Labeling v. Classification
A recurring theme in the literature on "emergency contraception" is an opinion that people who want blocking implantation to be classified as an embryonic abortion are trying to "label emergency contraception as an abortificant."
This issue leads me to wonder where labeling and classification diverge.
Labeling is a rhetorical device in which you try to manipulate a debate by attaching stigma or praise to different subject in the debate. Classification refers to efforts to divide things into groups so that we can intelligently discuss a topic and understand that topic.
Yelling at the proponents of Plan B and calling them "Baby Killers" would clearly be a case of labeling.
It seems that the difference between classification and labeling in one's motives. Labeling occurs when you try to influence the outcome of the debate by the words used. Classification occurs when you are trying to make sure ideas can be expressed in a debate.
It seems to me that using the term "embryonic abortion" to describe a situation where a fertilized egg fails to implant is an act of classification. Even though there is a stigma attached the the term "abortion" this classification highlights important elements in the debate. The word "abortion" simply means to stop a process that was started.
Failure to distinguish between embryonic and fetal abortion may be an act of labeling. Standing on the steps of capitol hill yelling that makers of Plan B are baby killers is clearly an act of labeling.
Anyway, I decided to read Christian sites to get some examples of labeling v. classification (up to this point, I had only read "scientific" or other sites that were considered objective ... like Wikipedia.). I was actually surprised. Basically, I've found a lot of people discussing the idea and very little irrational ranting. For example the site Christian Contraception tries to state clearly how each method of contraception works. There are frequent references to the idea that life begins with fertilization. The message board has several posts where people decided that such methods were abortion.
I found four or five Christian sites on contraception. They were all tying to give information help people make decisions with surprisingly little name calling. Many people seem to have concluded that IUD, Plan B and what not are abortificants and should not be used. I have yet to find that hotbed of labeling to which the media keeps refering.
Catholic.com puts forth an authorative statement that birth control is not up for choice. Beyond citing references to support its authorative statement, Catholic.com does not seem to be engaging in labeling of their opponents.
The American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists seems intent on arguing that widespread distribution of emergency contraceptives is a bad idea. For example, they cite a study that distributed EC to 17,800 women which found no drop in the number of abortions.
The political component of the Pro Life movement seems to have its share of loud mouths, but, for the most part, I am not finding a widespread effort on Christian communities to manipulate the debate through labeling. There even seems to be widespread acceptance for the fact that other people have different models of conception.
The point in my rants is that there should be different models. We enhance our understanding of the world by creating different models. Trying to manipulate dominate a debate by labeling everyone who holds to a particular model as "kooks" undermines this important process of dialogue.
So far, in the different things I've read, it appears to me that, in this debate, the pro plan b side is the one engaged in labeling. After engaging in labeling, it appears that they are trying to cover their actions by projecting their methods onto their opponents.
The next post will comment on discourse in the anti-EC side.
This issue leads me to wonder where labeling and classification diverge.
Labeling is a rhetorical device in which you try to manipulate a debate by attaching stigma or praise to different subject in the debate. Classification refers to efforts to divide things into groups so that we can intelligently discuss a topic and understand that topic.
Yelling at the proponents of Plan B and calling them "Baby Killers" would clearly be a case of labeling.
It seems that the difference between classification and labeling in one's motives. Labeling occurs when you try to influence the outcome of the debate by the words used. Classification occurs when you are trying to make sure ideas can be expressed in a debate.
It seems to me that using the term "embryonic abortion" to describe a situation where a fertilized egg fails to implant is an act of classification. Even though there is a stigma attached the the term "abortion" this classification highlights important elements in the debate. The word "abortion" simply means to stop a process that was started.
Failure to distinguish between embryonic and fetal abortion may be an act of labeling. Standing on the steps of capitol hill yelling that makers of Plan B are baby killers is clearly an act of labeling.
Anyway, I decided to read Christian sites to get some examples of labeling v. classification (up to this point, I had only read "scientific" or other sites that were considered objective ... like Wikipedia.). I was actually surprised. Basically, I've found a lot of people discussing the idea and very little irrational ranting. For example the site Christian Contraception tries to state clearly how each method of contraception works. There are frequent references to the idea that life begins with fertilization. The message board has several posts where people decided that such methods were abortion.
I found four or five Christian sites on contraception. They were all tying to give information help people make decisions with surprisingly little name calling. Many people seem to have concluded that IUD, Plan B and what not are abortificants and should not be used. I have yet to find that hotbed of labeling to which the media keeps refering.
Catholic.com puts forth an authorative statement that birth control is not up for choice. Beyond citing references to support its authorative statement, Catholic.com does not seem to be engaging in labeling of their opponents.
The American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists seems intent on arguing that widespread distribution of emergency contraceptives is a bad idea. For example, they cite a study that distributed EC to 17,800 women which found no drop in the number of abortions.
The political component of the Pro Life movement seems to have its share of loud mouths, but, for the most part, I am not finding a widespread effort on Christian communities to manipulate the debate through labeling. There even seems to be widespread acceptance for the fact that other people have different models of conception.
The point in my rants is that there should be different models. We enhance our understanding of the world by creating different models. Trying to manipulate dominate a debate by labeling everyone who holds to a particular model as "kooks" undermines this important process of dialogue.
So far, in the different things I've read, it appears to me that, in this debate, the pro plan b side is the one engaged in labeling. After engaging in labeling, it appears that they are trying to cover their actions by projecting their methods onto their opponents.
The next post will comment on discourse in the anti-EC side.
posted by y-intercept at 8:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home