NPR’s New Abortion Terms Skews Toward Pro-Abortionists
April 7, 2010 | Filed Under Abortion, Christianity, NPR, Religion, Warner Todd Huston | Comments Off
-By Warner Todd Huston
National Public Radio has decided to change its labels for the two sides of the abortion issue. Unfortunately, its change skews the debate rhetorically in favor of the pro-abortion side by softening the fact that they are for abortion and by making of their position a “right.”
Previously, NPR was using the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life” but a recent post by the NPR Ombudsman, Alicia Shepard, delved into the ire that the pro-abortion side wallows in over the fact that the pro-life side has “won the war of words” because they are identified as supporting life. Shepard decided that NPR should “pick more neutral terms.”
Shepard thinks that using “pro-life” and “pro-choice” is “loaded language” that skews the debate to the anti-abortion side. So, to fix it, NPR apparently decided to try and skew it all towards the abortionist’s side.
On the air, we should use “abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)” and “abortion rights opponent(s)” or derivations thereof (for example: “advocates of abortion rights”). It is acceptable to use the phrase “anti-abortion,” but do not use the term “pro-abortion rights.”
Do not use “pro-life” and “pro-choice”…
To identify pro-abortion forces as “pro abortion rights” skews the rhetoric in favor of the abortion advocates equally in the way that Shepard claims “pro-life” skews in favor of the anti-abortion side. First of all it assumes that there is a “right” to kill a baby. This phraseology also assumes that the pre-born have no right to be allowed to be born. NPR’s new term decidedly skews the rhetoric in favor of the abortionists, giving them positive a connotation.
Secondly, it paints the pro-life side as being against “rights” by calling them “abortion rights opponents.” The truth is, however, that the pro-life side is in favor of the rights of the pre-born to be born and protects their right to their own lives.
And why not use “pro-abortion” as a label, anyway? They are for abortions, after all. There is nothing strictly negative about that label if you are for abortions and think them wholly legitimate. In fact, if pro-abortionists are against the term pro-abortion, doesn’t that mean that they are trying to obviate from the fact that “pro-abortion” really is a negative connotation from the beginning? I mean, if they are so all fired up about abortion, why wouldn’t they be proud to be called pro-abortionists? Why is it bad to say pro-abortion if they are for them?
It is good that NPR decided to search for verbiage that isn’t “loaded,” of course. But it is sad that instead of finding neutral terms, NPR decided to skew it so that the pro-abortion side gains the favor of positive rhetoric.
On the other hand, could anyone be surprised at this turn of events?
____________
“The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it.”
–Samuel Johnson
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, StoptheACLU.com, TheRealityCheck.org, Human Events Magazine, AmericanDailyReview.com, and the New Media Journal, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events and is currently the co-host of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Conservatism” heard on BlogTalkRadio. Warner is also the editor of the Cook County Page for RedCounty.com.
He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions : EMAIL Warner Todd Huston
Fair Use: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Leave a Comment
If you would like to make a comment, please register to do so. I hate to do that but there are so many spam-bots out there that deleting spam comments would be a full time job if I were to just open it up for anyone without asking them to jump through a few hoops first.
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. Anyone can register. No registrant's information is kept, used, or sold. CLICK HERE TO REGISTER
Social Networking
Help the Soldiers!
American Genius
Our Founding Ideas- The Declaration of Independence
- The Federalist Papers
- The U.S. Constitution
- Debates of 1787
- The Anti-Federalist Papers
- The Writing of John Locke
"Governments are instituted among men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776
Recently Written
Featured Sites
What THEY Say:
Foreign News In English
Illini Alliance
Blogroll
of Thinking
Political Parties
Contact Us
Email Publius' ForumArchives
Links
Other Blogs
MilBlogs
Religion
Gun Rights
Education
Separation of School
from State
Radio Hosts
| Blog: |
| Publius' Forum |
Topics: |
| Politics, News, Commentary |
