Why don’t we get rid of the word ‘war’ while we’re at it. It’s got this awful connotation, so let’s start calling it, ‘fluffy bunnies.’
“The fluffy bunnies in Afghanistan took a turn for the worse today as naughty boomers [formerly ‘suicide bombers’] killed dozens in several cities.”
Now doesn’t that make you feel better?
If you’re like most people, you talk about the abortion debate using a couple of simple, concise terms whose meaning we can all pretty much agree on (no matter how bitterly we disagree about the underlying politics): pro-choice versus pro-life.
At NPR, however, that doesn’t fly anymore. As of this week, journalists at the radio network are under orders to refrain from using those two phrases. Instead, they’ve been instructed to say “in favor of abortion rights” and “opposed to abortion rights.” “This updated policy is aimed at ensuring the words we speak and write are as clear, consistent and neutral as possible,” explained managing editor David Sweeney in a memo alerting staffers to the change. While the two verboten terms can still make it into copy if they’re part of an organization’s name or a direct quote, the preferred locutions are to be used in all other instances.
The motive behind this move is solid enough. “Pro-choice” and “pro-life” both began, essentially, as propaganda — expressions conceived to curry maximum sympathy for the positions they represent. How can anyone be against choice? Or against life? Why, you’d have to be downright evil!
But, over time, through sheer repetition, both phrases have lost their connotative crackle. When I call someone pro-choice, I’m not praising his dedication to the exercise of free will any more than I’m describing someone as generous and open-minded when I call him a liberal. They’re words. They mean what they mean because we all agree that’s what they mean.
So….is Orwell/re:1984 laughing his ass off? –or spinning in his grave at the outright ignorance of history “We the People” are currently showing…?
-s
Actually, the article’s primary conceit is incorrect:
“you talk about the abortion debate using a couple of simple, concise terms whose meaning we can all pretty much agree on […]: pro-choice versus pro-life”
That’s pretty incorrect. Both of those terms were coined by (well, one by and one as a response to) Conservatives in order to define the debate (nowadays known as a Rove-ianism, see “death tax”). “Pro-life” came first as a way to denigrate those who *aren’t* pro-life (the connotation being you are pro-death), and then “pro-choice” arose as an idiotic attempt to subvert the initial message.
I am firmly with NPR on this. Pro-choice/-life might have been easy and simple titles, but they confuse and obfuscate the issue – which isn’t about *life* at all (most pro-lifers are in favor of the death penalty, for example). Too long have the parties been allowed to define the terms, and I think its high time the media started calling bullshit.
Actually, this might not be such a bad thing. Pro-choice feels fairly neutral to me, though still an obvious effort to sound positive. Pro-life on the other hand is actively lying.
People who are for life do not set off explosives in highly populated areas. Nor do they shoot doctors.
Further, someone truly opposed to abortion would actually try to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies thus reducing the number of abortions by a far larger number than will come from outlawing the procedure and then teaching abstinence only.
Instead, they would support real meaningful sex education and distribution of birth control.
49% of all pregnancies in this country are unintended. 54% of them end in abortion. Start by reducing the 49% and we could do a tremendous amount to reduce abortion.
Anyway, that’s a bit off topic, sorry. Use of neutral terms in formal speech on news programs is not a bad thing. It doesn’t mean the rest of us need to follow, but will result in less inflammatory news reports.
I still love George Carlin’s idea of swapping the world “KILL” with the word “FUCK” and see how that works out….
Words no longer have their proper meaning or weight since this PC crap started. Everything now is couched in “safe terms”, what BS.
I have noted that many with whom I use non-PC terms think that I am yelling at them when it is the words and not the volume that got their attention, the retards.
I think its worth pointing out that this has nothing to do with political correctness, that is something different, this is attempting to make negative things sound more positive – political correctness tries to prevent neutral things being given irrelevant negative connotations in language (ie. homosexual = panzy)
As most things PC they fall on the side of liberalism. According to the new terms, no matter which side you are on you agree the abortion is a “right”. I would think most “pro-life” people in no way think that abortion is a “right”
How is “opposed to abortion rights” any less propaganda-filled than pro-life or pro-choice? It implies that someone in the that camp is opposed to any and all abortion rights. Most reasonable people think that aborting a child seconds before birth is wrong and that aborting a fetus seconds after it has been fertilized is not wrong. You might as well divide the groups into “opposed to some abortions” and “in favor of some abortions” which would put all the sane people smack in the middle.
Sad to see this confusion among the best and the brightest.
RTFA===again.
