Can choice of words define abortion debate?
Nov 15th, 2007 by Dave Olson
There are some words in the English language that set people off, no matter the context. We learned that first hand — again — after our story earlier this month on the debate to expand the so-called buffer zones around health clinics where abortions are performed. (The measure has since been approved, and signed into law by Gov. Deval Patrick.)
Some readers were upset at how we described those on opposite sides of the abortion issue.
Here’s what Bill Proposki of Rockport wrote:
“Is it anti-abortion or pro-life? Is it pro-abortion or pro-choice? And does it make a difference?
“Yes, how a movement and its members are referenced matters. To call one side pro-choice exclusively in an article and then in the same breath, label the other side exclusively ‘abortion foes,’ does matter. He who defines the words defines the debate, as you wordsmiths know. Note that your choice of illegal or undocumented in the immigration debate matters.”
“Pro-choice and pro-life are labels carefully chosen by each side. To use one and not the other may or may not be a choice for the editorial page but not so for a news article.
“Would you dare to reference a black spokesperson as nonwhite? A woman feminist as non-male? A Jewish rabbi as a non-Christian minister? A gay as nonstraight or worse? Each group gets to decide how it is to be referenced by others.”
In a perfect world, that would be true — groups would get to decide how others reference them. But the fact is none of these groups are homogeneous; a person who considers herself pro-life might bristle at being labled anti-abortion. “Abortion rights” and “anti-abortion” mean different things to different people.
For clarity and consistency, The News sticks to the Associated Press Stylebook entry on the subject:
Abortion: Use “anti-abortion” instead of “pro-life” and “abortion rights” instead of “pro-abortion” or “pro-choice.” Avoid “abortionist,” which connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions.