abortion Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice.
Is the media inherently biased? Story choice is one thing; everyone has a different idea of what is or is not newsworthy, so some objectivity is going to be lost there. But what about word choice, or more specifically, enforced word choice?
The above quote is from The Associated Press Stylebook.* One would expect a stylebook’s rules to eliminate all trace of bias. Doing so is especially important in a case like this one: abortion is a divisive issue, with vocal activists on both sides and millions of Americans holding mixed feelings and complex opinions.
And because it’s so divisive, reporters have to be careful concerning the terms they use. Anything extreme could be seen as libelous, on either side.
So the chosen terms are “anti-abortion†and “abortion rights.†Interesting choices. “Anti-abortion†is potentially troublesome, because the opposite is “pro-abortion.†Very few people are pro-abortion. Many people are in favor of the legal and practical choice being made available to all women, but that does not make it an easy or pleasant choice. Even if you believe it’s the best choice for a particular woman, it doesn’t mean you believe it’s good.
“Abortion rights†has its problems, too. After all, what’s the opposite of that? “Anti-rights� That’s a libel suit right there.
But they’re still better, from an avoiding-lawsuits standpoint, than the terms most of us are probably familiar with: “pro-life†and “pro-choice.†After all, despite what the most outspoken on either side might say, most people are neither “anti-life†(“pro-death,†if you prefer) nor “anti-choice.â€
But the fact that the AP’s chosen terms aren’t symmetrical gives me pause. If we are going to write about the issue as if it was strictly two-sided, we should use terms that reflect that: “for†and “against,†“pro†and “anti.†The real question concerns what those prefixes should be attached to.
Now, if I had to choose, I would get a little wordier than I probably should. As far as this debate is concerned, let’s go with “for†or “against abortion being legally available.†The position is clear without labels, and morality –- along with moral judgment -- is suspended for a moment.
---
*Norm Goldstein, ed. Basic Books, New York, 2004.
Kirsten Vala @ October 18, 2005 - 12:05am
Instead of trying not to offend people, I would vote on the side of clarity, i.e. the use of familiar terms. Everyone knows what “pro-life†and “pro-choice†mean, and both terms project equally negative connotations onto the opposing side. I know two wrongs aren’t supposed to make a right, but in this case. . . doesn’t the double negative make a positive? Or, at least a neutral? If it were up to me (which it’s obviously not) reporters would simply have to balance out the use of one weighted term with an equally weighted term for the opposite point of view. In most cases, finding equally weighted terms would be problematic, but “pro-life†vs. “pro-choice†is the perfect example of an equality of insults. When has equality ever been a bad thing? We should embrace it!
»