Comments on: Style choices on abortion talk http://www.getreligion.org/2009/02/style-choices-on-abortion-talk/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=style-choices-on-abortion-talk "The press . . . just doesn't get religion." -- William Schneider Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:04:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Br. Robert, OP http://www.getreligion.org/2009/02/style-choices-on-abortion-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-141340 Br. Robert, OP Tue, 03 Feb 2009 01:31:42 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=7017#comment-141340 I've usually used "anti-abortion" as one aspect of the "pro-life" movement. Does the AP stylebook recognize that pro-life encompasses more than just opposition to abortion? that it includes (for example) opposition to assisted suicide and euthanasia, support for children of single or troubled parents, some kinds of opposition to the death penalty, or some tendencies toward pacifism? I’ve usually used “anti-abortion” as one aspect of the “pro-life” movement. Does the AP stylebook recognize that pro-life encompasses more than just opposition to abortion? that it includes (for example) opposition to assisted suicide and euthanasia, support for children of single or troubled parents, some kinds of opposition to the death penalty, or some tendencies toward pacifism?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Kevin J Jones http://www.getreligion.org/2009/02/style-choices-on-abortion-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-141339 Kevin J Jones Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:27:41 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=7017#comment-141339 Of course, "permissive" sounds like "permissiveness," with connotations of laxity. The "liberalization" framework can provoke oddities like "pro-life liberals oppose abortion liberalization." Of course, “permissive” sounds like “permissiveness,” with connotations of laxity.

The “liberalization” framework can provoke oddities like “pro-life liberals oppose abortion liberalization.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: ‘Anti-abortion’ or ‘pro-life’? : Sic et Non http://www.getreligion.org/2009/02/style-choices-on-abortion-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-141334 ‘Anti-abortion’ or ‘pro-life’? : Sic et Non Mon, 02 Feb 2009 22:01:55 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=7017#comment-141334 [...] ‘Anti-abortion’ or ‘pro-life’? Terry Mattingly discusses the debate over the language surrounding abortion [...] […] ‘Anti-abortion’ or ‘pro-life’? Terry Mattingly discusses the debate over the language surrounding abortion […]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Jerry http://www.getreligion.org/2009/02/style-choices-on-abortion-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-141332 Jerry Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:31:33 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=7017#comment-141332 I think words become <i>fighting words</i> when an issue becomes contentious. Then we get, amongst other things, semantic debates like this one. Permissive/restrictive is an intriguing suggestion because it applies to the debate about what the law should be rather than the desired outcome. I think words become fighting words when an issue becomes contentious. Then we get, amongst other things, semantic debates like this one.

Permissive/restrictive is an intriguing suggestion because it applies to the debate about what the law should be rather than the desired outcome.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Brian Walden http://www.getreligion.org/2009/02/style-choices-on-abortion-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-141325 Brian Walden Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:33:32 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=7017#comment-141325 If the AP stylebook is going to use abortion rights, I'd prefer them to counter it with something like unborn rights rather than anti-abortion. Or conversely if they insist on using anti-abortion, counter it with pro-abortion rather than abortion rights. It's such a sensitive topic that when you assign the term rights to one side and not the other, there's a connotation that one side is fighting to take away God-given rights. Personally I'm not sure the whole argument from rights is encompassing enough for every situation. Framing the argument in terms of rights only describes 20% of the population. It's the people at the extremes who think that women have the absolute right to abortion for any reason at any time or that babies have an absolute right to live. When covering one of these groups, describing the them as an "abortion rights group" (or with the novel term "unborn rights group") fits. But for the 80% in the middle, it's really more about pragmatism than rights. Pro-abortion/anti-abortion or Pro-Life/Pro-Choice seem to apply to this group more than anything containing the word "rights." Kevin's permissive/restrictive label may be even more precise. If the AP stylebook is going to use abortion rights, I’d prefer them to counter it with something like unborn rights rather than anti-abortion. Or conversely if they insist on using anti-abortion, counter it with pro-abortion rather than abortion rights. It’s such a sensitive topic that when you assign the term rights to one side and not the other, there’s a connotation that one side is fighting to take away God-given rights.

Personally I’m not sure the whole argument from rights is encompassing enough for every situation. Framing the argument in terms of rights only describes 20% of the population. It’s the people at the extremes who think that women have the absolute right to abortion for any reason at any time or that babies have an absolute right to live. When covering one of these groups, describing the them as an “abortion rights group” (or with the novel term “unborn rights group”) fits. But for the 80% in the middle, it’s really more about pragmatism than rights. Pro-abortion/anti-abortion or Pro-Life/Pro-Choice seem to apply to this group more than anything containing the word “rights.” Kevin’s permissive/restrictive label may be even more precise.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: danr http://www.getreligion.org/2009/02/style-choices-on-abortion-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-141324 danr Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:28:01 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=7017#comment-141324 "permissive/restrictive is the most descriptive and least judgmental" I'm not so sure... it seems to fall into Julia's (#7) point about the pejorative connotation of "anti" (bad) vs. "pro" (good). "Permissive" sounds rather nice, whereas no one likes to feel they're being "restricted". “permissive/restrictive is the most descriptive and least judgmental”

