Language is important. Terminology is important.

Since the middle of last century, the link between semiotics and radical politics has been a artful one. While I cannot confess to truly knowing the range of the two's love affair, I do believe the importance of the basic phrases we use day to day, especially in reference to radical subjects, is entirely overlooked. The best example is the continued use of the term "pro-life" to describe those who actively work to prevent women from accessing safe medical care in the termination of her pregnancy. Right off the bat, from the perspective of someone who knows nothing of the actual politics of the situation, "pro-life" seems a much more desirable camp to join. I mean, who could be against life, dammit?

Of course, most of us are a little more educated on the matter and realize that "pro-life" actually a.) has nothing to do with existent life, just possible life and b.) supports an ideology with regularly kills women by limiting or negating their safe options altogether. In light of the evidence, why do radicals continue to brand the battle between pro-life and pro-choice as such? Am I unrealistic to think that, overtime, a re-branding of pro-life as anti-choice and the regular incorporation of such into our lexicon might be just another baby step to take along with the larger strides of militant activism? The more we recognize that the anti-choice movement is about the limiting of rights for women rather than the facade of "protecting life" for zygotes, the better suited we are when it comes to educating the next generations.

There isn't a "pro-marriage" or "pro-family" movement, there is only "anti-equality" and "pro-segregation."
We can't let cowards and bigots hide behind socially loaded, psuedo-positive labels.