Truth In Labeling

[Monica02]

My siszter attended a political forum at a local Episcipol Church last night and talked with sever parishioners about their views on abortion before the forum started. Two of the parishioners described themselves as pro-choice. The pastor, when asked if he was pro-choice, replied that he was pro-life but he felt that he could not impose that view on anyone else and that a woman should decide for herself if she felt that the clump of cells is a human life or not. My sister told him that he was therefore pro-choice because he felt it was a woman's choice. The pastor got very angry at being called pro-choice.


My question is - why would someone get mad at being called pro-choice if that is what they are.

 

[flicka]

Because certain individuals, usually religious, consider the term "pro-choice" evil. Certainly that pastor is aware that terminology has different meanings to different people. For example, I've seen you use the term "pro-abort" instead of "pro-choice" and I imagine he wouldn't want people like you telling everyone he is "pro-abort" when that isn't his position at all. I happen to believe that 99.9% of the population is pro-choice even tho they may not consider themselves such.

Bad things happen when people and ideas are reduced to labels.

 

[Monica02]

I do consider pro-choice to be pro-abortion, but I can see how someone might rationalize that these two terms mean something different. What I cannot understand is how someone could get mad at being labeled pro-choice when they are obviosly pro-choice, This pastor said he thought it was up to the woman to choose. My sister did not call him pro-abortion, she called him pro-choice.
This pastor did not necessarily consider abortion evil.

I have also seen Catholics get mad at being called a heretic when they are, by definition, a heretic. The definition of heresy is the denial of a Truth of the Church. A Catholic denies some Truth of the Church but does not want to be called a heretic? What does he or she consider him/herself? Perhaps heretic has a negative connotation. The term dissenter is, I guess, the more gentle term, but it means prety much the same thing as heretic.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I do consider pro-choice to be pro-abortion

Then you are wrong.

What I cannot understand is how someone could get mad at being labeled pro-choice when they are obviosly pro-choice,

It's obvious - because people like you go around claiming that pro-choice means pro-abortion. The man doesn't want to be labelled pro-abortion by the anti-lifers like you.

 

[cobaltburrito]

Labels are for soup cans, not people.

 

[Monica02]

Then you are wrong.


It's obvious - because people like you go around claiming that pro-choice means pro-abortion. The man doesn't want to be labelled pro-abortion by the anti-lifers like you.

Okay, so why doesn't he say he is pro-choice but not pro-abortion. He claimed he wasn't even pro-choice.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Okay, so why doesn't he say he is pro-choice but not pro-abortion. He claimed he wasn't even pro-choice.

Because as soon as he says pro-choice, people like you will call him pro-abortion.

 

[flicka]

The fact is there are some people who see black and white in a world full of color. Pro-choice should not be a dirty word. I agree that the Pastor is pro-choice, but then so are most of other people. They resist using that label because of how it's been tarnished by the extreme pro-life crowd. Plus the term "pro-life" sounds better and makes people feel noble. But it's just a meaningless label.

 

[ShiningSonBeam]

Flicka: I resent your assumption that "99.9% of the population is pro-choice even though they may not consider themselves such." We wouldn't be having this conversation if it were about the "choice" to end the life of an infant who was born moments ago but needed a little oxygen to get him going. That is such a common situation and, 10 times out of 10, they are given oxygen. To neglect to do so would clearly be called "murder".

To the OP, I have often wondered the same thing.

 

[cobaltburrito]

licka: I resent your assumption that "99.9% of the population is pro-choice even though they may not consider themselves such." We wouldn't be having this conversation if it were about the "choice" to end the life of an infant who was born moments ago but needed a little oxygen to get him going. That is such a common situation and, 10 times out of 10, they are given oxygen. To neglect to do so would clearly be called "murder".

Yes because there is a difference between a baby and a fetus or embryo. Do you understand this?

 

[kopilo]

The pastor is most likely just labeling himself in order to try and stop people labeling him with their judgemental eyes. *cough*

Just because someone doesn't agree with you on one point doesn't mean they deserve a label, eg. someone could be pro-choice on abortion but completely disagree with capital punishment and euthanasia.

Putting people into classes stereotypes people and the one thing we know is that stereotypes tend to be incorrect.

Labels are for soup cans, not people.

Precisely!

Humans are all unique from eachother. Hence labling humans hold no real truth (maybe occasionally abstract truth).
How do you know if your taste of a banana is the same to someone else's?

 

[levi501]

I once dated a conservative chick and after she told me her views on abortion, I responded the same way... "So you're pro-choice." She responded, "no, I'm not one of those crazy pro-choice people." Talk about being brainwashed...
My opinion is that there is a silent majority in this country that's pro-choice for the 1st trimester. They simply have no reason to talk about it or advocate because it's legal.

 

[gengwall]

I don't consider "pro-choice" a negative label and I don't equate it with "pro-abortion". I take it for what it is. I suspect the pastor's reasoning is what many here have speculated it is. He was protecting himself in a predominantly "anti-choice" crowd.

I also don't mind being labeled "anti-choice" or "anti-abortion" because of my views. I will often refer to myself as such in discussions without any reservations because, quite frankly, I am. I have what I believe to be compelling reasons that convince me that the "choice" we are talking about is illegitimate and immoral, so I have no problem being "anti" it.

