Welcome to Gaia! ::

So, I'm surfing wikipedia and reading articles (because I'm a noob like that) and I decide to look up logical fallicies and go through all the ones I can. I eventually came to the power word fallicy. They don't explain it very well to me, so I'll explain it.

A "power word" is a word specifically used to give a false sense of "power" to the arguer/degrade the opposer. They included a couple of good examples.

I find it funny that under the "Debate" section, the first thing they include is "Abortion"; but I don't find it funny that it makes perfect sense.
I've seen this fallicy commited on both sides quite equally. But, then again, this suggests that simply identifying with a stance on the abortion issue means that you've commited the power word fallicy. I'm not sure what I mean by this...I just find it to be very useful information. surprised

Which, as everyone knows, was so 1980s!

All joking aside, all the terms carry connotations that, from someone's legitimate perspective, are inaccurate. This is mainly for two reasons. 1) Pro-choicers see the issue from the perspective of ALL people who stand to have their human rights devalued. Therefore, "pro-life" is an incredibly inaccurate term as their stance devalues that very human life. Pro-lifers see the issue from the perspective of the unborn only - from which eye they are, indeed, protecting live and we are removing the important people's choices (the choice of the unborn to live or not).

2) There is a huge diversity of beliefs within both camps. There are pro-choicers who only call themselves that because there is no popular pro-abortion group. They ally themselves with pro-choicers simply because they want to make sure that abortion remains legal, though their motives are to take it a step further and make it mandatory (in some or all cases). We have pro-choicers who believe that the choice should be for women ONLY and that men should have no say in their reproductive freedom (such as the right to back out of financial obligation to the offspring) or that people should only receive certain rights (so they may not support things like euthenasia). We have pro-choicers who adamently believe that ALL people should have ALL choices available to them so long as those choices do not interfere with the lives of others (so drugs should be legal, euthenasia, and all that jazz). And then the pro-life stance as "pro-choice but" and the rape exceptions and the health only exceptions and the no exceptions.

But honestly, we get so increibly caught up in the semantics that I say screw it. Acceptable "power words" to use in a debate would be (to my mind):
Pro-life
Pro-choice
Anti-abortion
Pro-legalized abortion

The terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" probably started as power words, but I don't see using them as a fallacy per se. They're now often simply labels. When I hear someone say "I'm pro-life" I rarely if ever get the impression they are saying that in order to strengthen themselves or weaken me. They say it in the same manner as they would "I'm a man/woman" or "I'm a socialist/capitalist." We've all pretty much accepted what the terms mean, even if we may not agree with the literal meaning of them. Certainly there are contexts in which people will use them as power words, but I think it requires additional emphasis now.

This is a very different thing, in my opinion, from using a term like "anti-choice." No one calls themselves "anti-choice." I can't think of a time when you would use "anti-choice" when you aren't intentionally drawing attention to the fact that they are trying to strip us of our choice, and stating or implying that it is a bad thing. This seems to me to make it a power word.

What gets aborted really, truly is an embryo or fetus. I don't see how using the term "fetus" is a fallacy.

I have a thread around here somewhere that explains why anti-choice really shouldn't have such a negastive connotation.

But by that logic, pro-choice is just as much of a fallacy, just like pro-life("Woah, they're for all life!")

Keep in mind though, I think on a completely different level than most others and my reasonsings don't always match up with the majority. sweatdrop

I know, that's what I find hilarious about the whole "power word" entry xd

Power Word: IRL Name

I agree a little bit with the article's example of abortion power words. Anti-choice, anti-life, etc. are definately power words. Their purpose is cast the opponent is a negative light. While using them in our respective guilds is okay, doing it in debate is a little... erm, well, you know what I mean.

Buuuuuuuuut, (There's always a "but".) I fail to see how "pro-life", "pro-choice", and "anti-abortion" are "specifically used to give a false sense of 'power' to the arguer/degrade the opposer".

The article says pro-life and pro-choice are power words because contrasted with simple "opposed to il/legal abortion" they sound more positive. But who the hell actually says "pro-life" or "pro-choice" for that reason? Some people sometimes, sure, but usually it's just simpler to say. They are not typically used to give a false sense of power, thus, not power words. At least they are not power words to a degree that warrents using them as specific examples in a freaking Wikipedia article.

Yes, at one point, pro-life and pro-choice were probably used almost always as power words. In fact, I seem to remember that being how the term "pro-life" (and then "pro-choice" in reaction to that term) came about. But today, people don't really use it that way. They no longer have the same feel-good connotations, and are thus no longer power words.

"Anti-abortion" is just rather ridiculous to have on there. If someone is against abortion, they are anti-abortion. Just cut out three letters. That simple. It might sound negative because of the "anti" if you want to be picky, but really now. (As to why the same does not apply to pro-abortion: People who are anti-abortion are against abortion in 98% or so of instances, yes? Same doesn't go for pro-choice, though. A pro-choicer might abhor abortion, wish no one ever had one, but think it unconstitutional to ban it.)

*wipes sweat* Whee. Sorry about the length. I just got home from school and didn't get to write anything decent allllllllllllll day, so all my words spilled onto here. sweatdrop

I agree that it's unfair, but the problem is what if some little twelve year old gets taken advantage of by an older person and even though they consented, is scarred for life because they feel like their trust was broken. It's such a fine line that you can't tell what should be legal and what shouldn't, so they just make it all illegal to be safe.