  I believe that abortion should only be used as
>>> a last resort; it's something I wouldn't want anyone to go through.

>>This is silly, of course.  Pro-abortion means obviously you favor its
>>availability.

Hey Paul.  Just wanted to tell you that as a pro-life individual who
enjoys discussing interesting issues with others, I object vigorously
to your refusal to acknowledge the difference between pro-abortion and
pro-choice.  I've met folks of both persuasion, and I've never had any
difficulty distinguishing them.  Perhaps the source of my irritation can
be found in my frustration with being called pro-force (it happened for
the first time recently, and came at the hands of someone who has, in
my experience, demonstrated little interest in reasonable debate and
little evidence for careful thought).  This obnoxious label is used for
the purpose of trivializing people and portraying their opinions as
repugnant.  That's the motivation behind calling all pro-choice folks
"pro-abortion".

If you insist on using labels, make an attempt to use them with accuracy.
Heck, why not try addressing people with the same respect and courtesy
that you might use in person?  The last thing *I* want is to be like the
sad individual who so ignorantly referred to me as "pro-force".

> Nonsense.  Anyone with even a minimal grasp of English can see that the
> term "pro-abortion" means "for abortion".  It carries the clear implication
> that the person so labelled advocates abortion *over and above* other
> choices.

There are plenty of folks who do this, and they should be distinguished
from those who don't.  I question the usefulness of using labels
at all; when used carelessly or vindictively, they discourage any
worthwhile sort of discussion.

[snip]

> Applying the term "pro-abortion" is an attempt to cast your opponents
> as advocating abortion as *the choice of preference*.  It's a lie,
> and it's perpetrated only for cheap grandstanding.  You seem very
> intelligent, so I can only conclude that you know this, and are
> choosing to lie anyway.

Applying the term "pro-force" is an attempt to cast one's opponent as
advocating abolition of abortion as *the option of preference*.  It's
(at least sometimes) a lie, and it's perpetrated only for cheap
grandstanding and to avoid dangerous intellectual dicussions.  Some
(but not all) of the users of this term seem to be of at least
average intelligence, so we can only conclude that they know this,
and are choosing to lie anyway.

>>I know why the the term "pro-choice" was invented.  Do you?  "Choice" is
>>to "Pro-abortion" as "tinkle"  is to "urinate".  We just tend not to use
>>certain words in certain situations.

Obnoxious.  Offensive.  Most importantly, false.

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
[e-mail]