 

[Monica02]

Because as soon as he says pro-choice, people like you will call him pro-abortion.

He is pro-abortion regardless of what he calls himself, so why not just admit to pro-choice, which is probably the most used term for his position.

 

[Monica02]

I don't consider "pro-choice" a negative label and I don't equate it with "pro-abortion". I take it for what it is. I suspect the pastor's reasoning is what many here have speculated it is. He was protecting himself in a predominantly "anti-choice" crowd.

.

But he was not in an anti-choice crowd. My sister was probably the only pro-lifer in attendance, and he could not have even known that. The parishioners she spoke to were all pro-choice and the church was an Episcipal one. All of the candidates were very pro-abortion as was most of the crowd.

 

[Spherical Time]

But he was not in an anti-choice crowd. My sister was probably the only pro-lifer in attendance, and he could not have even known that. The parishioners she spoke to were all pro-choice and the church was an Episcipal one. All of the candidates were very pro-abortion as was most of the crowd.

. . . there's the equivocation that electric skeptic was talking about. There's no chance to explain, no chance to defend oneself. The pastor knew that once he said it, people like you would equivocate. And he was right.

 

[gwenmead]

Monica02, I'm glad you brought this up, because I've wondered sometimes about the labels people use in the abortion debate too.

Knowing how emotionally charged an issue this is, I'm kind of not surprised that the pastor in question reacted the way he did. It's kind of compelling that he didn't want to be associated with the label in question too - it's really hard, it seems, to just pare the labels down to what they mean in and of themselves, with no judgment or emotion attached to it.

I've also noticed that the labels an individual might attach to themselves are very different from those that others attach to them - the "pro-choice is really pro-abortion" argument going on in this thread is, I think, an example of this. Honestly, it can be annoying to have someone else label you - but, I'll confess, in my own quest to figure out what the labels really mean, I'm guilty of some of this too.

I think, for instance, that it's something of a misnomer for most "pro-life" people to label themselves "pro-life" - mainly because it seems to me that so many "pro-life" people stop with their concern for humanity at birth. And that hardly seems to make the label accurate. If someone were really "pro-life", I'd think they'd want to continue being concerned with the quality of human life from its very beginnings to its very end.

So if I see someone who really is concerned with the quality of human life from start to finish calling themselves "pro-life", that does make sense to me. Otherwise I'd see a "pro-life" individual as being "anti-choice", or "anti-abortion", or even "anti-reproductive freedom", depending largely on what is really driving their position. Which may be hard to tell, since I'm not in anybody's head but my own.

And, most of the time, I don't see much judgment in most of the labels people use. Pro-choice is one label, anti-abortion another, pro-life another, and while I know that each label can be used to inflame and stir up appeals to emotion, or as insults, sometimes it just boils down to "what does this label really mean?"

And even after that, well - they're just labels in the end. Labels are both a starting point and a limitation. They can provide definitions that make it clear what something means, but they can also grow into these big inaccurate limiting things with a whole lot of other connotations attached to it.

I'm pro-choice. I don't mind being called pro-abortion, because in some sense, I am pro-abortion. Not in the sense that I think that everybody should run out and have one, but in the sense that I think that abortion has a place in reproductive choices and family planning, and that safe, legal abortion needs to remain an option for those who would choose it.

But that's just me.

 

[Lynden1000]

He is pro-abortion regardless of what he calls himself, so why not just admit to pro-choice, which is probably the most used term for his position.

Because he isn't pro-abortion. You probably support a person's right, in a free country, to espouse Nazism if they so choose. Are you pro-Nazi?

Do you support the right of the KKK to assemble peacefully, like the constitution allows? Are you pro-KKK?

You support the rights of these individuals to make such choices. I doubt you consider yourself to be in support of the choice itself.

Or do you?

 

[flicka]

Flicka: I resent your assumption that "99.9% of the population is pro-choice even though they may not consider themselves such." We wouldn't be having this conversation if it were about the "choice" to end the life of an infant who was born moments ago but needed a little oxygen to get him going. That is such a common situation and, 10 times out of 10, they are given oxygen. To neglect to do so would clearly be called "murder".

To the OP, I have often wondered the same thing.

My assumptions are not in a position for you to resent them. They are mine .

Here is the thing, here on CF is the only place I have ever run into people saying no abortions under any circumstances, including life of the mother, incest, rape or a fetus being incompatible with life. Experience tells me that even people who claim to hold that position would give up in a New York second if the situation hit close to home.
Outside CF people will always have an exception. ie: "I'm totally prolife! I don't believe in abortion for any reason except..." That is them being prochoice, under certain conditions that they define in their own mind that still allows them to feel more moral than other prochoicers. I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

 

[ShiningSonBeam]

Well, you must realize that 99.9% is an outrageous figure even within the widened perameters. I suggest refraining from numerical labels unless it's backed up by a study or two. Now, there's an interesting turn: in addition to words and phrases, numerical labels can be placed on an entire group of people simply by stating one person's assumption of a percentage of that group of people. And then you end up with people like me who get all bent out of shape about it. LOL