Debate over when "be" means "remain"

Question

Here's a sentance I have a problem with in a debate:

"A law stopping abortion doesn't force women to be pregnant it just prevents them from ending a pregnancy, which is not the same as forcing."

The persons insists "to be pregnant" means "to remain pregnant" in that particular sentance. Here's what they said afterwards:
"To be pregnant against their wills, to remain pregnant against their wills, same meaning, different word."

Question 1: If it is wrong to use "be" instead of "remain" in that sentance, would it be right to state that "be" is categorically the wrong word to use if s/he actually meant "remain"? Can someone break down for me why this is the case.

=

---------

=

The person argues that an-anti abortion law does not force women to remain pregnant against their wills, because pregnancy is a non-action, and non-actions cannot be forced.

They argue that the word "force" used in this manner is

1 a common misusage of the word,
2 People use it to describe a situation and to put emphasis into the story or even provoke emotion.

Question 2: Is it a misusage of the word? Can someone go into detail explaining why/why not.

I appreciate any help on this. If this is not the correct forum to ask these question then feel free to move it. Regards.

BarbaraPA · Accepted Answer

Hi Giga_d, and welcome to the forum.

You asked a very mixed-bag of questions, including word choice, debating techniques, and logic. Not to mention political views.

I'm not quite sure how attaining a state of pregnancy is a non-action - many will argue that it's happened only once before, about 2000 years ago.

There is indeed a difference between BEING pregnant and REMAINING pregnant. The original sentence (which is a run-on, by the way - it needs a semi-colon after "pregnant") was most likely written to say "If you don't want an abortion, don't get pregnant in the first place. Anti-abortion laws don't make you pregnant."

By insisting that being pregnant and remaining pregnant are the same, the person you are debating with seems to be arguing that no one who is pregnant is pregnant by choice. Certainly there are women (and girls, sadly) who are raped, or who carefully use birth control but find that it failed despite their best efforts, and who therefore find themselves "pregnant against their will." And for this group, one could argue that being pregnant is the same as remaining pregnant (if ending the pregnancy were illegal) in terms of what their options are. But this is a logical arguement that far over-reaches the boundaries of "normal" word choice and word usage.

As for the "force" question, there are synonyms for force: coerce, require, mandate, etc. Some carry connotations that other don't. My thought is that using "force" is less of a misuse than saying that "be" really means "remain." But I'll leave that to people who have been trained in debate.

Giga_d · Answer

Hi, thanks for the reply it helped. I admit there were many aspects I wanted to cover that went beyond the boundaries of word choice and word usage. I compared the alleged misuse of the word "force" against the usage of the word in news articles (on an internet search engine) and they all seem to be using it in the manner I think is perfectly valid. Nevertheless I don't think the person will listen to reason, s/he still asserts that the word is being misused. [A] Thanks for your help.

Pinenut · Answer

"A law stopping abortion doesn't force women to be pregnant it just prevents them from ending a pregnancy, which is not the same as forcing."

Although Grammar Geek answered your quesion in a detailed and enlightening manner, I would like to add my two cents.

The law forces women to remain pregnant.
The law prevents women from ending a pregnancy.

If 'to be preganant' is changed to 'to remain pregnant', 1. and 2. convey essentially the same meaning. Therefore, 'to be pregnant' is not the same as 'to remain pregnant'.

CalifJim · Answer

be does not mean remain, no. In this sentence it may be a paraphrase for remain, but my first reading of it led me to believe it was a paraphrase for become - a common substitution.
force has many definitions, one of which is "to compel by physical, moral, or intellectual means".
That would include the force of law, another common expression. There is nothing in this definition that requires physical forcing before the word force may be used.
So I see no misuse of the word force to speak of the way laws force people to choose certain behaviors over others. There are many more cases where force is used in this non-physical way, force of habit, to name just one.
Conversely, I see no misuse of the word prevent (also used in the subject sentence) to speak of the way laws stop people from choosing certain behaviors over others, even though the act of preventing might be quite physical in some situations.

CJ

Debate over when "be" means "remain"

---------

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions