False labels

puddleglum

Well-known member
When we buy boxes and cans of products in the store we know what we are buying because of the labels on them. We can rely on these labels to tell us what is in the containers because there are laws requiring that labels give accurate information.

But there are times when we can’t rely on labels. Groups of people who are trying to promote some belief often give themselves names that don’t accurately show who they are. One example of this is found in the debate about abortion. Those who believe abortion is wrong and are trying to end it call themselves prolife. Those who favor abortion and believe it should be permitted say they are prochoice. How accurate are these labels?

Those who are prolife believe that everyone has a right to life, and that right extends even to unborn babies. It seems to me that they are telling the truth when they say they are prolife.

Supporters of abortion call themselves prochoice because they think that any pregnant woman has the right to choose whether she will give birth to her baby. But what about the rights of the baby? Doesn’t he have a right to be born so he can make choices? A woman who aborts her baby is exercising a choice but she is denying her child the right to ever choose anything for himself. Only a living person can choose anything so in reality it is the prolife people who are prochoice.

We can’t stop anyone from calling themselves whatever they choose, but we can and should refuse to use the false labels they apply to themselves. When speaking of the sides on the abortion issue we should always call them prolife and proabortion rather than prolife and prochoice.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
When we buy boxes and cans of products in the store we know what we are buying because of the labels on them. We can rely on these labels to tell us what is in the containers because there are laws requiring that labels give accurate information.

But there are times when we can’t rely on labels. Groups of people who are trying to promote some belief often give themselves names that don’t accurately show who they are. One example of this is found in the debate about abortion. Those who believe abortion is wrong and are trying to end it call themselves prolife. Those who favor abortion and believe it should be permitted say they are prochoice. How accurate are these labels?

Those who are prolife believe that everyone has a right to life, and that right extends even to unborn babies. It seems to me that they are telling the truth when they say they are prolife.

Supporters of abortion call themselves prochoice because they think that any pregnant woman has the right to choose whether she will give birth to her baby. But what about the rights of the baby? Doesn’t he have a right to be born so he can make choices? A woman who aborts her baby is exercising a choice but she is denying her child the right to ever choose anything for himself. Only a living person can choose anything so in reality it is the prolife people who are prochoice.

We can’t stop anyone from calling themselves whatever they choose, but we can and should refuse to use the false labels they apply to themselves. When speaking of the sides on the abortion issue we should always call them prolife and proabortion rather than prolife and prochoice.
The problem of this approach is that it is both hypocritical and dishonest. Firstly, no-one supports abortion, just as no-one supports amputation or mastectomy. People do support the right to have an abortion legally in certain circumstances. Calling people pro-abortion is therefore dishonest, a deliberate attempt to smear their position.
Secondly, I would dispute the term pro-life. Many so-called pro-life supporters are not interested in the lives of women or their children. What they want is to ensure birth. After that, you are on your own. So a more accurate label could be the pro-birth party. Further more, pregnant women, like any other person, hold legal rights, which are currently not held by the unborn. Perhaps we should call anti-abortionists, the Removal of Rights for Women Party. Or perhaps we should leave well alone, let people choose how they wish to label themselves, and base the argument on its substance rather than on such a trivial basis as who is called what.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
When we buy boxes and cans of products in the store we know what we are buying because of the labels on them. We can rely on these labels to tell us what is in the containers because there are laws requiring that labels give accurate information.

But there are times when we can’t rely on labels. Groups of people who are trying to promote some belief often give themselves names that don’t accurately show who they are. One example of this is found in the debate about abortion. Those who believe abortion is wrong and are trying to end it call themselves prolife. Those who favor abortion and believe it should be permitted say they are prochoice. How accurate are these labels?

Those who are prolife believe that everyone has a right to life, and that right extends even to unborn babies. It seems to me that they are telling the truth when they say they are prolife.

Supporters of abortion call themselves prochoice because they think that any pregnant woman has the right to choose whether she will give birth to her baby. But what about the rights of the baby? Doesn’t he have a right to be born so he can make choices? A woman who aborts her baby is exercising a choice but she is denying her child the right to ever choose anything for himself. Only a living person can choose anything so in reality it is the prolife people who are prochoice.

We can’t stop anyone from calling themselves whatever they choose, but we can and should refuse to use the false labels they apply to themselves. When speaking of the sides on the abortion issue we should always call them prolife and proabortion rather than prolife and prochoice.
...except that the labels you invent are not accurate. Nobody is 'pro' abortion. Most people are 'pro' the right to abortion - that is, 'pro' the woman's right to choice. Or, for short, pro-choice.

So called pro-lifers, of course, aren't pro-life at all. They couldn't care less about the baby once it's born - they have consistently fought against every governmental program that would help such. They don't really care about stopping abortion, either - unless it's done their way. The only tactic that has consistently been shown to reduce abortion rates is increased sex-education and availability of contraceptives. You'd think pro-lifers would be all for that, right? But no...they don't want abortion to be stopped unless it's stopped their way. It's not about abortion; it's about sex. Let's call the pro-lifers something accurate - how about 'anti-choice'? Or maybe just 'anti-sex'?
 

