Because, as I stated in my previous post, I won’t have until this weekend to write any new material, I thought I’d at least recycle some old material for people to read and chime in with their collective wisdom.

Here is an email exchange I had with Dr. Frank Boehm, professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Vanderbilt University Medical School and former director of the Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.  About a year and a half ago, Dr. Boehm was part of a panel discussion on abortion at Vanderbilt Law School.  Although Dr. Boehm, pro-choice in ideology, presented clear and helpful information about the medical aspects of abortion (he candidly admitted that it was “a life” that was being taken), I thought he was greatly mistaken when he submitted that the most objective and accurate terms to label the opposing sides of the debate were “pro-choice” and “anti-choice.”

Dr. Boehm seemed to me to be a thoughtful and reasonable man, so I attempted to challenge his assumptions concerning the fairness of these terms in the following email exchange.

===

[Nugent to Boehm]

Dr. Boehm,

….

I wanted to challenge you on something that you said. You stated that the proper terminology of the debate was not “Pro-Life and Pro-Choice” but “Pro-Choice and Anti-Choice.” However, this terminology is just as obscurant. What “choice” is it that one side opposes and one side supports? The obvious answer: abortion. It would be unfair to characterize you as “Anti-Life” because you support legalized abortion; for you are not opposed to all life. Neither would it be fair to characterize me as “Anti-Choice” because I oppose legalized abortion; for I am not opposed to all choices. Thus, if the purpose of modifying the language is to remove indeterminacy in the terms, “Pro-Choice and Anti-Choice” is just as indeterminate, and thus a mischaracterization.

Instead, to be determinate and fair, the language should be “Pro-Abortion and Anti-Abortion.” That is, one side supports legal abortion and one side opposes legal abortion. That in no way misrepresents either side. I suppose it would be even more accurate to say “Pro-Legalized-Abortion and Anti-Legalized-Abortion,” but, for the sake of concision, “Pro-Abortion and Anti-Abortion,” is a fair abbreviation that does no harm to the obvious meaning.

…

Many thanks,

Nick Nugent

===

[Boehm Response]

Nick, Thanks for your thoughtful email. The real problem I have with using the terms pro and anti abortion is that I know of no one who is pro abortion. The issue is about choice and that is why I perfer anti and pro choice. The implications are clear when using these terms. Hope this helps. Frank

===

[Nugent Response]

Dr. Boehm,

With all due respect, the terms may be clear, but the “implications” are neither clear nor fair (that is, in what they imply). In our society, a positive is presumptively perceived as a good thing, while a negative is presumptively perceived as a bad thing, often irrespective of the proposition that is modified by the prefixing of “anti” or “pro.” Now, there are undeniably two interests involved in abortion: (1) a woman’s choice and (2) the life of her child. Both are positive interests. We want a woman to have as much choice as possible, and we want innocent life to have as much protection as possible.

But, when you presume to set the terminology of the debate by defining the terms around only one of those positive interests, labeling yourselves “pro” that positive interest and us “anti” that positive interest, you are stacking the deck in your favor. The subtle, yet strong, implication to society is that one group advocates for an expansion of a positive interest while the other group advocates for a diminishment. That is, group A wants more of a good thing, but group B wants less of a good thing.

Likewise, framing the debate as “Pro Life” and “Anti Life” obviously stacks the deck in my favor. What is implied, is that I want more of a good thing (life), but you want less of a good thing. Now who looks like the bad guy?

I don’t think that you, as an educated and intelligent man, can deny that the very purpose of framing the debate either way is to create “implications” favorable to one side or to the other. Thus, I don’t understand how you can think that it is fair and intellectually honest to unilaterally declare, as you did at the presentation, that the terminology that creates positive implications for you and negative implications for me is the “proper” terminology.

Therefore, it seems that the only way to create both fair and precise language is to either incorporate both interests into the terms or to narrow focus down to the precise issue disputed. Thus, there are only two options.

(1) “Pro Legalized Abortion vs. Anti Legalized Abortion” – This narrows the focus down to the precise issue disputed and gives no side a monopoly on implications. In fact, it even allows your side to retain the advantage of the positive prefix “pro.” Still, I would have no problem with this language.

- OR -

(2) “Choice-over-Life vs. Life-over-Choice” – This is fair in that it incorporates both interests and represents the positions accurately, even if somewhat simplistically.

However, both of these are admittedly cumbersome and quite unlikely to become the vernacular of the battle. So, I suppose in the end that leaves us with only one option:

“Pro Choice vs. Pro Life” – The reason is simply this: at least the deck is stacked on both sides.

In conclusion, if you are truly intellectually honest, Dr. Boehm (and this was my impression of you at the presentation), you will admit that framing the debate as “Pro Choice” and “Anti Choice” gives your position an unfair linguistic advantage. Therefore, in the interest of intellectual honesty, I respectfully ask that you not use the obvious weight of your pedigree and intellectual persuasion to publicly advocate for terminology that you know is neither accurate nor fair.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Nick Nugent

===

[Boehm response]

I could live with the terms pro legalized abortions and anti legalized abortions. You make some very good points. Alas, I believe our society is stuck with pro life and pro choice. I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Frank

===

I commend Dr. Boehm for considering my points and exhibiting a willingness to use honest terms of debate.  I am curious what other readers think about the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice.”