ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for language

Why “Choice” is an Unhelpful Term in the Abortion Debate

by Leave a Comment

Pro-choice. Anti-choice. My body, my choice.

Somehow, the abortion debate has been characterized by this one word: choice.

I first started thinking of the term “choice” and its utility (or lack thereof) in the abortion debate when I started working on my spoken word: Pro-Woman, Pro-Choice, Pro-Life. I had a few different goals in making that video. As I said in the video, one of my goals was “to challenge the idea that choice is what abortion is all about.” I nuanced the word choice and discussed the reality of coerced abortion, which is a pervasive problem that too few pro-abortion individuals acknowledge.

However, I had another goal: I wanted to commandeer the term “choice”. Because, if we are honest, saying that someone is “pro-choice” or “anti-choice” is utterly unhelpful and entirely unenlightening. Here’s why:

If you think about it, when it comes to classifying choices, everyone has three categories of choices: “good” choices, “bad” choices, and “neutral” choice. For example, here would be an example of some of the choices I have listed in each of these three categories:

Good Choices: having access to education, caring for one’s children, being politically engaged, etc.

Bad Choices: sexual assault, murder, speeding, theft, littering, smoking, etc.

Neutral Choices: favourite ice cream flavour, favourite animal, favourite colour, etc.

Note: I put those descriptive words in quotations because I am of the opinion that, regardless of how someone personally classifies a choice, there is an absolute truth about the classification of that choice. For example, many rapists would classify the choice to sexually assault someone as “good” or “neutral”, but that choice is objectively and absolutely wrong, regardless of their personal classification. This also works in the reverse. For example, I classified smoking as a “bad” choice because of the health side effects associated with cigarettes. However, I do not think that smoking is, from a moral perspective, an absolutely wrong choice.

Let’s return back to our lists. We all have these three lists. Yes, there are some objective moral absolutes that, in my opinion, override the perceived correctness of our subjective categorization. Regardless, we each have these three lists that are informed by many factors, including our political ideology, our religious identity (or lack thereof), our family background, our cultural context, and our personal preferences.

Now, I mentioned that I oppose sexual assault. Technically, that makes me “anti-choice”. And you know what? I absolutely am anti-choice when it comes to sexual assault! I do not think sexual assault is ever a legitimate choice that an individual is entitled to make. And, if he or she chooses to make that choice, I am more than happy to be “anti-choice” and remove his or her freedom via incarceration. So you better believe I’m “anti-choice” in that sense. And I certainly hope that most people would agree with me and be “anti-choice” in relation to rape and sexual assault.

However, I also mentioned that I support people having the choice to access education. So I am “pro-choice” in the sense that I want people to have equal opportunities when it comes to accessing education, should they wish to do so. And I think most people are “pro-choice” in that regard, since most individuals support equal access to education for all.

So then, we come to a position where most of us are “pro-choice” on some issues and “anti-choice” on others. Do you now see the futility of these labels?

The issue is that labels like “pro-choice” and “anti-choice” do not have intrinsic values embedded in them. They are not value-laden statements. The value of the label is directly linked with the underlying subject matter, not the label itself. That is why being “pro-choice” is good for education (ie. because education is good), but bad for sexual assault (ie. because sexual assault is bad). The same goes for the “anti-choice” label: being “anti-choice” is good when discussing sexual assault (ie. because sexual assault is bad), but bad for choosing one’s favourite ice cream flavour (ie. because one’s favourite ice cream flavour is neutral and functions exclusively as a personal preference).

Determining whether being “pro-choice” or “anti-choice” on any given subject matter is easy when everyone agrees on the moral value of the underlying issue (eg. everyone agrees that sexual assault is bad – and I say “everyone” because even a rapist would demand justice if he/she was sexually assaulted). Things become much trickier when there is disagreement. And that is precisely what we see in the abortion debate.

In the Great Abortion Debate, you have two camps: those who support abortion (ie. “pro-choice”/pro-abortion) and those who oppose abortion (ie. “anti-choice”/anti-abortion/pro-life). Those who support abortion are “pro-choice”, because they support abortion as a legitimate solution to an unwanted or crisis pregnancy. However, that is not a negative thing in their minds. There is nothing wrong to them about being “pro” a choice that, in their minds, is categorized as helping women. Similarly, those who oppose abortion can be called “anti-choice”, because they are “anti” a choice that, by their evaluation, results in the violent destruction of an innocent life. However, that is not a negative thing in their – our – minds. There is nothing wrong to them – to us – about being “anti” a choice that ends another human life.

The real issue that needs to be addressed is this dualistic method of characterizing and framing the issue of abortion. Abortion is either right (“good” or “neutral”) or wrong (“bad”). Part of the problem really comes down to what this “choice” is that we talk about so flippantly. If abortion ends the life of a separate living human entity, then it ends a human life – that is the “choice” being made. If abortion does not end the life of a separate living human entity, then it is just another medical decision women sometimes need to make – that is the “choice” being made.

So which is it? Is abortion right? Is abortion wrong? It is helpful to have these conversations. In fact, it is necessary to have these conversations. But we cannot have these conversations effectively when we devolve into the lazy labelling tactic of just accusing someone of being “anti-choice”.

Pro-choice. Anti-choice. These words and labels are empty without context, without information, without the necessary details required to reach an educated conclusion about the rightness or wrongness of abortion as a subject matter. So it is unhelpful and unwise to limit the abortion debate to these two overly simplistic labels. Again, whether you consider yourself “pro-choice” or “anti-choice” is irrelevant unless we first define the value of the choice we are discussing.

So to all my pro-life friends, I say: don’t let yourself be limited. Do not let people delegitimize you with meaningless mantras like “anti-choice”. You are “anti-choice”. So what? There is nothing wrong with that unless abortion is a good/neutral subject matter. So do not let the conversation end after you have been labelled. Push further. Have that difficult conversation about the rightness or wrongness of abortion as a subject matter. Be courageous. Be respectful. And be bold. (And, while you’re at it, be sure not to label others. It’s not helpful.)

To all my pro-abortion friends, I say: don’t let yourself be limited. Many flaunt the “pro-choice” label as though it is their badge of honour, their symbol of tolerance, their ticket to the ultimate woke life. Do not give in to that temptation. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with being “pro-choice” in the context of abortion. But perhaps there is. Do not skim over that detail. Wrestle with that question. Labels limit discussions. Do not accept that as your standard.

Stay curious, my friends.

Breastfeeding and intelligence

by Leave a Comment

Now, I know that this is a prolife blog and breastfeeding isn’t technically prolife material. But hey, unborn babies eventually need to be fed. The link may be tenuous but here I go.

Like everything childbirth, those who have had the great privilege of (a) giving birth, and (b) deciding how to feed their infant, know that there is no easier way to be shot at than to unravel the breast vs bottle issue. (Well, actually, prolife blogging is a pretty sure-fire way of being called names–I would link to some of them but it seems that most pro-abortion bloggers cannot criticize without a generous helping of profanities, at least those who link to us.) But back to breastfeeding. McGill researchers have just published a study linking breastfeeding to higher intelligence. Read the news release here.

Now, for the disclaimer: I have 5 children, all of them were breastfed to a certain extent. 3 of them had their first bottle by their 3rd week, one of them was supplemented with formula from birth. Some of them were weaned the hard way, some of them weaned on their own. I’ve had about every breastfeeding joy and tribulation found in books and even some not found in books. And, dare I say it, all my children are brilliant AND cute as buttons. I honestly don’t care how you fed your baby nor for how long you breastfed. I only care that you fed your baby and if not, that child welfare authorities have been notified. Okay?

Back to McGill researchers. What I find interesting is that breastfeeding has been linked to higher intelligence. Given that breastfeeding is how human babies should be fed in the big scheme of things, shouldn’t we say that breastfeeding is linked to normal intelligence and artificial feeding linked to lower intelligence? On that topic, I found this article very interesting. Warning: do not follow the link if you don’t want to be challenged on breast vs. artificial feeding or if you can’t stand a white font against light blue background.

__________________________

Andrea compliments Véronique on her amazing knack for putting together a line of almost non-sequiturs and keeping me interested and laughing in the process. And I don’t even have children to feed. But I won’t read the link because of the light blue background–and their choice of font. Terrible.  

__________________________

Rebecca’s theory on breastfeeding and IQ: the intelligence flows straight out of the maternal brain, out the mammaries, and into the baby.

__________________________

 

Patricia adds: Hear, hear, Rebecca.

I have nursed to some degree or another all five of my kids, in most cases up to about 13 months. (All of my kids seemed to have lost interest at about that stage.) Each time, the first three months have been a grueling ordeal with pain rivalling childbirth and a host of attendant complications most of which are too gruesome to relate. Over the years, I have had help from professionals, La Leche, my breastfeeding friends, etc., so mine is not a case of being uninformed or unsupported. And, finally, every time, I have wondered why I insist upon putting myself, my husband, my other kids and my baby through the process, and I’m still not 100% sure that I did any of us any favours.