BMS

Well-known member
Pro-choice makes the distinction between the woman who has chosen to create an offspring, as opposed to a woman who has been raped. Of course the pro-choice side doesnt admit the woman has already chosen to be a mother.
But yoyr thread is invaluable because it wakes us up to how these issues are presented. There are gay rights but not religious rights, just anti gay. Same with the current issue with Kathleen Stock, it wasnt presented as anti women's right issue, but a trans issue.. it postures in favour of the transactivist hate mob
 

BMS

Well-known member
...except that the labels you invent are not accurate. Nobody is 'pro' abortion. Most people are 'pro' the right to abortion - that is, 'pro' the woman's right to choice. Or, for short, pro-choice.

So called pro-lifers, of course, aren't pro-life at all. They couldn't care less about the baby once it's born - they have consistently fought against every governmental program that would help such. They don't really care about stopping abortion, either - unless it's done their way. The only tactic that has consistently been shown to reduce abortion rates is increased sex-education and availability of contraceptives. You'd think pro-lifers would be all for that, right? But no...they don't want abortion to be stopped unless it's stopped their way. It's not about abortion; it's about sex. Let's call the pro-lifers something accurate - how about 'anti-choice'? Or maybe just 'anti-sex'?
Pretty much entirely the other way round. Pro-lifers do care about the human being after its born, not least because unlike pro-choice wanting a human being killed, pro-life arent calling for any human being killed. Should be obvious to anyone who isnt blind to reality... and so of course education is the key.
 

BMS

Well-known member
The problem of this approach is that it is both hypocritical and dishonest. Firstly, no-one supports abortion, just as no-one supports amputation or mastectomy. People do support the right to have an abortion legally in certain circumstances. Calling people pro-abortion is therefore dishonest, a deliberate attempt to smear their position.
Secondly, I would dispute the term pro-life. Many so-called pro-life supporters are not interested in the lives of women or their children. What they want is to ensure birth. After that, you are on your own. So a more accurate label could be the pro-birth party. Further more, pregnant women, like any other person, hold legal rights, which are currently not held by the unborn. Perhaps we should call anti-abortionists, the Removal of Rights for Women Party. Or perhaps we should leave well alone, let people choose how they wish to label themselves, and base the argument on its substance rather than on such a trivial basis as who is called what.
Depends what you mean by women. Since you couldnt tell us whether a man who calls himself 'transwoman' is a man or a woman, you are in the same camp as those who say not just women have a cervix.

Ok. So dont start talking about honesty and what women should do when you havent even got the honesty to acknowledge reality.

That is the reason you have made your bed, now lie in it
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Depends what you mean by women. Since you couldnt tell us whether a man who calls himself 'transwoman' is a man or a woman, you are in the same camp as those who say not just women have a cervix.

Ok. So dont start talking about honesty and what women should do when you havent even got the honesty to acknowledge reality.

That is the reason you have made your bed, now lie in it
Ludicrous, irrelevant rubbish. Not worth a substantive reply.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Ludicrous, irrelevant rubbish. Not worth a substantive reply.
So we dont know what you mean by 'woman' because you have showed us you dont. So what is the point you posting when other posters dont know what you mean and you are unable to define it.

This is woke, welcome to the ludicrous you have created, you were warned
 

Temujin

Well-known member
So we dont know what you mean by 'woman' because you have showed us you dont. So what is the point you posting when other posters dont know what you mean and you are unable to define it.

This is woke, welcome to the ludicrous you have created, you were warned
If you don't know what is meant by "woman" in a discussion on pregnancy and abortion, then you are a hopeless loony.
 

BMS

Well-known member
If you don't know what is meant by "woman" in a discussion on pregnancy and abortion, then you are a hopeless loony.
As we have seen, I do know what is meant by a woman and have explained it, XX chromosomes, female anatomy and female reproductive organs. You on the other hand dont because you cant admit a man (XY chromosomes etc) is man when he calls himself a 'transwoman'.
The gender identity ideology you support doesnt identify someone with a cervix as a woman.

So reality is what you call looney
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
I would dispute the term pro-life. Many so-called pro-life supporters are not interested in the lives of women or their children. What they want is to ensure birth. After that, you are on your own. So a more accurate label could be the pro-birth party.
Furthermore, there's a well-known correlation between being pro-life and pro-capital punishment - so if labels are supposed to be 100% accurate, "pro-life" is out the window.

Or perhaps we should leave well alone, let people choose how they wish to label themselves, and base the argument on its substance rather than on such a trivial basis as who is called what.
Christians and conservatives are the ones keen to deny people the labels they choose for themselves. They regularly cast out people who call themselves "Christian" or "Republican" or "Conservative", etc.