I’m not so sure… it seems to fall into Julia’s (#7) point about the pejorative connotation of “anti” (bad) vs. “pro” (good). “Permissive” sounds rather nice, whereas no one likes to feel they’re being “restricted”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: tmatt http://www.getreligion.org/2009/02/style-choices-on-abortion-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-141323 tmatt Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:16:22 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=7017#comment-141323 Newsbusters raised an AP style issue that affects MSM. I thought the subject was important, since it keeps coming up in comments. Newsbusters raised an AP style issue that affects MSM.

I thought the subject was important, since it keeps coming up in comments.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Judy Harrow http://www.getreligion.org/2009/02/style-choices-on-abortion-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-141322 Judy Harrow Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:47:43 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=7017#comment-141322 I think Kevin's (#9) suggestion of "permissive/restrictive" is the most descriptive and least judgmental terminology I've seen yet. Re Julia (#7): few if any of us on the "permissive" side are actually pro-abortion. We do not advocate that women have abortions. Rather, we understand abortion to be a fail-safe, a safety net. We want to keep it available for those times when either contraception fails or circumstances radically change (e.g. the loss of a partner or of a source of income). The basic principle is that parenting is a serious and long-term commitment, even a Sacred one, and should only be undertaken joyfully and responsibly. And, yes, many of us are religious. We just hold different religious beliefs than the "restrictive" side. I think Kevin’s (#9) suggestion of “permissive/restrictive” is the most descriptive and least judgmental terminology I’ve seen yet.

Re Julia (#7): few if any of us on the “permissive” side are actually pro-abortion. We do not advocate that women have abortions. Rather, we understand abortion to be a fail-safe, a safety net. We want to keep it available for those times when either contraception fails or circumstances radically change (e.g. the loss of a partner or of a source of income). The basic principle is that parenting is a serious and long-term commitment, even a Sacred one, and should only be undertaken joyfully and responsibly.

And, yes, many of us are religious. We just hold different religious beliefs than the “restrictive” side.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Kevin J Jones http://www.getreligion.org/2009/02/style-choices-on-abortion-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-141320 Kevin J Jones Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:21:13 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=7017#comment-141320 Curiously enough, according to a Knights of Columbus survey from last year, some people who are generally anti-abortion are put off by the "pro-life" label. Is there any controversy over the accepted usage of descriptions of abortion law? "Liberalized/conservative" abortion law sounds tendentious to me. Wouldn't "permissive/restrictive" be more descriptive? Curiously enough, according to a Knights of Columbus survey from last year, some people who are generally anti-abortion are put off by the “pro-life” label.

Is there any controversy over the accepted usage of descriptions of abortion law? “Liberalized/conservative” abortion law sounds tendentious to me. Wouldn’t “permissive/restrictive” be more descriptive?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: gfe http://www.getreligion.org/2009/02/style-choices-on-abortion-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-141319 gfe Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:00:57 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=7017#comment-141319 I see that Christianity Today has responded to the article. CT is saying that the ad in question was specifically anti-abortion, and that the magazine continues to use the label "pro-life" where issues in addition to abortion are involved. Sounds reasonable to me. I see that Christianity Today has responded to the article. CT is saying that the ad in question was specifically anti-abortion, and that the magazine continues to use the label “pro-life” where issues in addition to abortion are involved. Sounds reasonable to me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Jeremy Weber http://www.getreligion.org/2009/02/style-choices-on-abortion-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-141318 Jeremy Weber Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:49:49 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=7017#comment-141318 Below is the response CT online managing editor Ted Olsen sent to Newsbusters (now <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2009/01/30/christianity-today-favors-anti-abortion-over-pro-life-label" title="" rel="nofollow">updated</a>): A two-second search would have shown that we use pro-life quite a bit, Ken. What was the point of the post? To suggest that CT is compromising on abortion? What the heck? The headline is specific. The ad is against abortion. It's not about embryonic stem cells, assisted suicide, emergency "contraception," etc. It's about abortion. And it's against it. It's an anti-abortion ad from a pro-life group. Can you name one mainstream pro-life group that considers anti-abortion pejorative? Proud to be anti-abortion, Ted Below is the response CT online managing editor Ted Olsen sent to Newsbusters (now updated):

A two-second search would have shown that we use pro-life quite a bit, Ken. What was the point of the post? To suggest that CT is compromising on abortion? What the heck?

The headline is specific. The ad is against abortion. It’s not about embryonic stem cells, assisted suicide, emergency “contraception,” etc. It’s about abortion. And it’s against it. It’s an anti-abortion ad from a pro-life group.

Can you name one mainstream pro-life group that considers anti-abortion pejorative?

