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

I realize nearly too late that I have conducted my portion of this debate almost completely backwards. As I stated earlier, this is my first debate here. It has been many years since I last participated in a formal debate – and that was an oral debate, not written. I once enjoyed debating but have forgotten how difficult it can be, especially if one bumbles into it unprepared. I feel as though I have brought a crayon to a cock-fight. So, again, I thank Con for bearing with me as I attempt to relearn the ropes – as it were. In my final rebuttal I will focus in on defining and defending my position as it relates to the debate topic (I know now that this is something that I should have done in my opening statement). When I say that everyone should stop using the euphemism "pro-choice" when referring to abortion, I realize that I am attempting to defend my own opinion. Regarding opinions, P. T. Barnum said it best, "Opinions are like a-holes; everyone's got one. " This fact alone makes defending my opinion prohibitively difficult, but not impossible. My error in the wording of this debate topic was in selecting only one abortion euphemism. In truth, I take issue with all abortion euphemisms because they are loaded terms. They are intentionally selected to appeal to emotion rather than logic. I refer to an article from Wikipedia which precisely describes both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" as loaded terms: The abortion debate refers to the ongoing controversy surrounding the moral and legal status of abortion. The two main groups involved in the abortion debate are the self-described "pro-choice" movement (emphasizing the right of women to choose whether they wish to bring a fetus to term) and the self-described "pro-life" movement (emphasizing the right of the unborn child to be born). Both of these are considered loaded terms in general media where terms such as "abortion rights" or "anti-abortion" are preferred. Each movement has, with varying results, sought to influence public opinion and to attain legal support for its position, with some anti-abortion advocates even going as far as using violence. [. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Note that the two euphemisms covered by the Wiki article are called "self-described…movements. " The Wiki article later lists other abortion euphemisms such as "anti-choice", "anti-life", "pro-coercion" and "pro-death". Two terms in the article with which I have no problem are "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion", because they each accurately and logically describes a person's position with regards to abortion without adding emotional slanting. I refer to a class outline from Lander University's Philosophy department to help more accurately define the meaning of emotional slanting: I. Language can be analyzed into the two aspects of literal meaning and emotional meaning. A. Emotive words are words that carry emotional overtones. These words are said to have emotive significance or emotive meaning or emotional impact. 1. Two different words or phrases can have literal (or denotative) meanings which are similar, but differ significantly in their emotive significance. 2. Often, we speak of "slanting" as emotive significance; i. e. , a word or phrase can be positively slanted, neutral, or negatively slanted. B. Emotively neutral language is preferable when we are trying to get to the facts or follow an argument; our emotions often cloud our reasoning. 1. When our purpose in language use is to communicate (i. e. , the informative use), then, if we wish to avoid being misunderstood, language having the least emotive impact is the most useful. 2. When resolving disputes or disagreements between persons, it is usually best to try to reformulate the disagreement in neutral language. [. http://philosophy.lander.edu...] Alright, that was long and boring but it segues nicely into my next point. The reason I prefer the more logically accurate terms "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" to describe a person's position on abortion is because of surveys like the following: The Public Religion Research Institute[1] conducted a survey What the Millennial Generation Tells Us about the Future of the Abortion Debate… which produced the following unexpected statistic: The binary “pro-choice”/“pro-life” labels do not reflect the complexity of Americans’ views on abortion. Seven-in-ten Americans say the term "pro-choice" describes them somewhat or very well, and nearly two-thirds simultaneously say the term "pro-life" describes them somewhat or very well. So, let me get this straight; of the group surveyed, 70% say they are "pro-choice" and at the same time 66% say they are "pro-life". Cool, simple arithmetic: (70% + 66% = 136%) Ok, maybe not so simple. Should not the end result be 100% (or less if some choose not to answer)? For instance, let us assume that there are 100 skydivers in an aircraft large enough to hold them all. The aircraft has exactly two jump doors, one on the left and one on the right. Each sky diver must make one of three decisions: 1. Jump from the left door2. Jump from the right door3. Don’t jump at all When the jump is complete and the count for each door is tallied, there should be no more than 100 skydivers counted through the doors (assuming no one chickens out. ) After the jump, if I conducted a survey and first asked each sky diver if she considers herself a "loosy-door jumper", then later asked each skydiver if she considered herself a "tighty-door jumper" I would not be surprised to get results greater than 100%. I am certain that if the people in the Millennial Generation survey had been asked in emotively neutral language (i. e. whether they were "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion") that the end result would not have been over 100%. In my previous post (Round 2) I stated that the use of the term "pro-choice" is clearly meant to misdirect. Con retorted, "I do not see how one can be misdirected by that term ["pro-choice"] unless he is completely unaware what he is talking about. It is very improbable that one would speak of abortion and not be aware he is speaking of it. " Con's opinions, however, are not supported by the any facts. The results of the Millennial Generation Survey not only prove that it's possible, but indeed that it is very probable that 36% are easily misdirected by the emotionally slanted term. There are many others who demonstrate confliction about abortion euphemisms. A good example can be derived just from the following URL: << . http://safe-legal-abortion-is-prolife.tumblr.com...; On this website I found the following blog entry: “Pro-life” does not just mean “pro-birth. ” It means “pro-the lives of everything, including the yet to be born. ” Well, you’re right one one[sic] count: pro-life does not mean pro-birth. Pro-birth is a part of being pro-choice. Pro-forced birth, however, is a part of pro-life. As for the second part of your statement, you forgot to add “with the exception of pregnant persons, whose lives are secondary to that of the almighty fetus. ”[2] The entry above is a great example of negatively slanted emotive words. In round 2 my opponent stated "it is clear that…'pro-choice' [refers] to supporters of abortion". However, the URL title to the blog entry above (safe-legal-abortion-is-prolife) refutes my opponent's assertion. This blogger clearly believes that pro-life refers to supporters of abortion. Because many abortion euphemisms are such loaded terms it is difficult to debate the topic. [1] . http://publicreligion.org... [2] . http://safe-legal-abortion-is-prolife.tumblr.com...