1. Orwell laughted when “pro-life” was first created. Now he can stop. You have it back-asswards.
2. Correct.
3. Right On.
4. I miss him too. Would be nice to hear his riff on the healthcare debate. “I demand the freedom to go without healthcare!!!”
5. Interesting observation.
6. Good Point.
7. Abortion is a right. Supreme Court says so.
8. Very black and white thinking there. Shows no subtlety at all. Its good conservative thinking like that that in fact brings us PC speech. Use that brain of yours for something other than a door stop.
Well, I’m glad I did that little exercise. Comments are better than my first impression. Soundwash: shame on you.
Good call NPR, would love to see Fox and MSNBC try to have the words they speak and write be as clear, consistent and neutral as possible.
#2 is correct. Doesn’t anyone else remember the days before the term ‘pro life’ was being used? I can’t be the only guy that old here.
Keep moving, folks, there is no scandal here.
It not “PC” to accurately describe an issue.
As everyone knows (even Uncle Dave, I suspect), “pro-choice” and “pro-life” have always been problematic labels.
They spin the issue and don’t accurately describe the two groups.
“Pro-lifers” proudly advocated for death in other circumstances. “Pro-choice” insinuates that a woman has no other choice than to abort or not. (like, let’s say, the choice not to have sex in their first place.)
“In favor of abortion rights” and “opposed to abortion rights.” far better describe the two sides of this debate.
>> SparkyOne said, on March 27th, 2010 at 6:24 am
>> Words no longer have their proper meaning or weight since this PC crap started.
Here are the ones most repeated by those who twist the language to lie and deceive.
“Death Tax” for inheritance tax
“Deep sea energy exploration” for off-shore drilling
“DemocRAT Party” for Democratic Party
“Death Panels” for responsible planning.
“welfare queens” for poor single mothers
“government takeover…” for reform.
“limousine liberals” for moral wealthy people
“hate the troops” for honest debate
“confiscator taxes” for balancing the budget
“harsh interrogation” for torture
“patriot act” for trashing the constitution.
“nuclear option” for majority rule
“surge” for paying our enemies not to kill us.
“contractors’ for mercenaries
and — the whopper of the all:
“Fair and balanced” for endless, shameless right wing propaganda.
Henceforth the term “specious reasoning purveyor” will replace the politically imprecise “blogger”.
#9
I know most of you liberals believe in judicial activism and that courts can make laws, but the Supreme Court interoperates the Constitution and laws made by the legislature. The Supreme Court can not establish a right for the people.
#9 bobbo:
“Abortion is a right. Supreme Court says so.”
You will, of course, be expected to defend the Supreme Court’s decision allow unlimited campaign donations from corporations.
anyways…
Why don’t we use the terms: “anti-abortion” or “opposed to abortion,” and “not opposed to abortion?”
I think the best terminology is
pro chicken vs. pro egg
9 Bobbo
7. Abortion is a right. Supreme Court says so.
Guess then the people at the forefront to repeal sodomy laws should be happy to be called “opposed to decency rights.” Sodomy was a crime. Every state once said so.
Pro-life has less to do with law and everything to do with the people who support a moral philosophy: you don’t kill under-developed human beings. That remains regardless how the Supreme Court or a self-serving NPR defines their language.
RBG
#16–brm==I don’t “support” the SC==but I do understand they do set the rules and the terms of a debate whether I agree or not. Its called “recognizing reality.”
Given all the competing interests, I think the SC ruling in Roe v Wade was about as reasonable as anyone could have hoped for. Still is.
Same “thing” applies to the Speech = Money and Corps = People. Both of these ideas of the SC is totally wrong, bad policy, and the results of the most activist court since Burger==and its conservative driven. BUT–I deal with reality and the REALITY is, the SC has spoken on these issues.
#18–RBG==”there you go again.” How can anyone so well spoken be so retarded? NO ONE should be “for” anyone else, including the government, spying on and criminalizing what goes on between two consenting adults. You do know that sodomy includes boys and girls making whoopie as well?
There is a “higher moral philosophy” than being for or against abortion=======and that is leaving other people the f*ck alone. Why you asstarded repuglicans don’t get your hypocritical foot long noses out of other people’s business is beyond me. If you don’t want to have an abortion====then don’t have one.
In a parallel universe, the same notion that forcing/prohibiting people to do as YOU wish would have ME forcing YOU to have an abortion for a variety of reasons all falling int he category of eugenics. Its the same issue===one group forcing their druthers on some other group under the label of morality when there is nothing moral about it.