Proud to be anti-abortion,
Ted

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Julia Duin http://www.getreligion.org/2009/02/style-choices-on-abortion-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-141316 Julia Duin Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:30:03 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=7017#comment-141316 The problem with using "abortion rights" is the mental picture you get is "abortion-is-right." And plunking "anti" in front of a noun, well, instant negativity. Of course the perfect solution would be to call both sides anti-abortion and pro-abortion, which is the truth, isn't it? If you allow it, then you're for it. Tell, me how does CT refer to the pro-abortion crowd? I didn't see that in the above post. My own publication uses "pro-choice" and "pro-life." I used to work for a newspaper that used "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion," which was quite unfair in that one side got an ideological label and the other side got the issues label. The problem with using “abortion rights” is the mental picture you get is “abortion-is-right.” And plunking “anti” in front of a noun, well, instant negativity. Of course the perfect solution would be to call both sides anti-abortion and pro-abortion, which is the truth, isn’t it? If you allow it, then you’re for it. Tell, me how does CT refer to the pro-abortion crowd? I didn’t see that in the above post.
My own publication uses “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” I used to work for a newspaper that used “pro-choice” and “anti-abortion,” which was quite unfair in that one side got an ideological label and the other side got the issues label.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: hoosier http://www.getreligion.org/2009/02/style-choices-on-abortion-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-141315 hoosier Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:19:40 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=7017#comment-141315 I think you've got a point, Dale, but I read the question mark not as suggesting change, but rather as suggesting surprise. Certainly the question mark's ambiguous, though. Does leaving it out significantly change the meaning? I think it would, then it looks like "just the facts, ma'am." Here, there's an ambiguous questioning of the decision, either, as I took it, a questioning of one's own pre-concieved notions of how this magazine operates, or, as you took it, a questioning of the vintage of this editorial decision. On another note, is Newsbusters the press? We can argue about the journalistic creds of CT, but Newsbusters? Is GR now going to go after every moronic comment on every blog or advocacy site out there? Not that you can't if you want to, it's your bandwidth, but just curious about what constitutes 'the press' in this day and age. Heck, maybe you've addressed it and I've missed it, but it's certainly a fundamental question. I think you’ve got a point, Dale, but I read the question mark not as suggesting change, but rather as suggesting surprise. Certainly the question mark’s ambiguous, though. Does leaving it out significantly change the meaning? I think it would, then it looks like “just the facts, ma’am.” Here, there’s an ambiguous questioning of the decision, either, as I took it, a questioning of one’s own pre-concieved notions of how this magazine operates, or, as you took it, a questioning of the vintage of this editorial decision.

On another note, is Newsbusters the press? We can argue about the journalistic creds of CT, but Newsbusters? Is GR now going to go after every moronic comment on every blog or advocacy site out there? Not that you can’t if you want to, it’s your bandwidth, but just curious about what constitutes ‘the press’ in this day and age. Heck, maybe you’ve addressed it and I’ve missed it, but it’s certainly a fundamental question.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: MzEllen http://www.getreligion.org/2009/02/style-choices-on-abortion-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-141312 MzEllen Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:47:59 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=7017#comment-141312 I prefer "anti-abortion" and self-describe as that. Having watched my husband die with a particularly nasty type of cancer, I'm a little squishy on "end of life" issues. I am also supportive of the death penalty in some cases. "Pro-life" includes all three of those issues (abortion, end-of-life choices, and capital punishment). Thus, I am not entirely "pro-life". I am very comfortable with "anti-abortion". I prefer “anti-abortion” and self-describe as that. Having watched my husband die with a particularly nasty type of cancer, I’m a little squishy on “end of life” issues. I am also supportive of the death penalty in some cases.

“Pro-life” includes all three of those issues (abortion, end-of-life choices, and capital punishment). Thus, I am not entirely “pro-life”.

I am very comfortable with “anti-abortion”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Dale http://www.getreligion.org/2009/02/style-choices-on-abortion-talk/comment-page-1/#comment-141310 Dale Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:12:29 +0000 http://www.getreligion.org/?p=7017#comment-141310 In answer to hoosier's question, what is and isn't snarky depends on the context. This is a conservative website writing about an evangelical Christian magazine. The headline, especially the question mark, suggests that CT's word choice reflects a change in policy. The CT editors found it snarky, replying: <blockquote cite>A two-second search would have shown that we use pro-life quite a bit, Ken. What was the point of the post? To suggest that CT is compromising on abortion? What the heck? </blockquote> In answer to hoosier’s question, what is and isn’t snarky depends on the context. This is a conservative website writing about an evangelical Christian magazine. The headline, especially the question mark, suggests that CT’s word choice reflects a change in policy. The CT editors found it snarky, replying:

A two-second search would have shown that we use pro-life quite a bit, Ken. What was the point of the post? To suggest that CT is compromising on abortion? What the heck?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>