Language and Abortion

On Press Coverage In The Mifepristone Case.

On Wednesday, the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA. You can read a transcript of the two-hour session here. I plan to write more about this case in due course. But here, I will opine on the press coverage of this dispute, and more broadly about abortion and language.

Shortly after the proceeding wrapped, the New York Times published a story titled Appeals Court Seems Skeptical of F.D.A.'s Approval and Regulation of Abortion Pill. As I was reading it through on my phone, one passage jumped out at me:

A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Erin Hawley, claimed that ending a pregnancy with medication — she used the anti-abortion term "chemical abortion" — is extremely unsafe.

At the time, I made a mental note, and planned to blog about it later. By Wednesday evening, I went back to the article on my desktop, and that passage was gone. (For those curious, I created a PDF of the original). Substantial changes were made to the article. Some bits were added, others subtracted. These sorts of changes are common enough when an article goes to print, so I don't think there was any deliberate effort to remove this passage in particular. Indeed, the usage in the Times was not at all atypical.

The choice of language is powerful–especially with regard to contentious social issues. And consistently, the political left gets to define what words are acceptable. "Marriage equality" sounds so much better than "same-sex marriage." "Gender affirming care" sounds so much better than "sex change surgery." "Diversity, equity, and inclusion" sounds so much better than "racial preferences." "Non-citizen" sounds so much better than "illegal alien." "Black" is capitalized but "white" is lowercase. And so on. These linguistic judgments are not value-neutral. They represent a subtle, but deliberate effort to make the progressive position more palatable.

At the same time, conservative positions are derided with negative language. I suspect the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine would describe its position as "Pro-Life" rather than "Anti-Abortion," just as I suspect Planned Parenthood would call its position "Pro-Choice" rather than "Anti-Life." Yet, it is fairly common in the press to see the phrase "Pro-Choice" paired with "Anti-Abortion."

The now-deleted passage dismissed the term "chemical abortion" as some sort of right wing misnomer. Instead, the Times explained, we should speak of "ending a pregnancy with medication." Is "chemical abortion" so wrong, that the Times needed to dispute it with the anti-abortion moniker?

Merriam Webster defines an "abortion," in part, as "the termination of a pregnancy."

The FDA offers this description of Mifepristone

Mifepristone is a substituted 19-nor steroid compound chemically designated as 11ß-[p-(Dimethylamino)phenyl]-17ß-hydroxy-17-(1-propynyl)estra-4,9-dien-3-one. Its empirical formula is C₂₉H₃₅NO₂. Its structural formula is: The compound is a yellow powder with a molecular weight of 429.6 and a melting point of 191-196°C. It is very soluble in methanol, chloroform and acetone and poorly soluble in water, hexane and isopropyl ether.

I am more than a quarter century removed from sophomore year in high school, but I think it is accurate enough to call mifepristone a chemical compound.

"Chemical abortion" seems a passable shorthand to describe the effect of mifepristone. True enough, the phrase has a negative connotation, and depicts the drug in a jaundiced light. By contrast, "ending a pregnancy with medication" sounds like a routine procedure–no different than popping an Advil to end a headache. Take two and call me in the morning.

For elites–including the press and most judges–pro-life terminology is considered inherently biased, while pro-abortion terminology is considered inherently neutral. As a result, language that shines a light on the potentiality for life is eschewed, while language that trivializes the potentiality for life is treated as the default position. By necessity, this choice of language favors the pro-abortion position. This choice of language is not value-neutral.

Judge Kacsmaryk's ruling, which triggered this appeal, included this footnote:

Jurists often use the word "fetus" to inaccurately identify unborn humans in unscientific ways. The word "fetus" refers to a specific gestational stage of development, as opposed to the zygote, blastocyst, or embryo stages. See ROBERT P. GEORGE& CHRISTOPHER TOLLEFSEN, EMBRYO 27–56 (2008) (explaining the gestational stages of an unborn human). Because other jurists use the terms "unborn human" or "unborn child" interchangeably, and because both terms are inclusive of the multiple gestational stages relevant to the FDA Approval, 2016 Changes, and 2021 Changes, this Court uses "unborn human" or "unborn child" terminology throughout this Order, as appropriate.

At the time, critics assailed Judge Kacsmaryk for adopting the language of the pro-life community. What is the alternative? To adopt the nomenclature favored by Planned Parenthood? The standard nomenclature–"fetus"–is favored by the pro-choice community. Unsurprisingly, the very people who favor abortion use a word that diminishes any personhood by the contents of a womb.

You may reply that the medical professionals favor the term, "fetus," so courts should defer to those experts, and use their lingo. Newsflash: leading medical organizations routinely support abortion rights, and urge the courts to rule in favor of Planned Parenthood. The response to the pandemic reaffirmed that so-called public health experts are not neutral. (See Justice Gorsuch's statement in the Title 42 case.) They expressly consider political considerations when they pronounce "science." Indeed, what makes the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine so unpopular is these doctors generally do not favor abortion rights.

Why do those who support abortion at virtually every stage of the pregnancy get to define the linguistic bounds of discourse? It is a mistake to surrender the grounds of language to these experts. Doctors with white coats cannot define language any more than judges with black robes can.

Comments

[Longtobefree]

We could always call “it” a baby, you know.
Just like we call a man a man, and call a woman a woman, and say the earth is not flat.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Life begins at 5 weeks and 6 days.

Governor Rob DeSantos

[Frank Drackman]

To bad yours didn’t end at the same age

[iowatwo]

Yes, The Governors opinion IS more important than yours

[not guilty]

“We could always call “it” a baby, you know.
Just like we call a man a man, and call a woman a woman, and say the earth is not flat.”

To recall Abraham Lincoln’s riddle, how many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg?

[Lee Moore]

Just out of interest, how many pregnant women have you met who have mentioned that they can feel their foetus moving ?

[Lee Moore]

Come to think of it, I imagine Leonard’s mother in the Big Bang Theory might do just that.

[neurodoc]

Congratulations! Your Lincoln citation is wonderfully apt here, making the point as it does that like Humpty Dumpty, anyone is free to come up with whatever definitions or labels they imagine to be fitting. Their choice of definitions or labels, however, is nothing more than their choice (except perhaps as it may influence the opinion of others). A tail is a tail no matter that you want to count it as a leg for whatever your reasons.

Judge Kacsmaryk is too dumb and/or too much the ideologue to appreciate this. (And what shall we say about Josh Blackman’s thinking? Surely, he is not as bad or crooked as Kacsmaryk. but that doesn’t say too much for him.)

[Moderation4ever]

Professor Blackman is correct that language has coopted for the abortion debate and that each side choses language that cast their beliefs in the best light. It is interesting that zygote generates little concern and people are very comfortable with birth control which may end a human life but does so very early. A bigger argument is that between fetus and unborn baby, with prolife side want to use the later term and the proabortion side wanting to use the former.

I for one acknowledge that whatever the term we are talking about a potential human life. I also acknowledge for many different reasons a woman, and those who support her, may choose to not take a pregnancy to term and in doing so terminate the pregnancy. Early on it is simple enough to say I don’t want to be pregnant and have a child. As the pregnancy progresses we move from a person’s wants to more difficult questions, including the mother and the fetus’s health. I believe those closest to the pregnancy should make those decisions, not judges and legislators.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Republicans and other assorted conservatives also profess to believe in this principle, until they don’t.

[Bob from Ohio]

“potential human life”

No, its a human life. It may not be a “person”, but its not a racoon in there.

[Moderation4ever]

Do you oppose hormonal birth control and IUDs? Because they end a human life by your definition.

[Bob from Ohio]

A fertilized egg that has implanted in the womb is a distinct human.

Birth control stops this from occurring. So your premise is faulty.

[shawn_dude]

Why assume implantation makes them “a distinct human.” Why aren’t they a distinct human after fertilization but before implantation? The DNA is fully baked and who they would be after birth is mostly set in stone. Implantation seems arbitrary for anyone that might feel a fertilized egg is a person.

[Bob from Ohio]

Unless it implants it cannot fully develop.

[Sarcastr0]

Still a ‘distinct human,’ tho.

Your language is sloppy because your reasoning is abrupt.

[iowatwo]

You are the “no compromise” position. The individual has plenary rights that cannot be abrogated in any way.
Except suicide, using drugs the govt(people have declared controlled) forced vaccinations, mandatory attendance in schools, Earn a living by selling sexual services. Taking up arms to serve in the Nations defense.

