From: dhubin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Donald C Hubin)
Subject: Re: Loaded language in the abortion debate
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 03:14:05 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.093136.1748@vixvax.mgi.com> carpenter@vixvax.mgi.com writes:
[some text omitted]
>
>Likewise, the people on the other side, who call themselves "pro-choice"
>aren't really active in all the areas where free choice is being infringed
>upon.  There's really only one particular choice that they're working to
>preserve.  On the other hand, they're not "pro-abortion", either, since
>that would imply that, in all cases of pregnancy, their preferred course
>of action would be an abortion.  I have not been able to think of a succint
>name for this group.
>

I wrote a chapter for an introductory ethics book (not yet published)
in which I wrestled with the issue of what to call the various
positions in the controversy.  I settled on 'pro-choice' for the view
that the individual woman ought to have the right to decide whether or
not to receive an abortion.  Of course you are correct that those
holding this position (myself, for example) are not pro-choice on
every issue.  (I am 'anti-choice' on child abuse, wife beating, and
one or two other things.)  Still, the context makes clear what the
label is restricted to.  Besides, abolitionists were not for
abolishing *everything*; prohibitionists were not for prohibiting
*everything*.  

'Anti-abortion' seems to me a satisfactory name for the position that
abortion is morally wrong.  This view is, though, compatible with the
pro-choice position.  (Several prominent catholic politicians profess
to be anti-abortion but pro-choice.  This isn't the place to defend
the position--though I think it defensible--but it is worth pointing
out that there is no contradiction in the position.)  I'm generally
anti-racist-speech but pro-choice on racist speech.  That is, I think
that the government has no business restricting racist speech (as
such--intimidation, harrassment, etc. *may* be prohibited), but it is
morally wrong in most contexts to employ racist speech.

'Pro-life' is objectionable to me not so much because of any perceived
inconsistency in the position many pro-lifer's hold.  (After all, to
take the capital punishment issue, they argue that there is a relevant
difference between the death of a convicted murderer and that of an
innocent unborn life.)  My objection to 'pro-life' is that it implies
that the opposition is *anti-life*.  Which is absurd!

'Anti-choice' would *in principle* be okay.  As I mentioned, I'm
anti-choice on lots of things, and I don't mind being so described.
However, in the heated political context of abortion discussions, this
label would clearly be perceived as prejudicial.  I finally settle on
'abolitionist'.  These people want to abolish the practice of
abortion legislatively.  ('Prohibitionist' would be okay in principle,
too, but it has negative connotations.)  'Abolitionist' has, if
anything, positive connotations and those in the so-called "pro-life"
movement see themselves as engaged in the same kind of moral project
as were those who sought to abolish slavery--i.e., fighting for the
rights of those who cannot fight for their own rights despite being
deprived of some of the most basic of them.

I referred to the position according to which abortion was not
intrinsically seriously morally wrong as 'neutralism'.  I couldn't
think of a better term.


I was striving for terminology that would be recognizable,
non-prejudicial and clearly draw the distinction between the moral
evaluation of abortion itself and the moral evaluation of legislative
responses to abortion.  The book hasn't come out yet so suggestions
for revisions are welcome.

Don
-- 
Donald C. Hubin  |  Depart. of Philosophy, The Ohio State University 
                 |  Columbus, OH  43210  USA   (614)292-7914 
-----------------+---------------------------------------------------------
hubin+@osu.edu   |  or hubin+@ohstmail.bitnet