Human beings are killed every day for all kinds of reasons. Silly to think the unborn and undeveloped are any different.
On second thought, my quip probably isn’t self explanatory (as usual??). I usually have a deeper meaning that I sometimes feel gets lost in the humor… sigh.
A ‘mother’ is accurately defined by both sides of the argument. Pro choice is self explanatory.
On the other hand ‘pro life’ or ‘anti-abortion’ have vague meanings. When does life begin? Whose life is it, and at what point does a pregnancy become independent of the mother’s life? There are many arguable questions…. gray areas. So both sides of the argument have never had equal footing. The debate is far more complex than can be defined in two opposing descriptions.
The suggested alternative…”In favor of abortion rights” and “opposed to abortion rights”… refer only to the mother’s rights. In this alternative, the “cellular growth” (at any stage) is left completely out of the debate.
So IMO the debate is more like the ‘pro chicken’ vs the ‘pro egg’ scenario (and **bonus** both sides get to be ‘pro’!). Best answered before copulation… which comes first?…(After copulation… who came first?)
RGB, are you also against removing life support for any reason for ALL other fully developed individuals as well? If a partly formed human is on it’s mother’s life support, what business is it of yours to continue or abort? If you think that any life should be governed by “the people who support a moral philosophy”, then are you prepared to be responsible for all births and subsequent care, educational expenses, all shared upbringing to maturity, including and any negative consequences to the mothers and fathers? If so, how would “the people who support a moral philosophy” manage that?
#20–Skeptic==my what a deep thinker. So deep, you feel the need to explain it? Like most jokes, if you have to explain it, probably better not said?
I was very impressed by your encapsulation of the argument: “pro chicken or pro egg” is really a pearl of wisdom.
Your extended comments at #20 “almost” destroy the clarity of the poetic resolution you first brought to the discussion. Or–better said, you are saying something quite clear at #17 and only a garbled mess at #20.
“Which came first, chicken or egg” /// Mike Rowe was doing a Dirty Job at a chicken ranch and he asked a worker there and was told “If you believe in evolution–the chicken. If you are religious–the egg.” Like anything that mentions religious==sounds good, means nothing.
Life begins at conception. EVERYONE agrees with that===not to be confused with “at what stage of development do various “rights” and societal interests apply? ANYONE interested in the various issues surrounding abortion rights should read Roe v Wade. It covers most issues in a direct and informative way.
most people dont give a f about this debate
#22–jcj==most people don’t care about any issue you can name. Quite the Master of the Obvious and irrelevant. Every blog is formed to be a forum for those who ARE interested in the given subject.
Now why don’t you go over to the Model Airplane Blog and tell them “No One Cares” about FCC restrictions on multi-channel radio controllers?
That’s the nanny state view. I suppose the conservatives should start talking about the baby killers and the pro-lifers?
Leave it to National Petroleum Radio, to become more right wing, without seeming to.
@Robin1943
You said: “I know most of you liberals believe in judicial activism and that courts can make laws, but the Supreme Court interoperates the Constitution and laws made by the legislature. The Supreme Court can not establish a right for the people.”
May I ask where you were when the Supreme Court’s activist judges established the right for corporations to be people? This was not the intent of the law. Corporations are not people, they are pieces of paper. The Supreme Court clearly made the law, when they stated that corporations can spend as much money on elections, as they please. This, in effect, gave them MORE rights than people.
Please think a bit, before you make such statements.
Thanks.
#24–do ill==What do you mean “start” talking that way? “Tiller the baby killer” chanted by quite a few protesters and Faux News Commentators pretty much was a public execution warrant against that law abiding doctor.
You may not be keeping up with the news?
bobbo, I didn’t mean the joke itself needed explanation, but rather I had a deeper (meaning less shallow than a joke) opinion on the subject. I guess you were so jaded by that misunderstanding and the words “deeper meaning”, that you didn’t bother with the finer details of my opinion on the topic at hand. Are you so insecure that you have to react so aggressively when anyone dares claim they have a “deep” thought while you are around? After all you’re the only one here that can think, aren’t you. Yes you are bobbo. You’re da man.
Skeptic–suck it up.
Lets be distracted by the trivial and unimportant like this article would have us do. Certainly it is contentious because there are those of us who want to shove their views down the others throats.
These kinds of these emotionally charged articles keep us from putting our attention on the end of the United States as we know it. We shouldn’t put our attention on the bailout of the Wall Street fat cats nor should we think about war contractors ripping “We the People” off.
SNAP OUT of IT!!!
Let’s have more of these curtains hiding what is going on.