There are many more examples of the govt infringing in peoples plenary power to control their body.

In short, the people, through there elected representatives, create the rules the people agree to live under.
Abortion is a very recent conflict. Man lived for 10 of thousands of years without the conflict.

[Sarcastr0]

You are the “no compromise” position. The individual has plenary rights that cannot be abrogated in any way.

I mean, if you make up what those who disagree with you think, it is easy to argue against them.

But being pro choice doesn’t require any of the things you say to be consistent.

And Bob’s muddiness on why he holds his position remains no matter how much you try and change the subject.
More pro-life people are empty reactionary own the libs motivated than I thought before reading VC threads on the issue.

[Vryedni]

I wouldn’t assume any comment thread accurately reflects the IRL population it purports to represent.

[iowatwo]

Sarcasto, I’m just pointing out society has never operated under absolute, bodily autonomy.
Society, especially a represented democracy like ours set all the rules we AGREE to live under. We…society adjust those rules as the views of society shift. I such a system, a good portion of the population may not like it, but agree to the rules of the game.

MLB players can disagree with the pitch clock, but when the joined the society, they agreed to follow the rules.

But the rules can change. History has chronicled these changes do indeed happen.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

It is human tissue, it is not a ‘distinct human.’

Try again without the stupidity.

[Bob from Ohio]

A fertilized egg is not just “tissue”, you moron. It has a distinct DNA from the woman.

[not guilty]

“A fertilized egg is not just ’tissue’, you moron. It has a distinct DNA from the woman.”

Most fertilized ova naturally fail to implant and are washed out with the menstrual flow. Should those of us who are Christian give Christian burials to feminine hygiene products, in case they contain human offspring?

[Lee Moore]

“Most” is an exaggeration. It would be fairer to say “Nearly half {zygotes, blastocysts, embryos} die before their existence is known of. This would include failure to implant, but would also include the death of impanted blastocysts and embryos. But the point – that many early humans die umourned – is correct. But this should not surprise us – we tend to mourn the deaths of people we know. (And by no means all of them )

Bob has got himself confused by innocently buying Bent Boving’s “social advantage” redefinition, later picked up enthusiastically by the pro-choice docs. (So enthusiastically that they defined conception as the implantation of the fetus, and took 7 years to spot their mistake !)

Implantation is no more the beginning of a new human organism, than graduation.

[Davy C]

The infant mortality rate used to be 50% in ancient times according to some random website. Does that mean those ancient infants weren’t people? You can’t argue this from percentages.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Then let it go be distinct in a distinct place, not inside the patient’s body where it is not welcome.

[Toranth]

Some people do consider birth control the same as abortion.
That includes condoms, in some cases.

[Brett Bellmore]

It certainly seems improper to refer to a viable infant as a “fetus” just because it happens to be inside a woman rather than outside. I don’t see why the name should vary according to location.

[neurodoc]

But if less than 20 weeks along in its development, it is NOT viable inside a uterus, attached by a placenta to the uterine wall. One needn’t have trained as a physician to know that, though you are free no matter your educational attainment, or lack thereof, to not see “location” to be a fundamentally relevant fact.

[Lee Moore]

I think you may have jumbled this a bit. Under 20 weeks* it is not (under current medical technology) viable outside the uterus. It is certainly viable inside.

* strictly speaking, as we know from freezing embryos, a human is viable outside the womb for about its first week, then goes through an non viable phase in utero, until its 20th week, after which it has a tiny, but then rapidly increasing, chance of survival.

[shawn_dude]

“A bigger argument is that between fetus and unborn baby, with prolife side want to use the later term and the proabortion side wanting to use the former.”

I think you’ve left out another, very important group with a view here: scientists and medical professionals. In this particular case, they refer to the baby as a “fetus” around 9 weeks (based on specific developmental milestones) through to birth. I think there’s some false equivalence when giving two political sides of the issue equal room to be right or wrong without actually giving the experts any mention or weight at all. In this instance, the pro-choice political side chooses to use the scientific language.

From a personal perspective, I also refuse to refer to pro-choice persons as “pro abortion.” The latter term implies they are in favor of abortion itself not just the right to choose one. There isn’t any evidence that I’ve seen which shows that the pro-choice crowd are some sort of vultures that revel in the termination of pregnancies–right wing caricatures aside.

[Brett Bellmore]

“There isn’t any evidence that I’ve seen which shows that the pro-choice crowd are some sort of vultures that revel in the termination of pregnancies–right wing caricatures aside.”

[Lee Moore]

I think you’ve left out another, very important group with a view here: scientists and medical professionals. In this particular case, they refer to the baby as a “fetus” around 9 weeks (based on specific developmental milestones) through to birth.

However they also refer to the baby as a baby (as did you.) Essentialy zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus are biological/medical specialist terms. The vernacular terms are baby and child.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

No, don’t concede what isn’t at issue.

“When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, the states widely recognized unborn children as persons. Twenty-three states and six territories referred to the fetus as a “child” in their laws prohibiting abortion. Twenty-eight classified abortion as an “offense against the person,” or a functionally equivalent classification. These statutes were enacted in recognition of unborn human beings’ full and equal membership in the human family. In Ohio, the same legislature that ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in January 1867 passed legislation criminalizing abortion at all stages just three months later. Several senators who voted for the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification sat on the committee that reviewed the anti-abortion bill. They acknowledged in their report that “physicians have now arrived at the unanimous opinion that the foetus in utero is alive from the very moment of conception,” and declared on that basis that abortion “at any stage of existence” is “child-murder.” In light of the historical evidence, there can be little doubt that the original public meaning of the term “person” in 1868 included unborn children.”

[neurodoc]

Blackman is full of crap. Physicians here and abroad have been calling the product of conception developing in utero beyond the earliest stages a fetus from time immemorial. The term is a sound scientific one, untainted by tendentious advocacy in support of or in opposition to elective abortions.

And Kaczmaryk is worthy of no respect given his blatant bias in favor of the plaintiffs’ self-evidently bogus case.

[Lee Moore]

Physicians here and abroad have been calling the product of conception developing in utero beyond the earliest stages a fetus from time immemorial.

They – and the general public – have also used the word “baby” and “child.” In ordinary vernacular usage, “baby” and “child” are common, “fetus” virtually unknown (except in abortion arguments.)

That “baby” is an entirely uncontroversial term for an in utero human, we need go no further than the Mayo Clinic, usually ranked the No.1 hospital group in the US :

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302

“Week 6 Your baby’s body begins to take on a C-shaped curvature.
Week 7: Baby’s head develops
Week 8: Baby’s nose forms
Week 9: Baby’s toes appear
Week 10: Baby’s elbows bend”

All of which is going on before the creature even makes it to “fetus.”

[Da5id]

Unlike the typical self-aggrandizing Blackman post, this one is kind of reasonable to me. Language and the assumptions behind it matters. I’d rather the courts and the press use neutral language in abortion and other areas of public controversy rather than loaded terms like pro-choice or pro-life.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

philosophy and linguistics would both say that you don’t know what you are talking about. You admit that either the baby dies or it lives. That is binary and unavoidably so. Therefore we must use non-neutral language because the situation is inherently non-neutral.

Do you use neutral language about capital punishment? You must be the life of the party.

[Vryedni]

Beg the question much?

[John F. Carr]

People think “chemicals” are bad the just like they think DNA doesn’t belong in food.

[John F. Carr]

On the broader issue of language choice, there are a lot of words and phrases that signal to me that I shouldn’t take the writer seriously. The same words and phrases signal to the writer’s political base that the writer is one of them. Are you preaching to the converted or aiming to inform the public?

[myself]

Blackman is (deliberately?) missing the obvious.

In general, people get to choose their own labels. Gay people wanting to get married called it marriage equality because that’s how they viewed it (odd that Blackman thinks it sounds “so much better” than same-sex marriage).

More significantly “sex-change” surgery implies your gender is being changed, transgender people believe they’re already the other gender and want the surgery to make their bodies more consistent with that.

The choice of language is powerful–especially with regard to contentious social issues. And consistently, the political left gets to define what words are acceptable.

Because they’re typically the ones directly affected by these issues.

I suspect the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine would describe its position as “Pro-Life” rather than “Anti-Abortion,” just as I suspect Planned Parenthood would call its position “Pro-Choice” rather than “Anti-Life.” Yet, it is fairly common in the press to see the phrase “Pro-Choice” paired with “Anti-Abortion.”

I’d agree that pro-life folks should get called pro-life because that’s how they choose to identify their group.

Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling, which triggered this appeal, included this footnote:

Jurists often use the word “fetus” to inaccurately identify unborn humans in unscientific ways. The word “fetus” refers to a specific gestational stage of development, as opposed to the zygote, blastocyst, or embryo stages. See ROBERT P. GEORGE& CHRISTOPHER TOLLEFSEN, EMBRYO 27–56 (2008) (explaining the gestational stages of an unborn human). Because other jurists use the terms “unborn human” or “unborn child” interchangeably, and because both terms are inclusive of the multiple gestational stages relevant to the FDA Approval, 2016 Changes, and 2021 Changes, this Court uses “unborn human” or “unborn child” terminology throughout this Order, as appropriate.

Partisan hack, Judge Kacsmaryk, is choosing the terminology unborn human/child because such language demands a particular outcome (no abortions). It’s not language a non-partisan hack would use.

The now-deleted passage dismissed the term “chemical abortion” as some sort of right wing misnomer. Instead, the Times explained, we should speak of “ending a pregnancy with medication.” Is “chemical abortion” so wrong, that the Times needed to dispute it with the anti-abortion moniker?

Well it’s a phrase chosen by pro-life folks to make the procedure sound worse. So yeah, it’s not a phrase people should use if they’re not trying to be partisan hacks.

[Brett Bellmore]

“More significantly “sex-change” surgery implies your gender is being changed”

Really? It’d think, trivially, that it implies that your “sex” was being changed. Not really possible at our current tech level, of course.

Wouldn’t “gender change” surgery be some kind of brain surgery?

[myself]

“Sex-change” implies they’re changing who they are, ie “I’m a man and I want to be a woman”.

“Gender affirming” implies they’re trying to make their body match their gender, ie, “I’m a woman and I want my body to reflect that”.

I believe the difference is very critical to them.

[Commenter_XY]

Gender affirming….an oxymoron if I have ever seen one. It is an obscene misuse of language (to your earlier point upthread); it is literally gender destruction.

[Jmaie]

“More significantly “sex-change” surgery implies your gender is being changed,”

Does it? Being an old fart, I grew up at a time when sex-change surgery meant changing your reproductive organs. I’ve always thought gender was an innate characteristic…

As to the left getting to define what language is acceptable, I remember a while back during an interview where Nancy Pelosi took great care to correct the reporter when he used the term “Illegal Alien.” She cut him off mid-sentence as said, “Undocumented Immigrant.” Nowadays no non-right media will use old term. Are you saying that only the left is affected by immigration?

[shawn_dude]

A person cannot be “illegal” and “alien” can also mean a little green dude from Pluto. Whereas, a person is an immigrant regardless of whether they arrived here legally or not.

As a burgeoning old fart, I understand that one’s sexual characteristics and one’s sense of gender may not be in alignment and “gender affirming” care is meant to modify your sexual characteristics to match your perceived gender. So while “sex-change” is what’s going on, “gender affirming surgery” is more accurate, not the least because it includes the reason for the change. A significant number of women get mastectomies for reasons other than gender affirming care. How do you differentiate a mastectomy for a trans man versus a mastectomy as a treatment for cancer? “Sex-change” has low information density which makes it less accurate.

[Longtobefree]

What’s being “affirmed” is not the gender, it is the delusion that the gender is somehow “wrong”.
Men are men.
Women are women.
Science.

[Davy C]

A person cannot be “illegal”

Their immigration sure can be.

and “alien” can also mean a little green dude from Pluto

Is there a serious risk of confusion here?

“Undocumented”, on the other hand, feels like someone who lost their paperwork, not someone intentionally violating the law.

[Lee Moore]

“Undocumented”, on the other hand, feels like someone who lost their paperwork, not someone intentionally violating the law.

It’s also false. They have no shortage of paperwork, just not of the sort that entitles them to be in the US.

[Commenter_XY]

I’ve always thought gender was an innate characteristic…

It is. Evidently, you and I paid attention in biology class, Jmaie. Particularly the class where we were instructed that genetically, our gender is XX for female and XY for male. Pretty simple. And it works out 99.999% of the time.*

All that other stuff? Well, those are psychological problems, not gender. Those people need help.

*Yes, there are genetic disorders (very rare)

[Vryedni]

The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range of 1:4500–1:2000 (0.02%–0.05%).[3] Other conditions involve atypical chromosomes, gonads, or hormones.[4][5] Some persons may be assigned and raised as a girl or boy but then identify with another gender later in life, while most continue to identify with their assigned sex.[6][7][8] The number of births where the baby is intersex has been reported differently depending on who reports and which definition of intersex is used. Anne Fausto-Sterling and her co-authors suggest that the prevalence of “nondimorphic sexual development” might be as high as 1.7%.[9][10] A study published by Leonard Sax reports that this figure includes conditions such as Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, and that if the term is understood to mean only “conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female”, the prevalence of intersex is about 0.018%.

Link

[Lee Moore]

I think Commenter_XY may, in quoting 99.999%, be referring to a comment of mine a couple of weeks ago, in which I was arguing that it was a bit more complicated than XX and XY.

The 99.999% represents, roughly, the probability with which a Y chromosome predicts male sex, ie male gonads. (And the absence of Y predicts female sex, ie female gonads.)

That is not the same as “intersex” which is a very vaguely defined concept at the best of times, and so the frequency of intersex depends entirely on how you define it. As Leonard Sax explains, Anne Fausto-Sterling’s definition is ludicrously overinclusive, which is why she gets to 2%. But Sax’s own figure – a hundred times smaller – at 0.02% still includes mostly folk whose Y chromosome, or lack thereof, correctly predicts their sex. Conditions whereby someone without a Y chromosome nevertheless develops testes, or someone with a Y chromosome develops ovaries are extremely rare. Hence the 99.999%.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

myself, you make no sense, When secular folks and lesbians and gays talk about abortion , what do you say? Do you call them religious fanatics —- no that won’t work. How about conservative zealots — foolish for sure
Go to these sites and learn how to talk like an adult.

Seculars for life talk about HUMAN RIGHTS
here https://secularprolife.org/

Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians
also say HUMAN RIGHTS START WHEN HUMAN LIFE BEGINS
here https://www.plagal.org/

You are PC like it’s an Olympic Event 🙂

[myself]

myself, you make no sense,

ditto

When secular folks and lesbians and gays talk about abortion , what do you say? Do you call them religious fanatics —- no that won’t work. How about conservative zealots — foolish for sure

I said nothing about religion and I haven’t the foggiest clue why you’re talking about this.

[not guilty]

Judge Kacsmaryk’s footnote rejecting the use of the word fetus is disingenuous. Mifepristone is administered through ten weeks gestational age. It does not take effect on fetuses, but rather on embryos.

[Commenter_XY]

Who are the other judges that Judge Kacsmaryk relied upon, that use the tern unborn human or unborn child? He specifically notes he is relying on prior use of the term. I am trying to understand how controversial the use of the tern ‘unborn human’ actually is.

[Lee Moore]

I have only read the extract above, but the judge explains his rejection of the term “fetus” in favor of “unborn child’ or “unborn human” thus :

because both terms are inclusive of the multiple gestational stages relevant to the FDA Approval, 2016 Changes, and 2021 Changes

ie the specific FDA approval etc on which he is being asked to rule refers to the multiple gestational stages, not merely to fetuses. Is he wrong about that ?

[myself]

ie the specific FDA approval etc on which he is being asked to rule refers to the multiple gestational stages, not merely to fetuses. Is he wrong about that ?

One would be a fool to take anything Judge Kacsmaryk writes at face value.

[Michael P]

You are, as usual, wrong. An unborn baby is called a fetus from the eighth week of pregnancy.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/7247-fetal-development-stages-of-growth
https://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/youre-pregnant-now-what/stages-pregnancy

[not guilty]

Gestational age is measured from the beginning of the last menstrual period. The eighth week from conception is about ten weeks gestational age.

[Seamus]

More significantly “sex-change” surgery implies your gender is being change

No, it implies that your *sex* is being changed. After all, I was told over and over that sex and gender are different things. Is that no longer true. It’s so confusing trying to keep up.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

If someone were really pro-life, they would support laws requiring able-bodied citizens to donate bone marrow for life-saving transplants.

[Doug Heffernan]

Why get hung up over the terms, rather than the substance?

Whether it is referred to as “chemical abortion”, or “ending a pregnancy with medication”, or anything else — Erin Hawley (an attorney) claimed that it is extremely unsafe.

