Hacker News Reader

Comment by napierzaza | Hacker News Reader

Debating 101: Frame the argument.

Both sides of any argument do this. Google by calling it "open" which means more than it really does. Apple doesn't debate it's not open, it just debates that the results aren't any good because of the confusion of choices. "Open" is supposed to be a good thing, Apple doesn't believe it is.

But the fact is that Apple is crying about it, they're explaining why they made the decisions they made. They need to justify this to their investors. Google needs PR to make Android look good.

That's why people are "Pro Life" not anti-abortion. Do these guys read the news, maybe they just started?

View on HN

>That's why people are "Pro Life" not anti-abortion.

That's a pretty touchy example. Honestly, I've always thought that "pro-choice" was stretching the truth more than "pro-life".

If you want to see where "pro-life" may be stretching the truth, consider that not all "pro-life"-ers are vegans. When they say "pro-life", they're trying to imply that embryos are people, which is really the crux of the debate.

"pro embryo life" doesnt have the same ring to it

And neither does "pro abortion choice". Basically everyone involved prefers oversimplification to accuracy, which is one of the top two reasons why the "debate" can't go anywhere.

I'm actually okay with "pro-life" as shorthand for "pro-sentient life". I think that's obviously implied - the debate isn't about whether cows should be able to get abortions.

But whether an embryo is sentient or if its life has more value than that of a dog or cow is a debatable point for people who don't derive their opinions from their dogma. If you take "pro-life" to be short for "pro- sentient life", then you've shifted focus away from the issue over to what's pretty much a tautology.

I agree with you that an embryo isn't sentient - however, they believe it is, or at least that it has a "soul" (which, in their minds, is the same thing). Their position is that wrong to kill something with a soul. You can (and should) be scientific about whether or not an embryo meets that qualification, but that's a question of their poor science, not their motive nor the position they think they're arguing...which I do think is reasonably accurately captured by "pro-life".

Well, many/most pro-lifers aren't pro-life anymore when it comes to the death penalty, or gun-control, or what have you. Then the sanctity of life isn't that uncompromisingly important, anymore.

It certainly wouldn't be accurate to call most people on that side of the debate "pro-abortion." A lot of them don't like abortion for various reasons, but believe it's the woman's choice. I agree that "pro-choice" is loaded, but it's less euphemistic than "pro-life," which really does just mean "anti-abortion."

>It certainly wouldn't be accurate to call most people on that side of the debate "pro-abortion." A lot of them don't like abortion for various reasons, but believe it's the woman's choice.

Well, it's a legal debate. The argument is about the legal issue shorthanded as "abortion", no? In which case I can understand why someone would call "pro-choice" the pro-abortion side.

Well, to my mind, it's about the distinction between prohibited, permissible, and mandatory. To my mind 'pro-abortion' implies mandatory, forced abortion; 'pro-life' and 'anti-abortion' both seem reasonable terms for making carrying to term mandatory; and 'pro-choice' is about it being a choice.

I'd be perfectly happy calling both 'pro-life' and 'pro-abortion' (if they exist?) both 'anti-choice'.

You could as well charcterize it a social-issues debate and therefore claim that the "pro-life" side is more accurately pro-coat-hangers-and-septic-wards.

Exactly. An old, old technique. Do people still study rhetoric in school, grumble grumble?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com