Disparate from most every other pro-lifer, I have no problem with news outlets calling our fetus-loving clan "anti-abortion" instead. I don't happen to believe that movements have the automatic right to pick what the media should call them. Frankly, "anti-abortion" is a more precise term -- "pro-life" is too vague -- and journalists should be describing political groups using accurate terms.
That said, any problems that the term "pro-life" has, "pro-choice" has also. It's vague. It has an automatic positive connotation. (Who isn't for life, and who isn't for choices?) The other side doesn't like it, and instead they call their foes “anti-choice” and “anti-life.” And both terms (as far as I know) have been around since the beginning of their respective movements.
So if "pro-life" should be known in newspapers as "anti-abortion" -- a decision I'd agree with as an editor -- then "pro-choice" needs an equally clinical term. "Pro-abortion rights" isn't bad, but it's a tad wordy. "Pro-abortion" is inaccurate. "Pro-expectant mothers' rights"? Anyone have something better? (Note to pro-lif…uh, anti-abortioners: be kind. Thank you.)
oh so lovingly written by
Matthew |
i sincerely do not know what you are doing here. are you lost? were you
looking for your delicate calico cat, and did you follow her up two flights of stairs
to this room? she is not here. she was here, yes. we gave her a warm bowl of milk, we talked with her about campaign finance reform for a time, and then she bid us good day. i believe she was
going to the post office two blocks down, but i don't quite recall.
for surely you did
not find your way from prinsiana, the least traveled site on
the internet. if you did, though, perhaps you are looking for humor. perhaps you are looking for profundity. perhaps you are looking for answers.
i'm sorry, but you shall go naught-for-three.