The meaning of “extremely unsafe” shouldn’t be very controversial. In this context, it probably means something like a very high rate of dangerous complications (for the pregnant person). With a 20+ year history of use, determining the complication rate shouldn’t be too difficult.

[Martinned]

I’d be interested in the rate of complications relative to the risk of carrying a baby to term. Because let’s face it, the rate of death in childbirth in the US isn’t exactly stellar, and is probably higher than the risk of an early-term abortion.

[John F. Carr]

The maternal death rate is down by 99% from pre-industrial times, 1-2 per 10,000 instead of 1-2 per 100. The odds of dying from a pregnancy are now comparable to the odds of dying from a transport-related accident during a pregnancy.

[shawn_dude]

Further, a certain number of abortions were historically for things that would have represented increased risk to the mother so using historic data would have to control for that. US death due to childbirth data likely under-reports the actual risk in a world where abortion is entirely illegal.

Maternal death rates in the US for 2021 was 32.9 per 100,000 live births.

[Brett Bellmore]

Mind, a world in which abortion is entirely illegal is on the agenda of only a vanishingly small number of people. Comparable in number to the people who want abortion legalized in the 4th trimester.

[neurodoc]

“the fourth trimester” – that’s a joke, isn’t it.

[Lee Moore]

It’s gallows humor.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

I would hate to die and go to God with the “probably higher’ argument.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The choice of language is powerful–especially with regard to contentious social issues. And consistently, the political left gets to define what words are acceptable. “Marriage equality” sounds so much better than “same-sex marriage.” . . . “Black” is capitalized but “white” is lowercase. And so on. These linguistic judgments are not value-neutral. They represent a subtle, but deliberate effort to make the progressive position more palatable.

Euphemisms are popular along the political spectrum.

For example, “conservative values” sounds so much better than racism and xenophobia.

“Religious values” sounds so much better than bigoted gay-bashing and authoritarian censorship.

“Traditional values” sounds so much better than white supremacy and chanting, torch-lit antisemitism.

“Heartland” sounds so much better than can’t-keep-up, uneducated, bigoted backwater.

“Family values” sounds so much better than old-timey misogyny and Islamophobia.

Others are welcome to wallow in political correctness (and use the Federalist Society-preferred terms), but I have lost my taste for it and just call a right-wing bigot a right-wing bigot.

[DavidTaylor]

And when claiming “The choice of language is powerful–especially with regard to contentious social issues. And consistently, the political left gets to define what words are acceptable.”

Prof. Blackman forgets that the modern pioneer of the strategic use of language was Newt Gingrich, in his GOPAC memo.

[John F. Carr]

According to the transcript Sarah Harrington got to speak for 21 seconds before Judge Ho cut her off.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Judge Ho is on a Mission From God.

Customs, norms, and the rules of man do no apply.

[shawn_dude]

“The choice of language is powerful–especially with regard to contentious social issues. And consistently, the political left gets to define what words are acceptable. ”
Then later…
“For elites–including the press and most judges–pro-life terminology is considered inherently biased, while pro-abortion terminology is considered inherently neutral.” [emphasis added.]

No self-awareness?

[Vryedni]

Thanks. I was hoping made this comment so I wouldn’t have to.

[Vryedni]

*was hoping someone made this comment*

[Aunt Teefah]

“The choice of language is powerful–especially with regard to contentious social issues. And consistently, the political left gets to define what words are acceptable.”

Does Josh seriously not think the political right does this too? (See, e.g., “enhanced interrogation”, “right to work”, etc.). Of course people want to use label, slogans, and framing that makes their positions seem more favorable. It’s a fundamental feature of politics.

Really weird thing to whine about.

[Bob from Ohio]

The left dominates the media so it usually wins the language game.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Winning a culture war — and being on the right side of history — have consequences.

So do losing a culture war and being on the wrong side of history.

[Frank Drackman]

Don’t get on the “Wrong Side” of Coach Sandusky, not if you value your Sphincter Tone

[Seamus]

Winning a culture war — and being on the right side of history — have consequences.

Among which are that you can disregard the rules of grammar (which are racist anyway).

[shawn_dude]

Does the left “dominate media?”

Which cable TV news channel has the highest viewership numbers, again? The same one that recently earned a $700B legal judgement against it for lying and defamation?

[Bob from Ohio]

Fox gets maybe 3 1/2 million views a night. NBC nightly news alone gets 6.87 million.

Now add CNN, MSNBC, Univision, CBS, ABC and PBS.

[shawn_dude]

What is your evidence that any of these* are “liberal media?”

Wednesday’s prime time news numbers:
Total Viewers (Live+SD x 1,000)
Total Day: FNC: 1.401 | CNN: 416 | MSNBC: 939
Prime: FNC: 1.715 | CNN: 460 | MSNBC: 1.379
Fox News Channel is consistently number one with MSNBC running behind by hundreds of thousands of viewers.

Now add NewsMax and OAN.

*I’ll concede MSNBC straight up.

[Davy C]

Yeah, you expect the right and left to do this, and they do. But we still get to call it out. Especially when the NYT does it.

[Bob from Ohio]

“Gender affirming care” sounds so much better than “mutilation”. FIFY

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

“Circumcision” sounds better than “superstition-based child mutilation,” too.

[Krychek_2]

If today, for the very first time and on a clean slate, some religion proposed circumcising infants, its practitioners would be arrested for child sexual abuse and required to register as sex offenders. The only reason circumcision doesn’t get that reaction is the mere fact that it’s been going on for a very long time.

[Brett Bellmore]

That’s not the only reason. It actually does have objective medical benefits. At least, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics, it does.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

“We have been doing it that way for a long time” is a stupid argument cherished by stupid, superstitious, downscale people who should be largely disregarded by better people.

[Seamus]

And yet you accuse right-wingers of antisemitism. Pot, meet kettle.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I would expect to learn that most circumcised children in America are not Jewish.

Carry on, “Jews will not replace us” clingers.

[Seamus]

So you*don’t* think that religious Jews who circumcise their sons are stupid, superstitious, downscale people?

[Frank Drackman]

I bet you said that to all your victims.

[robbbb]

Josh needs to prove his assertion that leftish terms get used more often. Leftists would prefer the term torture, but even npr says enhanced interrogation. Gay folk may prefer marriage equality, but in general it is described as same sex marriage or increasingly as just marriage. I think it is most accurate to call Trump a liar and a hypocrite but the media generally refers to him as the former president.

[Michael P]

“Leftists would prefer the term torture, but even npr says enhanced interrogation.”

Really? https://www.npr.org/2022/03/03/1084161762/supreme-court-rules-against-disclosure-in-torture-case suggests otherwise.
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/23/799130233/psychologist-who-helped-create-interrogation-methods-says-cia-may-have-gone-too as well. Those were the first two results on a DuckDuckGo search for “NPR enhanced interrogation”.

[Brett Bellmore]

Google Ngram says use of the term “chemical abortion” really took off about 1985, stayed popular for about 20 years, and then usage abruptly declined. Ngram shows “medication abortion” going from unheard of to high frequency over the same time period as that decline.

The 1985 advent of the term makes sense, that appears to have been about when mifepristone started being used for that purpose. I’m curious about the cause of the sudden drop off, though; Did the AP change their style book, perhaps? That’s often the cause when the standard term for something abruptly changes.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Why not use abortifacient?

[Jonathan Affleck]

One could also refer to prenatal offspring.

[Dilan Esper]

So OK, you have a point. You do. For instance, there’s nothing wrong with “chemical abortion”- I personally say “abortion pill”, but “medication abortion” absolutely sounds like spin.

And yes, the media should say “pro-choice” and “pro-life”, as I do, because that’s what the groups call themselves. (That, by the way, is the exact same principle I apply to accept trans people’s identified names and pronouns.)

And yes, there’s a lot of this going on with trans stuff. Beyond “gender affirming care”, you have the abominations that are “top surgery” and “bottom surgery”, instead of “mastectomy” and “sex change operation”. (FWIW, my understanding is the media has gotten sick of “top surgery” and is starting to say “mastectomy” more, which is good.)

But… some of these complaints are just loopy. We call it a fetus or an embryo because that’s what it is. It isn’t a baby yet. If we’re having a debate specifically about LATE-term abortions, then I have no problem with baby, because by that time, it looks and acts like a baby. But using “baby” to describe something that looks like a tadpole is pure spin just like “top surgery” is.

