Who's Doing the Labeling?

It seems to me that the right is just as prone as the left to use subliminal tactics like labeling to win debates. Labeling is the process where you try to rebrand words or to otherwise inject hidden meanings into the terms of the debate.

My experience is that the center is the group most likely to reject labeling. The center often wants to have a language where different opinions can be expressed.

Anyway, I was reading the current Wikipedia Article on Plan B. The current edit strongly implies that prolife activists want to relabel the terms of the debate so that Plan B would be regulated as abortion and made illegal. Here is a sample sentence: "Pro-Life groups often label emergency contraceptives as 'abortion pills', rather than 'contraceptive pills.'"

It really seems to me that it is the left which is doing labeling in this debate. If that is the case, then this sentence accusing the prolifers of label is simply an example of projection. Projection occurs when you project your methods on your opponents. Oddly projection often works. To effectively rebrand a term, you eventually have to have a way to attack the people using the old terminology. So, if you are trying to rebrand a term, you will eventually get to the point where you have to accuse your opponents of rebranding.

The reason that, in this case, it is the left that is rebranding is because there has been a tradition in Western history to say birth begins at something called "conception" and that interfering with the birth process between this thing called conception and birth is an abortion. In this old style of language, a contraceptive would be anything that prevented the start of the birth process.

The terminology that defines the morning after pill as a contraceptive breaks this tradition. The new terminology prevents people from being to express their idea.

The reason that I think the left side of this debate has engaged in intentional relabeling is that they did not need to chose the term "contraceptive" to describe their product. The term "emergency birth control" is available and could have been used to describe the class of medication. Calling the medication "Emergency Birth Contol" would have allowed debate about the product without all of the complex discussions about when conception occurs.

Calling the class of medication is a direct attempt rebrand the word conception. This rebranding hampers the ability of people to debate the issue. The actual effect of the redefinition is that is splits people into intransigent camps.

Personally, I see the arguments for this class of medication as so compelling that I think it should be widely available (regardless of the terms used). With the old terminology, one can argue that emergency birth control combines contraceptive methods with embryonic abortions to prevent the need for the more intrusive fetal abortion. With the old terminology, one can argue that embryonic abortion appears to be a natural form of birth control in that a large number of fertilized eggs fail to implant.

From a pro choice point of view one can argue that a woman should have an absolute choice about what gets implanted in her uterine lining. In the case of rape, one can argue that since a women did not have a choice in the sexual act, that she has an absolute choice in what happens at the uterine lining.

With the old terminology, you can build the argument that, although conception occurs at fertilization, the a pregnancy truly starts when a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterine lining. Again, this compelling argument supports choice.

With this model you can effectly argue that Plan B should be defined and regulated as an early term form of birth control. Plan B should not be regulated as fetal abortion!

The old terminology, of course, lets right wing kooks express their opinions. A medical professional who has vowed never to interfere with the development of life can express why she refuses to administer a given medication.

The old terminology lets one express the opinion that, while Plan B should be used in cases of rape, it should not be used as a primary means of birth control. In the case of rape, rapid application of Plan B prevents both the number of embryonic and fetal abortions. However, if used as a primary means of birth control, Plan B will simply create a large number of embryonic abortions. These embryonic abortions would have been prevented if other means were used as the primary means of birth control.

One advantage of the old terminology is that it allows you to build a hierarchy of ideas and express the opinion that some of the ideas in the hierarchy are preferble to others. For example, the hierarchy might be abstinence, contraception, embryonic abortion, fetal abortion and late term abortion.

Within this model, you can discuss the merits of different ideas. For example, couples have the decision of using pure contraception (things that only block fertilization) or combined contraceptives (methods that block fertilization but also block implantation). The new definitions end up tricking people into using methods they may have rejected if people did not muddle with the language.

Of course, the old style terminology does allow the right to make their arguments against Plan B. So, while the old terminology allows arguments on both sides of the issue, the new terminology only allows arguments on the left. Redefining conception as implantation deprives the ability of others to express their opinions.

Since the old style terminology means that right wing kooks can argue their case, there is a possibility that the will win and get legislation passed against emergency birth control.

Of course, even with the new terminology, there is a chance that the right might win. The right is as good as the left at forming automous groups that force their views on others. I have the misfortune of living in Utah where the average legislator is denser than the granite in the mountains.

My experience in life is that trying to win debates on the subliminal level actually results in entrenching and further empowering dictatorial forces on the right. The far left and right use the same techniques to stifle debates. They tend to tune in and re-inforce each other's tactics.

Personally, I believe that our laws should err on the liberal side, but that our actions as individuals should tend toward the conservative. The old style terminology is suitable for this end. The old style terminology provides both a philosophical and moral basis for making Emergency Birth Control widely available. It also provides a language that individuals can use for making the important decisiions that affect their lives.

The attempt to rebrand conception to mean implantation has the effect of polarizing people and is likely to result in the situation where people are either coerced into taking medication that they would otherwise avoid or in the situation where iconoclasts on the right prevent access to a medication that could help people (especially rape victims) take control of their lives.

We should err on the side of the terminology that lets us discuss the issue and should avoid trying to win debates by undermining the process of discourse.