Everyone should stop using the euphemism "pro-choice" when referring to abortion.

I will now close the matter with my final statement. To begin with, as my opponent pointed out, this defence he offered came far too late, but I will respond all the same. The most important defense my opponent offered is that terms that may in different contexts have different meanings, such as "pro-life", "pro-choice" etc. are loaded and sometimes misunderstood. That much is true, no expression is universally understood and many can be sometimes misleading. But a fact no one can deny is that the terms my opponent is debating against are the most frequently used terms when it comes to abortion and perhaps most understood amongst loaded terms. One can argue whether those euphemisms should be used in a survey, seeing it applies to that wide masses of the people and there will always be somebody who doesn't understand, but such people most often do not understand any phrases when it comes to such complited matters; they are simply unfit for such discussions. Yet, they must still participate in a survey since they are part of the population - that is why the survey given as an example is not the most applicable of examples. As for the wikipedia example, I must point out certain things regarding the media:As said on prochanceactionnetwork-canada. org: Mainstream media, under the influence of anti-choice lobbying and propaganda, contribute significantly to the promotion of basic misconceptions about the pro-choice position and abortion services to the general public. A fundamental misunderstanding of the abortion issue lies in the way people often refer to anti-choice and pro-choice as "two sides. " In fact, the anti-choice are in favour of forced motherhood, and the opposite of that is forced abortion. We oppose both of these extremist positions. The media attempt to warp those meanings into something else, into two fundamentally different sides. As the text further explains: Pro-choice occupies the broad middle ground on the abortion issue. A large majority of North Americans believe abortion should be decided privately between a woman and her doctor. Pro-choice people include those who are personally against abortion or feel uncomfortable with it, but who would not impose their viewpoint by law onto all women. Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. This is obvious from the very term "pro-choice". This is why "pro-choice" is used. I've already explained in r1 that pro-choice means exactly what this source says and it is obvious that the media argument is refuted; because the media are irrelevant - they are the ones trying to delude, trying to change meanings. My opponent further attacks my case by saying arguments are best led in neutral language to help with formulation, but since "pro-choice" already has a defined meaning in the context of abortion, it is not necessary to change the wording. As for the skydiver example, the terms my opponent offered cannot be defined, nor did he offer a definition. Pro-choice and pro-life can be defined in the context of abortion, and that is the main difference. Finally my opponent rightly remarks that I said "pro-choice' [refers] to supporters of abortion". That was a mistake on my part, but later in the debate I explained in detail what pro-choice means, to which my opponent had no complaints, except the part about misleading certain people. "On the other hand, supporters of abortion believe that a pregnant woman should always be allowed a choice between terminating the pregnancy, or having the child. It doesn't matter what she chooses, it matters that she be given that choice. " This was my defition of pro-choice, to which no complaints were offered. After this final rebuttal, I shall shortly remark that I:a) managed to offer a definition for the euphemism in question and prove its widespread useb) have shown (which also applies to a) ) how a certain degree of misdirection which is alwas present is not a problem of the euphemism per seMy opponent, on the other hand, failed to defend his case, and most of his argumentation was given in r3, and offered no decisive proof of misdirection, except the example concerning the media, which I have refuted.