“Noncitizens” is a better way of saying “aliens”, because of a weird thing that happens with the language where another usage becomes really associated with it. “Aliens”, in 2023, sounds like space aliens. Noncitizens doesn’t. So it’s a better word. (This kind of thing happens all the time– there’s a perfectly good word that refers to a person who is miserly, but which sounds too much like the n-word. So we don’t say it that often anymore. There are synonyms available. This doesn’t hurt society at all, as long as we don’t cancel people who use the old word.)

So the point is, take this on a case by case basis. Ridiculous euphemisms should be avoided, groups should be called what they want to be called, and we should avoid stacking the deck in either direction.

[shawn_dude]

I’m not trans but “top surgery” and “bottom surgery” come right out of the trans community itself. There may be reasons why they choose these euphemisms over the more clinical terms. I’d leave that to a trans person to speak to.

[Dilan Esper]

The difference is this isn’t about what they call THEMSELVES. (E.g., we should say “trans” rather than “transsexual” or “transvestite” because that is what they call themselves.) Rather, this is about medical terms. Trans people have no relevant expertise or privilege as to how we label a medical procedure, and, indeed, we do not owe them (or any group) any particular deference in deciding how to refer to a medical procedure.

We should call it a mastectomy because it is one, and we shouldn’t call it “top surgery” because that term is an attempt to conceal what is taking place from the rest of the world.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

groups should be called what they want to be called

You are welcome to call racists whatever you wish, including whatever racists prefer (traditionalists, conservatives, Republicans, regular Americans, whatever), but I’ll stick racists.

Same with bigots.

[Frank Drackman]

well said, Coach Sandusky

[Jmaie]

““Noncitizens” is a better way of saying “aliens”, because of a weird thing that happens with the language where another usage becomes really associated with it.”

And yet alien is the legally correct term for someone here (illegally or otherwise) who’s citizenship and/or allegiance belongs to another country. That weird thing that happened was in this case an intentional push to change the usage rather than an organic process. It’s not considered a better word by those that like precision of language, or dislike large scale immigration.

[Dilan Esper]

And yet alien is the legally correct term for someone here (illegally or otherwise) who’s citizenship and/or allegiance belongs to another country.

That’s not right and ironically, in a comments thread about spin, you are spinning.

An alien is a person who is not a citizen of the United States. That person might owe allegiance to no other country (because she is stateless, or because her citizenship is with a country that makes no demand of allegiance). That person might owe allegiances to two or more other countries as well. That person might even owe allegiance to the United States, as in a lawful permanent resident member of our Armed Forces.

It’s notable that you change the definition in this way, because you are obviously attempting to make it sound like these people are disloyal. But there’s no notion of loyalty, at all, inherent in the term “alien”. There’s just a word that sounds too much like a space alien, when “non-citizen” conveys the same concept just as well.

[Jmaie]

I intended no spin, Merriam-Webster defines alien as in part, “relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government.” And I said nothing about loyalty, so perhaps my intent was not as obvious as you seem to think…

Cheers.

[MaverickNH]

The effort to control language is the effort to control the argument. “White Fragility” was popularized by Robin DeAngelo, who noted “fragility” didn’t imply weakness. How well would it be accepted to refer to “Black Mediocrity” if one said “mediocrity” didn’t imply lack of brilliance?

[ReaderY]

No, alien is perfectly find. Glad you brought the analogy up. I have no problem using the technical term in both cases.

[Lee Moore]

We call it a fetus or an embryo because that’s what it is. It isn’t a baby yet.

We who we ? And yes it is a baby yet.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302

Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby’s back is closing……..Seven weeks into your pregnancy, or five weeks after conception, your baby’s brain and face are growing……Eight weeks into your pregnancy, or six weeks after conception, your baby’s lower limb buds take on the shape of paddles. Fingers have begun to form. Small swellings outlining the future shell-shaped parts of your baby’s ears develop and the eyes become obvious. The upper lip and nose have formed. The trunk and neck begin to straighten.

No pregnant woman refers to “my embryo” or “my fetus”. They refer to “my baby.” A pregnant woman tends to get very unhappy if and when she “loses her baby.” No woman in the history of the universe has ever bemoaned the loss of “my fetus.”

Zygote, blastocyst, embryo and fetus are biological / medical terms used by biologists, doctors etc to describe, reasonably precisely, the various stages of development of a human prior to birth.

Child and baby are the vernacular expressions, but their meanings do not overlap precisely with the biological / medical terms. Thus both child and baby can refer to humans in utero and humans post birth. You can be a baby and a child simultaneously, but you stop being a baby before you stop being a child. And as can be seen above, medical folk are entirely familiar with the ordinary usage and use it themselves.

The suggestion that you only become a baby or a child when you’re born is simply not in accordance with normal, and very longstanding, English usage.

[JasonT20]

No pregnant woman refers to “my embryo” or “my fetus”. They refer to “my baby.” A pregnant woman tends to get very unhappy if and when she “loses her baby.” No woman in the history of the universe has ever bemoaned the loss of “my fetus.”

You are so close to getting it. Just consider how the women you are referring to here differ from women that seek an elective abortion, and maybe you’ll make a breakthrough.

[Lee Moore]

Of what conceivable relevance are the feelings of women who want abortions, to the fact that “baby” and “child’ are, and always have been, much the most commonly used terms to describe immature humans, before and after birth ?

In the Mayo Clinic link describing the stages in the 1st trimester, which contains plenty of technical language describing the zygote, morula, blastocyst and embryo, references to these bio/medical concepts are still heavily outweighed by references to the “baby.”
35 to 13 in favor of baby, if you’re counting.

This thread is about “language and abortion” and it has been repeatedly claimed that it is wrong, or weird, or stupid to refer to embryos or fetuses as babies. As weird as calling an acorn an oak tree. But as I have demonstrated – with close to zero effort – and as anyone with half a brain knew all along, these claims are completely daft.

Whatever your views about abortion, whatever the feelings of women who are pregnant and do not wish to be, the fact is that you do not have to have been born to be a baby.

[JasonT20]

Of what conceivable relevance are the feelings of women who want abortions, to the fact that “baby” and “child’ are, and always have been, much the most commonly used terms to describe immature humans, before and after birth ?

A woman that wants a baby will refer to what is growing inside of her as “my baby” or “my child”, while a woman that does not want to be pregnant is much less likely to say that, don’t you think?

You’re pregnant. Congratulations! You’ll undoubtedly spend the months ahead wondering how your baby is growing and developing. What does your baby look like? How big is he or she? When will you feel the first kick?

That article you linked is clearly targeted at women hopeful and happy to be pregnant. So, yes, it is perfectly natural to refer to it as a baby in that context. A woman that was raped, a woman that already has multiple children she has difficulty affording to care for, a woman with health conditions that make pregnancy especially risky, or any other woman that did not want to become pregnant would not read that website and feel like Mayo should be congratulating her. Then she would also not really think of it as a her “baby” in the same way that a woman that wants to be pregnant does.

If you want to refer to a zygote, embryo, or fetus as a baby, then that reflects your feelings about it, just like it would for a woman that hopes to become a mother. But that isn’t about what it is. The whole idea of abortion being a right is that only the feelings of the pregnant woman can determine the choice to continue a pregnancy or not. That is why the words that anyone else might use, “baby”, “unborn human”, “unborn child”, included, do not matter.

[Davy C]

“illegal alien” is certainly not the same thing as “noncitizen”. So, “illegal noncitizen”? I feel like that would get both sides mad.

I’m pretty sure there was an article here a while back noting that a judge used the more politically correct term in a ruling despite that term being legally incorrect.

[JasonT20]

“illegal alien” is certainly not the same thing as “noncitizen”. So, “illegal noncitizen”? I feel like that would get both sides mad.

The comment you were replying to was comparing “noncitizen” to “alien”. “Alien”, when referring to a human, is a term that means anyone that is a citizen of a country other than the one they are present in at the time (that is, they “owe allegiance” to a different country), so “noncitizen” is the same thing as “alien” in that context. As he pointed out, though, over the last century, “alien” is much more often used to refer to things that are completely unlike others, such as extraterrestrial life forms (especially in science fiction), so “illegal alien” is a doubly loaded term to use. Both because of the implication of being other than human and the fact that to describe a person as being “illegal” is a category error. Only a person’s actions can be illegal. That is why “undocumented immigrant” has come into use, likewise to say that the person has “entered illegally”. They are legally accurate without being loaded terms.

[Darth Buckeye]

According to Jewish mothers (like mine), life begins when the fetus graduates from law school or medical school.