As such, it's not terribly surprising to find a conservative arguing for denying the labels his/her ideological opponents have chosen for themselves.

ps. I do not place this thread's author in with the usual crowd of conservatives here at CRAM. He/she appears more thoughtful than most - so I take this thread as an argument intended for discussion, rather than as an intractable statement of opinion.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Furthermore, there's a well-known correlation between being pro-life and pro-capital punishment - so if labels are supposed to be 100% accurate, "pro-life" is out the window.


Christians and conservatives are the ones keen to deny people the labels they choose for themselves. They regularly cast out people who call themselves "Christian" or "Republican" or "Conservative", etc.

As such, it's not terribly surprising to find a conservative arguing for denying the labels his/her ideological opponents have chosen for themselves.

ps. I do not place this thread's author in with the usual crowd of conservatives here at CRAM. He/she appears more thoughtful than most - so I take this thread as an argument intended for discussion, rather than as an intractable statement of opinion.
Doesnt really address the OP.
Its pro-choice when the man and the woman decide to have sex. Conception is likely if contraception isnt used. So its not a false label but rather falsely used.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
Doesnt really address the OP.
Does really address the OP. If labels have to be 100% accurate, you're not pro-life.

Better to let people self-identify as they choose, and stop trying to force them to fit with your biased opinions.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Does really address the OP. If labels have to be 100% accurate, you're not pro-life.
I am. In what way? Your suggestion about the death penalty isn't concerning abortion, and I dont support the death penalty either


Better to let people self-identify as they choose, and stop trying to force them to fit with your biased opinions.
ok so do you accept the consequences of a 12 year old identifying as a 24 year old and driving a car?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
I am. In what way? Your suggestion about the death penalty isn't concerning abortion, and I dont support the death penalty either


ok so do you accept the consequences of a 12 year old identifying as a 24 year old and driving a car?
A 12 year old can call himself a 24 year old, but cannot drive a car because that would be illegal. You can call yourself pro-life, but you cannot stop women having a legal abortion because that would be illegal.

You can call your team "The Reds" and wear blue shirts. It doesn't matter. The further your name is from reality, like Manchester United or Pro-Life, the more ridicule you might attract, but it doesn't matter. Criticising people for what they call themselves is just arguing for the sake of it. It is what they stand for that is substantive. Pro-life groups are corrosive and appallingly regressive blights on society, whatever they call themselves and however sincere they are. Any group that has the same aims, whether they are called Angels of the Lord, or Misogynist Fascists for Jesus, will be opposed by those who currently call themselves pro-choice.
 

BMS

Well-known member
A 12 year old can call himself a 24 year old, but cannot drive a car because that would be illegal.
So would it be illegal for a man who calls himself a 'transwoman' to pose as a woman. Remember sex is a protected characteristic of the Equality Act 2010.
But the point made implied people being allowed to self identify and that would surely implied they are identified as such. It was also suggested that not to acknowledge their self identity was biased opinions. Whether legal or not that would make it biased opinions on your part?
 

Temujin

Well-known member
So would it be illegal for a man who calls himself a 'transwoman' to pose as a woman. Remember sex is a protected characteristic of the Equality Act 2010.
But the point made implied people being allowed to self identify and that would surely implied they are identified as such. It was also suggested that not to acknowledge their self identity was biased opinions. Whether legal or not that would make it biased opinions on your part?
On the contrary. The Gender Recognition Act officially sanctions trans gender, including issuing official documents recognising trans women as women. So int his, as so often, you are completely wrong.
 

BMS

Well-known member
On the contrary. The Gender Recognition Act officially sanctions trans gender, including issuing official documents recognising trans women as women. So int his, as so often, you are completely wrong.
On the contrary, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 only mentions transsexuals and gender identity disorder. We were talking about the sex and that as a protected characteristic of the Equality Act 2010.
again you claim that gender is different from sex and when presented with a question about sex you switch to gender.

Also of course the Gender Recognition Act 2004 does not allow self identity, so you are now off topic on that as well
 

Temujin

Well-known member
On the contrary, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 only mentions transsexuals and gender identity disorder. We were talking about the sex and that as a protected characteristic of the Equality Act 2010.
again you claim that gender is different from sex and when presented with a question about sex you switch to gender.

Also of course the Gender Recognition Act 2004 does not allow self identity, so you are now off topic on that as well
Wrong. If a trans person wishes to, they can jump through various legalistic hoops and change their gender officially. Your information is wrong. Google it.
 

BMS

Well-known member
What did I say that was wrong?
If a trans person wishes to, they can jump through various legalistic hoops and change their gender officially.
Again, we were talking about the sex, and self identification. The Gender Recognition Act 2010 does not give anyone the right to self identify as the opposite sex, and even with a Gender Reassignment certificate they haven't changed their biological sex.
Your information is wrong. Google it.
Nothing wrong with what I have written, nor have you even attempted to show it. However you have switched to the concept of gender to avoid being taught the truth.

But it should you that for all your claims that sex and gender are different, you cant distinguish between what you think they are... and of course if a 'transwoman' is a man then he cant give birth or carry a pregnancy
 
Top