I’m read the press release from the McGill study and, while I’m no expert, I was not convinced that their “control” eliminated all the biases in favour of a certain type of mother. According to the press release, the study was “randomized by taking half of the mothers and subjecting them to “an intervention that encouraged prolonged and exclusive breastfeeding” while the other half of mothers continued with their usual maternity hospital and outpatient pediatric care and follow-up. Well, what type of mother do you think was most persuaded by the intervention in support of breastfeeding? I suspect it was mothers who accept that “what is best for their child” is what is recommended by a certain kind of expert, who relies more on those experts than the experience of her mother, who has the time and support to give to the breastfeeding process, who can persist when it doesn’t go well initially, who takes advantage of lactation consultants, etc. And I wonder how often this type of mother has a certain kind of intelligence and a certain determination to interact and stimulate her child that results in that child, at age 6.5, to do well in certain measures of intelligence.

There are all kinds of reasons to breastfeed – my personal favourite is that it’s cheap. (You might think it’s free, but I have such a voracious appetite when I’m breastfeeding that I’m sure there is an added grocery cost.) When it works, it’s lovely and convenient. But then, so is snuggling up to give your baby a nice, peaceful bottle, especially if it provides you with a break from stomach-churning pain. Let’s face it, infant formula has been around for a long time and was developed for a reason.

What I think really bothers me about the “breast is best” argument is that, for many, many women, it seems to set such a high standard of motherhood so as to make it unattainable, impractical, or something that they may undertake once, under the right conditions, but not something that they would want to have part of their lives on an ongoing basis. I’m sure that any woman who saw me weeping and literally gnashing my teeth as I struggled to overcome the pain involved with getting my infant to eat would think “thanks but no thanks” to whole process. To me, the whole argument has an association with a view of childrearing that says “we must have to best at all costs for our little prince/princess” from breast feeding at any price to the dupioni silk baby carrier (I saw one the other day when I was trying to buy a bib for my youngest). And if you can’t provide that, you’re really not trying hard enough to fulfill your child’s entitlement to the “best”. In some ways, that’s a very worthy standard, but it pretty much guarantees that having child will be seen as some extraordinary undertaking rather than part of everyday life.

And don’t even get me started on natural childbirth (which, incidentally, all of mine were, not by intention, believe me) or attachment parenting.

__________________________

Tanya agrees: Oh, Patricia, thanks for bringing that up. Didn’t I just feel like the devil the first time I hopped my 2 week old baby up on formula. When you are pregnant, no one seems to mention that breastfeeding might actually be really, really hard.

Here’s a good gauge, now that I have valuable hindsight: If you want to crawl under a rock every single time your newborn cries of hunger, you’re not alone. Breast is not best if it makes mom lose her sanity.

Euphemisms on the radio

by Leave a Comment

Rob Snow interviewed Ottawa Archbishop Terrence Prendergast this morning here.

It’s a good, fair interview, but the host uses the phrase “a woman’s right to choose” multiple times.

I am decidedly against the use of euphemisms to describe abortion. “The right to choose?” There is no such right, neither figuratively nor constitutionally, and of course we are talking about taking a life.

But it got me thinking: Maybe I should use more euphemisms. “Why, Archbishop Prendergast, don’t you support a man’s right to unadulterated, responsibility-free sex?” (One raised eyebrow and an accusing glare…) Well? Why not? Because everyone supports a man’s–and a woman’s–right to fun, free, unfettered-by-future-possibilities-of-children, sex.

Yes indeed, euphemisms could prove very helpful.

_____________________

Tanya adds: How about anti-consequence? Or, playing on its antonym, pro-unimportance (which would suit Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada just fine, as she’s quoted as saying, “fetuses are not that important”)!

_____________________ 

Véronique adds: Just to make it clear: the radio host is using “a woman’s right to choose” instead of “abortion.” Not the Archbishop. In fact, Archbishop Pendergast’s first sentence makes the link between “a woman’s right to choose,” abortion and the taking of an innocent human life.

That being said, I am irked beyond description by the use of “a woman’s right to choose” like it’s some kind of birth right. None of us are born with unfettered rights to choose whatever. A “woman’s right to choose” is not only an euphemism, it’s a lie. But that wouldn’t be the first one.

_____________________

Andrea adds: Thank you, Véronique. “The right to choose” is indeed, both a euphemism and a lie. And yes, the host used the euphemisms, and the Archbishop spoke against those and did an admirable job, too. Sorry if my post was not clear.  

Meta