[John F. Carr]

Does marrying a lawyer or a doctor count?

[Frank Drackman]

I was the only Jew in my Med School class that people didn’t know was a Jew. (OK, there were 2 others pretty obvious, names/schnoz/obnoxiousness, I only had the last 2.) Love having the Irish last name, makes it much easier to infiltrate the system for the coming ZOG (ask the “Reverend” Sandusky, its sort of another version of “Your Bettors)

Frank

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

“The Irishman now, our contempt he’s beneath:
He sleeps in his boots, and he lies in his teeth.
He blows up policemen, or so I have heard
And he blames it on Cromwell or William the Third!”

–Flanders & Swann

[neurodoc]

What you say in the course of many of your posts qualifies you as a nasty out antisemite. Have you ever identified in any affirmative way as a Jew, if indeed you are one?

[Vryedni]

He’s a bigot, but also a clown (the pathetic kind, not the funny kind). That makes it hard to know how much of what he says to take seriously.

[jdgalt1]

This is just one of many examples of the way Big (legacy) Media try to control the narrative. Abandon the legacy media.

[ReaderY]

Would note a similar fight is brewing over use of the term “alien.” I have no problem using the legal term for both.

[JasonT20]

Language evolves. “Alien” was a perfectly serviceable term more than a century ago to describe someone from another country present in this one. But since then, common use of the word is much more likely to refer to something being “alien” to its present surroundings (as in being completely unlike other things normally present) or even referring to not being from Earth at all (science fiction and pop culture usage). An immigrant, in the country legally or not, is definitely still a human person, with the associated human and constitutional rights, so modern use of the word “alien” does carry connotations that can make it a loaded term.

[silverpie]

In other places, I might let this go, but I also noticed that the FDA cannot tell the difference between ß (the German ss/sz combined letter) and β (the Greek letter beta)…

[not guilty]

For all the discussion at oral argument of whether any plaintiff(s) had standing, no one mentioned the standing requirement that it must be “likely,” as opposed to merely “speculative,” that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

The plaintiffs’ theory of injury in fact appears to be that if mifepristone stays on the market, other doctors will prescribe mifepristone to their pregnant patients, the pregnant patients will suffer side effects, and then the patients will switch doctors and come to the plaintiff-doctors. This, in turn, will injure the plaintiff-doctors because it will divert their attention from their other patients, potentially force them to complete “unfinished abortions,” and possibly expose them to malpractice lawsuits.

Suppose the district court’s order is upheld and FDA approval of mifepristone is vitiated. A pregnant patient who would otherwise have taken mifepristone will undergo a medication abortion taking only misopristol, will undergo a surgical abortion, or will carry the pregnancy to term. Each course of action carries a greater risk of adverse side effects than taking mifepristone (followed by misopristol). The patient accordingly becomes more likely to seek treatment from the plaintiff-doctors, so as to divert their attention from their other patients, potentially force them to complete “unfinished abortions,” and possibly expose them to malpractice lawsuits.

[John F. Carr]

A more prepared plaintiff would have recruited doctors who wanted more business as well as doctors who wanted less business.

[neurodoc]

What you say in the course of many of your posts qualifies you as a nasty out antisemite. Have you ever identified in any affirmative way as a Jew, if indeed you are one?

[blue heron]

To whom are you directing your comment?

[Vryedni]

Drackman, I think.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Doctors use the terms “medical abortion” and “non-surgical abortion”.

A chemical abortion would be one accomplished by direct chemical action against the fetus – like if you tried to oxidize it to death by squirting bleach into the patient’s uterus. The nearest we have is the old 1970s-type saline abortions, in which a concentrated saline solution was injected into the uterus and the fetus was osmotically dehydrated by the salt. Even that is, strictly speaking, not a “chemical abortion”, because osmosis is really a physical process, not a chemical process (ie no chemical reaction takes place).

[Randal]

And consistently, the political left gets to define what words are acceptable.

Oh please. The right plays word games as much or more than the left. Just to scratch the surface…

Death Tax
Catch & Release
Welfare Queen
School Choice
Right to Work
Deep State
Fake News

And we must never forget: Freedom Fries

[JasonT20]

this Court uses “unborn human” or “unborn child” terminology throughout this Order, as appropriate.

There is nothing neutral about “unborn” anything. The point of that language is to imply that what is terminated in an abortion is really the same thing as a baby or child, but it just hasn’t been born yet. Prior to viability, it has to do more than be born in order to be the same as healthy baby. It has to finish developing in many ways before it could survive outside the womb.

Besides, the fetal stage of development encompasses from about 8-9 weeks of gestation until birth. Fetus seems like a fairly accurate term to use regarding abortion. Though, for abortion using mifepristone, many abortions will occur during the embryonic stage, so perhaps embryo would serve as well.

[JasonT20]

Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling, which triggered this appeal, included this footnote:

Jurists often use the word “fetus” to inaccurately identify unborn humans in unscientific ways. The word “fetus” refers to a specific gestational stage of development, as opposed to the zygote, blastocyst, or embryo stages. See ROBERT P. GEORGE& CHRISTOPHER TOLLEFSEN, EMBRYO 27–56 (2008) (explaining the gestational stages of an unborn human).

Anyone else notice that Kacsmaryk’s footnote accused other judges of using “fetus” in unscientific ways and then referenced a book whose whole thesis is that embryonic stem cell research is wrong because it relies on destroying a human being? From short reviews I read, that agree with that thesis, the book could be making this argument using accurate descriptions of early human development, but it is not a neutral textbook treatment of that topic. (Neither of the book’s authors are scientists with any expertise in that area, but are philosophers.)

[Lee Moore]

I think you have read “jurists” as “judges.”

[JasonT20]

Hmm, I had always seen the term “jurist” used in a context that implied judges, but I do see that the definition includes anyone considered expert in matters of law. Judges, such as Kacsmaryk, are clearly included as being jurists, so it doesn’t change my point.

[SimonP]

The choice of language is powerful–especially with regard to contentious social issues. And consistently, the political left gets to define what words are acceptable.

No, Josh – as usual, with this kind of complaint, you just notice it more when “the other side” does it. You object when “the political left”‘s choice of language doesn’t flatter your own position. While using your own terminology of choice, to flatter yourself.

But there’s a more fundamental problem with this complaint, which is that none of the examples you cite are different ways of explaining the same thing.

“Marriage equality” sounds so much better than “same-sex marriage.”

These are different things. “Marriage equality” is a more general principle and political goal, where every consenting adult has the right to marry another consenting adult, without the state prohibiting some marriages for no defensible reason; “same-sex marriage” is a particular type of marriage.

“Gender affirming care” sounds so much better than “sex change surgery.”

“Gender-affirming care” encompasses not just surgical treatment, but hormonal treatments and therapy. “Sex change surgery” is a somewhat antiquated way of referring to medical procedures that have their own proper descriptions. The “political right” tends to prefer to focus on the “surgical” side of gender-affirming care, because it suits a political agenda that relies on the specter of children having their genitals permanently altered or removed. But plenty of trans people don’t get “the surgery,” and don’t care to. “Gender affirming care” is something that most trans people living as trans get, in some form.

“Diversity, equity, and inclusion” sounds so much better than “racial preferences.”

Once again, you complain about how the “political left” uses language, while conflating their preferred term with the reductive and far more loaded term the “political right” would prefer. DEI encompasses dimensions of diversity far beyond simply race, does not necessarily counsel in favor of “racial preferences” even when discussing race, and indeed provides the theoretical background necessary to critique certain ways that “racial preferences” may be mis-used or counterproductive (e.g., when they result in unfair or unequal treatment of hispanics or Asian Americans, in service of a “white knight” racial justice mentality).

One of the frustrating things to see, about the right’s war on “woke,” is that these idiots don’t seem to grasp how DEI and “woke” ideology can actually be turned in support of their own valid complaints. Back during the George Floyd protests, I debated right-wingers about police violence directed towards Black people. They would say, “The police actually beat down white people just as much!” Yes, exactly. Why do you think that is? Why don’t we do something about that? Crickets. You’re all such obedient children.

“Non-citizen” sounds so much better than “illegal alien.”

