Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Republican Linguistics

So Massachusetts has decided to grant marriage licenses for couples whose marriages may not be accepted in other states. This law dates from almost a hundred years ago when it was created for the purposes of interracial marriage. Massachusetts probably saw this law as irrelevant for decades until a new form of prejudice surfaced in the form of banning gay marriage. Anyway, my reason for this post is from listening to NPR today as they referred to an anti-gay marriage speaker as pro-family values and the pro-gay marriage individual as... pro-gay marriage. Again, the right wing has won the word game. As I indicated, someone of the position anti-gay marriage should be referred to as such and not pro-family values. "Pro-family" values implies that the other side is anti-family values (the ultimate irony of this being that gay marriage promotes family values).
This is the same case with pro-choice vs. pro-life. Pro-choice implies the other side is anti-choice, which they are and they cannot dispute that point. Pro-life implies the other side is anti-life. There are two problems with this. The first being a pro-choice individual may not believe abortion is ethical but still thinks it is not their prerogative to choose for other people. Second, it allows the right wing to win the word game of calling a fetus, embryo, or zygote a life. I am pro-life, but what I define as life is different from the right wing. Or as George Carlin would say (alot better than me), why do we call it abortion for humans and for chickens an omlette?
In conclusion, the culture wars should be stated as thus: pro-gay marriage vs. anti-gay marriage & pro-choice vs. anti-choice.
Also, what is the deal with North Dakota (or is it South? should these two states really be granted four senators? Lets combine them, I don't need to know both the capitols of Bismark and Pierre(?))?. Doctors there are being forced to tell women seeking an abortion that the embryo/fetus inside them is a life that has constitutional rights (not true) and that women who have abortions are at a higher risk for suicide (definitely not true). Then they make the woman sign a contract indicating they understood this and still want to have the abortion. Hopefully, the supreme court will knock this down eventually for the sole reason that it forces doctors to give scientifically false information to their patients.

Here is The Best of list of the Bush adminstration's Rovian wordspeak:
  • Axis of Evil
  • War on Terror
  • Compassionate Conservatism
  • Smoking gun ... mushroom cloud
  • Flip-flopper
  • 'folks
  • The Decider
  • and my favorite, Islamo-fascism (this one always felt forced)

2 comments:

Victoria said...

In the pro-choice movement, we did call them "anti-choice." But I think a "pro-life" person would certainly dispute the anti-choice title - just like how the left defines "life" differently, the right would view abortion as an unacceptable option but argue that women still have "choices" through adoption. Not saying I agree with them, but that's the language they've chosen.

BluthMan said...

I don't see how they can make that argument. Abortion, they would have to agree, would offer another "choice." Choice has a clear cut definition. Whether that choice is moral is irrelevant. They just don't want to be an "anti."
I guess we can compromise and change it to anti-anti-choice vs. pro-anti-choice