Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses to describe abortion bans
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Seems fair.
> and “pro-choice” over “pro-abortion”
ok... what
But the word "abortion" has negative connotations, so being "pro" abortion has negative connotations.
It's a PR problem, mainly.
I’m also pro-life as in “create the circumstances that make as few people as possible face that choice.” Create circumstances where being a single parent is not the first ranking cause of being or becoming poor. Create support networks. Create a suitable safety net. Ensure proper childcare options. Make sure that mothers don’t die during childbirth from entirely preventable causes. If you want to be pro-life in a real sense of the word, care about what happens after the baby is born.
I'm curious what makes you against abortion, then? Most people who are against abortion don't want anyone to have them (with certain exceptions) because it's effectively taking a life. But that's obviously not your reason, and I'm must confess I'm struggling to come up with a scenario wherein you can be against abortions, but think they're okay for other folks. That doesn't sound like against it to my ears, because you are supporting it in general (i.e. you wouldn't vote to make them illegal). And supporting abortion would make you pro-abortion.
Again, not trying to attack or belittle or anything like that, I'm absolutely, genuinely curious.
I, personally, would not choose an abortion. But I’m male and well enough off with a sufficiently good support network by friends and family so that I’m fairly confident I could make a good living even as a single parent. We do have a 2yo kid, so I have a rough idea of how much work even a single one can be :) I wish that no abortions were necessary. It’s an ordeal. A human in the making doesn’t get to live. (I consciously avoid “killed”, I don’t consider 8 week old embryos living beings). In that sense I’m against abortions. I wish we wouldn’t need them. For the record: I’m not religious.
However, other people’s circumstances differ. A woman has to actually carry the child to term. Pregnancy is a major health risk. Kids rate high as risk factor for poverty. Men tend to leave families and leave the kid behind. They might not feel ready for a kid yet. I value their bodily autonomy higher than my limited personal view on the matter. I can’t possibly enforce my choice on them.
I’m pro reducing abortions. I’m against banning them. It’s their choice to make and I’ve know people go through that and I’ve never felt like it was an easy choice to them. I consider myself lucky that I was never forced to make that decision.
The only way out of that dilemma is to help people not end up facing that choice (sex education, easy access to birth control, ...) and to make it easier for people to decide against abortions (health care, child support, ...) Reduce total harm inflicted. I consider anyone calling himself pro-life without first tackling those issues to be a fake.
So that’s where I’m at.
Few people are "pro-abortion" but lots of people are ant-choice. So if we're gonna be accurate...
Good that they don’t do that, then. And good that they’re not obliged too, either.
Nor did I say you did, speaking of strawmen.
> So what’s the point you’re making?
I guess that creating an implicit/casual mainstream narrative that is objectively false may contribute to second order unintended negative consequences (as in: "hmmm, if they're being untrue about <subject A>, maybe they're doing the same on <subjects B,C,D> as <authoritarian leader> claims"), and that it is doubly silly to do when you mostly have the truth on your side.
It's only a theory, measuring such things is notoriously difficult, but I think it jives extremely well with human behavior on both political extremes.
Nope, youre the one missing his point. The commentor above is accusing the newspapers of Orwellian newspeak, where really they are just responding to the orwellain newspeak in use by the people naming the bill to begin with.
The newspaper is seeking to clarifly the misleading actions of others. Doing so is not newspeak. Its their role in soceity.
It's very middle class Labour voting chattering classes in its political point of view. Generally it's of good quality.
I think it's doing a regular politically correct exercise here. They should be honest about that at least.
Isn't this what all political bills are though? Often the fight over this stuff is over language? I mean we still have the Patriot act - no one feels the need to redefine how we talk about that one?
Also, considering this:
> “What’s interpreted as a heartbeat in these bills is actually electrically induced flickering of a portion of fetal tissue that will become the heart as the embryo develops.”
Isn't a heartbeat in general to be considered an "electrically induced flickering" of sorts?
Seems weird for the newspapers to not at least call the bills what the legislators are calling it and then explain why in long-form why they're wrong.
You need a heart to get heartbeat.
This is already a slippery slope argumentation.
Is gutted fish without a head alive just because its muscles are spasming?
The difference being that a gutted fish will not eventually turn into an alive fish. But the "electrically induced flickering" detected in a mother's womb will, in fact, turn into a heart, inside a "blob of cells" that will, in fact, turn into a human.
What about case where twins are developing and one cannibalizes the other? Is that a murder now?
You might turn out to be a murderer; you wouldn't appreciate it if we preemptively threw you in jail.
My reading is that the argument is not that a heartbeat isn't "electrically induced flickering" but that the thing flickering should not yet be classified as a heart, and so it's disingenuous to call it a heartbeat.
I don’t think the criticism is on the “electrically induced flickering” part of the statement. The entire embryo at that stage is about the size of a kidney bean.
There’s no heart to speak of, and probably no audible beat. (Doctors, correct me here)
A heartbeat is an "electrically induced flickering", yes. Neon lights are also "electrically induced flickering", but I wouldn't call that a heartbeat.