Check. You can’t even get the terminology you’re complaining about right. “Non-citizen” obviously includes categories of people who are not in any sense “illegal,” such as legal residents and asylum seekers. But what you probably want to refer to here is “undocumented immigrant.” The difference between that term and “illegal alien” is, admittedly, ideologically loaded – but it’s also more factually correct, at least insofar as people who enter the country illegally are guilty of entering without a visa – i.e., “documentation.” Actually being here isn’t the violation; entering without documentation is. So the point of saying “undocumented immigrant” is to highlight that the nature of the “illegality” is bureaucratic and paperwork-related. The “political right” would prefer to blur this fact and emphasize the criminality of the act of entry – like immigrants are “trespassing” or “breaking and entering” the country.

“Black” is capitalized but “white” is lowercase.

Josh – by all means, if you’d like to tease your inner leanings towards “White” supremacy, adopt their habit of capitalizing “White.” See how many friends you make then.

Maybe if you can think about this litany of complaints, you can discern for yourself why it might make sense to refer to Black people as “Black” (capitalized), while the same may not apply to “white” (lower-case). The point isn’t to elevate one race of the other. The point is to acknowledge the existence of an American cultural identity (and simpler term for the clumsy “African-American”) to which no “white” counterpart properly exists.

I mean, I am “white”; am I “White,” like you are, Josh? FUCK NO. And thank god for that. And that’s setting aside the precious snowflake-ism going on in complaining over typeface.

As to the term that “inspired” this whole post – “chemical abortion” – it rather conveniently demonstrates that your complaint isn’t that “the political left” adopts loaded terminology, but rather that it refuses to adopt the loaded terminology “the political right” is trying to infuse into these debates. Because, to be sure, “chemical abortion” is a very particular and peculiar way of referring to abortions achieved through the use of medications, and isn’t generally used by people other than right-wingers with an ax to grind. The NYTime’s characterization of the term is perfectly apt. To try to defend the use of the term by making the puerile point that a “medication” is certainly a “chemical” is just to show that you’re completely aware that you’re not making a good argument.

Setting all that aside – your careful avoidance of the substance, when it involves your hero giving serious consideration to this spurious lawsuit, is noted. You’re such an obvious, sniveling sycophant.

[Brett Bellmore]

“Maybe if you can think about this litany of complaints, you can discern for yourself why it might make sense to refer to Black people as “Black” (capitalized), while the same may not apply to “white” (lower-case).”

I think this is by far your weakest point. There is literally no reason to capitalize “black” and not “white” except to denigrate the latter, and your silly justification is even worse: Because blacks are a monolithic group and whites aren’t? Like hell blacks are monolithic.

The reason “Asian”, say, is capitalized, is that “Asia” is a proper name, and proper names are supposed to be capitalized. It’s as simple as that.

[Randal]

Hm maybe it would be a good thing to start thinking of “Black” as a proper name alongside Hispanic, Asian, Caucasian, etc. Like Hindu. That way people might stop getting butthurt about words like blacklist, which have nothing to do with them. Sorry that the color you chose to call yourself has negative connotations due to being named after the absence of light. After all, it’s not Blacklist. I don’t hear Mr. Baskets complaining about “basket-case” — he knows better than to presume that everything’s all about him just because his name is a word.

Brett, how would you analyze Native American and Pacific Islander? Shouldn’t they be native American and Pacific islander?

[JasonT20]

I’m with you on this, Randal. I haven’t considered nor have I looked into where the move to call people “Black” instead of “black” started, but it seems much more likely that it was an effort by people that consider themselves to fit that racial category to make it a proper noun rather than an adjective describing the color of their skin. (Particularly since it isn’t any more accurate than to refer to someone’s skin as being “white”.)

By that reasoning, “White” would be a preferred style for describing a racial category then, and I wouldn’t consider making it so an effort to express white superiority. But, then again, I also don’t really care one way or another, as a white person.

[Lee Moore]

That way people might stop getting butthurt about words like blacklist, which have nothing to do with them. Sorry that the color you chose to call yourself has negative connotations due to being named after the absence of light.

But, Shirley, the point is that “black”, “dark” etc do have those negative connotations – and it’s not that surprising if black folk aren’t too keen on being associated with them. After all – to be on a whitelist is a good thing, to be on a blacklist is a bad thing.

The values of the connotations of black and white is part of that plausible 0.0001% of the ever changing theories of systematic racism, or critical racery, that forces us to eschew the word “total” before describing those theories as BS.

Meanwhile, Brett’s choice of words reminds me that “denigrate” seems to be the only word containing this sort of negative connotation of black that never causes an eyelid to bat. Even the wokest seem happy to use it. It is a great mystery.

[Randal]

Systemic racism is real. This blog is proof. But “blacklist” isn’t the reason.

[SimonP]

Nothing about my description of the Black community implies that they are “monolithic.” I am just saying that they share a common history, heritage, experience in American society, etc., that isn’t true in the same way, for the American white community.

But honestly, you can’t expect anyone to take you seriously, with this Fox & Friends level of sensitivity to perceived slights. You people are objecting to typefaces now. You are certifiable.

[Toranth]

And look at this guy: He thinks blacks from Somalia are the same as blacks from South Africa, and that both are the same as blacks from urban New York and rural Wyoming. He thinks they “share a common history, heritage, experience” because of the color of their skin.

What do you call someone that applies a single stereotype to everyone that happens to be of the same race, regardless of actual background? That’s right – racist.

[Suudy]

And in the same vein, if it were immoral or illegal to destroy oaks, I’d expect a consistent response would be that it would immoral or illegal to destroy acorns. This is just nominalism being employed to distract from the main point; a distinction without a difference.

[Religion and Politics, my life]

You probably are a queen…you missed the point in your sprint to ber considered witty. A child is what will become an adult so the killing is wrong, by your own analogy.

‘Most Biologists Believe Life Begins at Conception’: UChicago Ph.D. Candidate Surveys Thousands of Scientists

” “When does life begin?” According to the website, while nearly 90 percent of “very pro-life” respondents answered that it begins at fertilization, still nearly three-quarters of “pro-choice” respondents answered the same. Around three-fifths of “very pro-choice” respondents felt the same.”

THis is why the acorn comment, because you know that unless you destroy it is not an acorn.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Lots of people think it’s a much bigger deal to destroy oaks…”

Why would it be a big deal to destroy oaks?

[Bob from Ohio]

Lots of people think it’s a much bigger deal to destroy oaks over and above destroying humans in the womb.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You get that that’s a pejorative term, and that tree-huggers don’t really hug trees, right.

Anyway, what I’m getting from the responses is that the reason that people object to killing oaks is entirely different from the reason people object to destroying humans, so the analogy is inapt.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A bald eagle egg smasher???

[shawn_dude]

Largely, it depends on location. I’ve lived in several cities where cutting down trees, especially those of a certain species and/or size, requires special permission. This is often because the trees are seen as providing particular benefits to the civic landscape. In Tampa, I had a massive, ancient camphor tree. That species of tree was considered invasive there. But because the tree had a trunk over 10 feet in circumference, it was protected. Oaks, in particular, are very slow growing, so it’s not like an acorn is an adequate substitution for a 100 year old tree. If the tree is large, old, and in a neighborhood or a city park or some sort of landmark, it’s likely to be a big deal to enough people.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

I actually bought a walking stick made of oak. I felt guilty about subsidizing the killing of an oak tree in order to make walking sticks, but someone pointed out that there’s a fungus on the loose which kills oak trees (attacks their roots) and my stick was probably made of wood from an already-dead oak tree, not by cutting down a live oak tree.

[shawn_dude]

Lots of people only care that the acorn sprouts and don’t care one whit whether they get sun, rain, or any care at all after that. Nor do they care if the oak gets cut down by a rampaging person with an axe.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“Analogies, how do they work?”

Sometimes they don’t.

[Frank Drackman]

Anal? I think someone sticks a dick up your asshole, haven’t tried it myself.

[Bob from Ohio]

“Do you know what a Joey is?”

You apparently don’t. A joey is a young Kangaroo.

“As with all marsupials, the young are born at a very early stage of development—after a gestation of 31–36 days. At this stage, only the forelimbs are somewhat developed, to allow the newborn to climb to the pouch and attach to a teat. ” wikipedia, Kangaroo

[Krychek_2]

I’ve always wondered if someone who steals a baby kangaroo can be charged with pick pocketing.

[shawn_dude]

It can take 20 years for an oak tree to finaly reach maturity and start producing acorns. Its trunk would be about 12″ across. They can live to be over 700 years old. Over its lifespan, the tree will produce millions of acorns. Risking the life of the tree for a single acorn is to deny the opportunity for millions more to form and drop to the ground.

[Brett Bellmore]

I really don’t get how “tree spikers” would be less pejorative, but we could go with that if you insist.

