
Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses to describe abortion bans - okket
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/07/abortion-the-guardian-style-guide
======
exabrial
> "anti-abortion" over "pro-life"

Seems fair.

> and “pro-choice” over “pro-abortion”

ok... what

~~~
taborj
And here they said they were doing this to _avoid_ political obfuscation. I
sense they're being a bit disingenuous.

~~~
gtf21
Not really. "Pro-life" isn't a very accurate statement as the definition of
"life" is not agreed. "Pro-choice" is accurate, as it denotes a position which
is in favour of giving women the choice to abort, it's not "pro-abortion" in
that it is encouraging women to have an abortion.

~~~
ufmace
Eh pro-choice seems just as misleading to me. Choice could mean any choice
about anything. Seems like they're trying to conflate a choice about abortion
with being in favor of any ordinary choice. Both sides have their own
preferred terms that try to conflate something uncontroversial with a highly
disputed position. That's a common enough thing in politics for sure. It's
highly biased and not as all neutral to allow one side to pick a misleading
name while requiring the other side to use a more literal name.

~~~
taborj
I think we should use "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion". That is, after all,
the relative positions of the two sides, and it tells us the specific issue at
question.

But the word "abortion" has negative connotations, so being "pro" abortion has
negative connotations.

It's a PR problem, mainly.

~~~
Xylakant
I, personally, am against abortions. I, however, understand that it’s not my
body that a baby will grow in and it’s not my circumstances that the persons
considering an abortion live in. I can’t put myself in their shoes. I’m firmly
pro-choice. It’s their bodies and their lifes.

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.

~~~
taborj
I'm genuinely curious, so please don't take this as an attack. It sounds like
(and please correct me if I'm mistaken here) that you're against abortion
essentially because they don't affect you or isn't something you would choose
to do. Is that accurate?

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.

~~~
Xylakant
Ok, I’ll try to explain in different words:

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.

------
Damorian
Say what you will about abortion, but this is giving me some serious 1984
newspeak vibes.

~~~
Freak_NL
The term 'fetal heartbeat bill' certainly has that vibe, which is why The
Guardian is opting to use different more neutral (and certainly scientifically
more palatable) terms.

~~~
taborj
I am thinking you've drastically missed the point of the comment you're
replying to.

~~~
lightbritefight
> I am thinking you've drastically missed the point of the comment you're
> replying to.

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.

~~~
mistermann
And here I thought I was supposed to trust what's in the newspaper because
their job is to report the facts, unlike those biased websites that are
_often_ run by agents of a foreign government (or, so I read in several
newspapers).

------
jamesmackennon
For some reason, any sort of styleguide discussion always reminds me of this:
[https://33hpwq10j9luq8gl43e62q4e-wpengine.netdna-
ssl.com/wp-...](https://33hpwq10j9luq8gl43e62q4e-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/1984_-_newspeak_dictionary.pdf)

------
joelrunyon
> Some doctors who opposed the bans say the term was developed as political
> tactic to win support for the bills.

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.

~~~
me_me_me
> Isn't a heartbeat in general to be considered an "electrically induced
> flickering" of sorts?

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?

~~~
taborj
> 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.

~~~
Xylakant
8th week is so early the risk of loosing the embryo naturally is still very
high. I know more than one couple that lost embryos at that stage - my mother
in fact, multiple times. So that blob of cells is very much still in the
“might turn into a human” state.

~~~
taborj
My mother-in-law had this happen several times as well. But " _might not_ turn
into a human" is, in my opinion (and my mother-in-law's), insufficient reason
to allow abortions for _any_ reason, up to (and in some cases, after) the
moment of birth.

You _might_ turn out to be a murderer; you wouldn't appreciate it if we
preemptively threw you in jail.

