Birth control vs. contraception, need vs. demand in the abortion debate
In the continuing debate about the legality or illegality of abortion, many people deplore the failure of girls and women who become unhappily pregnant to have responsibly and conscientiously used “birth control.” I believe that, for the sake of clarity, this term should be dropped from the lexicon. After all, abortion itself can be seen as a way of controlling births, albeit an often grisly and always morally troubling one. What is usually meant by birth control is contraception and the latter term should be used when discussing the prevention of unwanted conceptions among people engaging in penile-vaginal intercourse. The latter term may seem unnecessarily graphic to some readers but I also believe it is necessary to distinguish between those sex acts that can lead to pregnancy and those that cannot.
The abortion debate is also often clouded when people discuss decreasing the “need” for abortions. The term “need” prejudges the case of those who believe abortion should be outlawed. We can hardly criminalize things that are “needed.” Many years ago, a leader of a prominent group that supported legal abortion helped set up a conference at which leaders of groups advocating criminalization were asked to come together with their opponents to discuss ways to stem unplanned pregnancies. The agreement was that abortion itself would not be mentioned at the gathering. However, in the letter requesting the appearance of various activists, the original writer talked about “decreasing the need for abortion.” Nellie Gray, President of March for Life, shot back, “There is not and never has been a ‘need’ for killing innocent pre-born babies.”
There is most certainly and indisputably a demand for abortion. There was one before it was legal and probably will be one if it is again criminalized. However, to talk about a demand says nothing about whether or not something is legal as there is a demand for all sorts of drugs, a demand for stolen goods, and a demand for the services of hired killers.
Clarity is important, especially when an issue is emotionally charged. Replacing the term “birth control” with “contraception” and discussing a “demand” rather than a “need” for abortion are important steps to clarity on this issue.
| More from Denise Noe
Stumble It!
August 18th, 2007 at 10:01 am
I agree, in principle, with the likely change in the level of debate if we change or limit the terminology used. But meaning will always come through and the mendacity of terminology as a temporary measure is unlikely to resolve the profound differences in attitude. Blunt speech is usually more honest.
I take issue with this that you offered, Denise. – “After all, abortion itself can be seen as a way of controlling births..”. It takes a hell of an effort to see abortion as controlling birth when it does away with it. Can one say that cremation controls living? ‘Control’ implies the continuance of something under more appropriate and differential conditions, managed by someone, for benefit. The implication that underpins your contention is that birth is an ability ‘controlled’ by and for the woman but from the baby’s perspective – the one-off, unique, never to be repeated event – it means death, the end, no more, finito. Is a car under control in the junk yard crusher?
August 18th, 2007 at 10:49 am
amfortas said,
I agree, in principle, with the likely change in the level of debate if we change or limit the terminology used. But meaning will always come through and the mendacity of terminology as a temporary measure is unlikely to resolve the profound differences in attitude. Blunt speech is usually more honest.
(Denise) The point here is not to be blunt but to be clear.
amfortas: I take issue with this that you offered, Denise. – “After all, abortion itself can be seen as a way of controlling births..”. It takes a hell of an effort to see abortion as controlling birth when it does away with it. Can one say that cremation controls living? ‘Control’ implies the continuance of something under more appropriate and differential conditions, managed by someone, for benefit. The implication that underpins your contention is that birth is an ability ‘controlled’ by and for the woman but from the baby’s perspective – the one-off, unique, never to be repeated event – it means death, the end, no more, finito. Is a car under control in the junk yard crusher?
(Denise) I want to see the term “birth control” discarded because it could theoretically cover abortion. “Contraception” is the proper term, IMO, for methods that prevent conception inside a woman who has had penile-vaginal intercourse. This is specifically because preventing conception does not involve the horrors inherent in abortion.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:10 am
we need to criminalize the act of willfully deceiving males and entrapping them with pregnancies.
this is reproductive rape and fraud.
and women tell about it all the time as a means to ‘get their man’.
it destroys lives.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
albeit an often grisly and always morally troubling one.
Often grisly? I can’t think of when ripping a person apart isn’t grisly. Burning a baby to death with saline, maybe? Naaaaah. RU486 maybe? I guess a small blob of blood and tissue is less grisly.
I suppose I see your point about clarifying terminology, but I notice you didn’t go all the way with it. How about we get rid of the term “abortion” and use the more proper term “infanticide”?
August 18th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Squiggy said,
albeit an often grisly and always morally troubling one.
Often grisly? I can’t think of when ripping a person apart isn’t grisly. Burning a baby to death with saline, maybe? Naaaaah. RU486 maybe? I guess a small blob of blood and tissue is less grisly.
I suppose I see your point about clarifying terminology, but I notice you didn’t go all the way with it. How about we get rid of the term “abortion” and use the more proper term “infanticide”?
(Denise) Infanticide refers to the killing of an infant after birth.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. That termination almost always results in the death of the embryo/fetus/baby as it usually occurs before the unborn can live outside the womb.
People have always distinguished between infanticide and abortion. They did so when abortion was illegal and will continue doing so if it is again made illegal.
August 18th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
roger…”get their man” really means “get their mans earning potential channeled toward their world, not his.”
denise….you obviously don’t believe abortion is a killing process or you would have been consistant in your reply to squiggy. you (could) have said “infanticide refers to the killing of an infant after birth. abortion refers to the killing of an infant BEFORE birth.” you didn’t and it wasn’t by accident, but by choice no pun intended.
August 19th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Not your best comeback, Denise.
Okay, I could have used the term ‘fetucide’, but I don’t really see a difference between the two words.
I take that back. I guess there is a difference – the four or five inches between a ‘fetus’ inside the womb and a ‘baby’ outside the womb – the hands breadth of space that apparently determine whether a child deserves life or death.
August 19th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Denise, I’ve got a conundrum for you – Say a woman is pregnant with twins. One of the ‘fetuses’ is born, but the other one is still in her womb.
To kill the one that’s ‘made it into the world’ brings a murder charge.
The one that’s still inside can be ripped to shreds without any consequences.
Please explain the logic of this to me, would you Denise?
August 19th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Halo said,
Denise, I’ve got a conundrum for you – Say a woman is pregnant with twins. One of the ‘fetuses’ is born, but the other one is still in her womb.
To kill the one that’s ‘made it into the world’ brings a murder charge.
The one that’s still inside can be ripped to shreds without any consequences.
Please explain the logic of this to me, would you Denise?
(Denise) Beats me. If she’s far enough along that one baby could be born, it makes no sense to me that the other can be “ripped to shreds without any consequences.” I can see circumstances where the doctors might induce an early delivery either through induced labor or Caesarian section. If it could live outside the womb, an early delivery ought to be the only option in my opinion.