[Bob from Ohio]

Depends, does the person imagine the hair color is actually changed or not?

[Suudy]

The famous “better dead than underfed” argument.

**slow clap**

[Sarcastr0]

Pretty sure it was a hypocricy argument, not a substantive one.

But being fast and loose with the murder accusations is par for the course on these threads.

[Frank Drackman]

Like apparently black peoples don’t get as upset with murdering their next generation as white peoples, but let some nut job get choked out by a Marine, and watch out! (Problem with New York Subways isn’t too many Marines on them)

[Frank Drackman]

I know, it sucks, Afro Amuricans should be free to kill their babies up to birth (they already do pretty well after)

[Frank Drackman]

The carpet didn’t match the drapes??

[Frank Drackman]

Thats because most peoples consider peoples more important than trees. I like trees myself, especially when they’re made into baseball bats or high end furniture. So callous about extremely young humans, but go nuts over a nutbag like Jordan Neely, can’t wait for the riots when the Marine is acquitted, (even in NYC)

[Lee Moore]

Strictly it is the oak seed within the acorn that is the oak. An oak seed isn’t going to become an oak, it is one already. It’s not an oak tree yet, but we all have to start small. The oak tree is the mature form of the oak. The oak seed is the embryonic form.

The acorn is the oak nut, ie the seed together with its enclosing (and nutritious) outer casing. If you want an analogy with humans, you might say that the human acorn is the embryo/placenta combo. But we did diverge from trees a while back so the analogy is not a close one.

[Seamus]

They also don’t think destroying an oak seedling is like destroying an oak tree. So I guess it should it be OK to kill newborn human infants, or at least we shouldn’t feel as bad about killing them as we feel about killing full-grown humans.

[Sarcastr0]

I’m all for semantic discussions – rhetoric matters a lot more than we think.

But I want to stuff you into a locker.

[iowatwo]

The plant analogy for a human mammal occurrence is hard to take serious.

I have a real life example that is very close.

Farmers are prohibited by the govt form cutting the grass in the waterways and terraces, in crop production fields. The law requires this to protect the eggs of birds that are ground nesters in that environment.
They are not protecting the egg. They are protecting the embryo in the egg, to protect and expand the species.
What is life, is not really complicated unless your are struggling to rationalize questionable actions.

[Lee Moore]

It begins “all persons born….” but it ends “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” You will note that the bit at the end contains no qualification as to being born (or naturalised.) And the courts have on several occasions confirmed that being born or naturalised in the United States is not a necessary requirment for the right equal protection.

The 14th amendment’s opening words do not tell us anything about what a “person” is for the purposes of the equal protection clause – other than that being born or naturalised in the United States doesn’t have anything to do with it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Actually, it reads, “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”.

“persons born [or naturalized] in the United states” carries no more implication that the unborn aren’t persons, than “persons [born or] naturalized in the United States” implies that those not naturalized aren’t persons.

It doesn’t preclude either claim, but neither implies either. All it really says in this regard is that the unborn aren’t citizens, which is a status they share with an awful lot of people.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

You are worrying too much about what a fetus is. Start thinking about where it is. That is what matters.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Yes, you’re entitled to the equal protection of the laws. But you are not entitled to be sheltered and sustained inside another person’s body where you are not welcome.

[iowatwo]

Id does If the people through their Representatives make that determination.
We are a self governing population. WE DECIDE

[Lee Moore]

There are laws against murder. If it were to be concluded that unborn humans are persons for the purposes of the equal protection clause (which btw it won’t) then failure to protect unborn children from being murdered would be a breach of equal protection.

The legal question would then have to do with whether the mother had a duty of care to the person inside her, and also the matter of self defense.

[Lee Moore]

No, the point is that “child” is not, and never has been, restricted to the meaning of “post birth immature human”, it has always included unborn humans.
Hence the currently common usage “unborn child” and the historically common usage “with child”.
Ditto the usage of “baby”. Pregnant women who are happy to be pregnant invariably refer to their unborn progeny as a “baby” and so do fathers, parents, doctors, Uncle Tom Cobley and all.

A (human) embryo or feotus is, both biologically and semantically, a type of child.
Meanwhile an acorn is not, biologically or semantically, a type of oak tree. Because “tree” denotes the adult form of the oak, while “child” denotes the non adult form of the human including the in utero form.

The person to blame for this diversion into the semantics of acorns, is she who claimed that referring to a human foetus as a baby or child, was analogous to referring to an acorn as an oak tree.

Which IIRC was you.
In reality the insistence that a human foetus is not a child is simply a semantically flawed rhetorical effort to dehumanise the abortee so that we will gloss over what abortion kills.

[Lee Moore]

Now do slaves and cotton fields.

[neurodoc]

A very long time. Longer than abortion has been the hot button issue here in the United States that it has been in modern times. While the Chinese Communist government was brutally enforcing its one-child policy, which they now regret, I am quiet sure they had no difficulty speaking of fetuses.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Slaves are not located inside their masters’ bodies, and are therefore not relevant to this discussion.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Inside my body, no, you don’t decide. Inside my body I alone decide.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Murder is not relevant to this discussion. No one here is talking about murder.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Yes there are laws against murder. But not every killing of a human (ie not every homicide) is murder. Moral law allow certain justifiable homicides: killing the enemy in war, killing in self defense or defense of others, killing for capital punishment, and killing someone who is located inside another person’s body and unwelcome there.

[Lee Moore]

But if SCOTUS were to rule that “person” in the equal protection clause included unborn humans, how could we avoid talking about murder ?

[Lee Moore]

No, but they are whipped in their master’s fields, and yet we are still concerned about this because we are extremely interested in what a slave is, rather than where he is.

[Lee Moore]

As usual, I am defeated by sarcasuistric gnomishness. I thought of the possibility that you had been stuffed in lockers a lot in school, and were dreaming, in a sort of esprit d’escalier manner, of the geek’s belated revenge. Then I duckduckgo-ed “to put someone in the locker” and arrived at an even more alarming suggestion :

https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/to-put-someone-in-the-locker.3768793/

I’m hoping there’s another meaning you’re gnomishly intending.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

If the slave were (somehow) located inside my body, and you wanted to intervene and rescue him, you would need to ask for my permission first. And if I refused to give you permission, you’d have to give up on rescuing this particular slave, and go find someone else to rescue, elsewhere.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Abortion still wouldn’t be murder. It would be (and is) a form of righteous, justifiable homicide (so long as it is done at the request of the womb-owner).

[iowatwo]

We are ONLY talking about homicide.

A rose by any other name.

Call it pro choice, but know we are only talking about the ending of human live.

[Davy C]

Self-defense? Let’s see… In my state, “A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person… The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself. ”

The victim of the abortion is not doing anything unlawful, IMO. But more importantly, in most cases they are not going to cause imminent death or great bodily harm to the mother. (Exceptions for the life of the mother are standard in abortion laws anyway.)

So, no. It’s not “justifiable”, let alone “righteous”.

[Lee Moore]

Your understanding of analogy is weak. Reread the assignments I gave you.

2/10

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

My mind went to Clint Howard’s character on ‘Arrested Development,’ Johnny Bark.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Joey-riding

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yes, like for instance people wishing to emigrate to this country, who commenters here have repeatedly argued have no constitutional rights.

[Lee Moore]

The equal protection clause doesn’t qualify “person” by reference to birth or nationality but it does qualify “person” according to whether they are “within its jurisdiction.”

So people wishing to emigrate to this country don’t have constitutional rights until they actually get here. Hence the rush for the Mexican border.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

What analogy? I haven’t made any analogy.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Yes. But ending a human life is not always murder, and not always wrong.

[Lee Moore]

Well, different societies have different moral codes. In Rome, the pater familias had the power to put any member of his household, slave or free, to death. Ditto the daimyo in Edo Japan. And in Aztec Mexico, human sacrifice was not merely morally OK, but religiously required.

But in this society, which like it or not is largely based on a Christian moral foundation, even if is rumored that God may now be dead, the last item in your list of morally acceptable deaths is not like the others. Up until say 60 or 70 years ago, it was overwhelmingly not morally OK, save in special circumstances. Even now it’s definitely not OK for most people, in the 3rd trimester, again save for special circumstances.

Tacking “killing in the course of officially mandated religious sacrifices” on to a list that starts uncontroversially with war, self defense etc is not a convincing way to sneak that particular item over the line. It sticks out like a sore thumb, as does your own effort.