Does anyone notice that when the mainstream liberal press talks about " a womans right to choose…" , that they never finish the sentence? A womans right to choose…WHAT?
Are they talking about a womans right to choose the militia weapon of her choice?
Are they talking about a womans right to choose the husband which she wants?
Are they talking about a womans right to choose to remain silent on the witness stand?
What are they referring to when they say “a womans right to choose”? This seems to be poor grammar on the part of the mainstream liberal press. Dont they know how to finish a sentence?
Yeah, why don’t they just come right out and say " a woman’s right to kill her unborn child"? Because that’s too close to the truth, that’s why.
I don’t know, but feel free to insert a comma before a quotation.
Now, I dont want to turn this into a pro- abortion vs. pro-life thread.
I just was curious why the feminist activists and thier allies in the mainstream media dont know how to finish a particular sentence.
Because usually any news report using the phrase “woman’s right to choose” is sullied with a superfluous quote from the anti-choice crowd, in the name of “journalistic balance.” The phrase “woman’s right to choose” has sufficiently entered the lexicon that anyone with common snese should be aware that it means “woman’s right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy or carry it to term.”
Isn’t this mostly the media? I’d say that they are just being overly delicate. The word “abortion” is perhaps on their mental list of words to avoid saying, if not because it’s indelicate, then because it’s controversial.
I really can’t respond to this post in this forum, but if you wish to read my reply to it please check out this thread.
Bingo. Its shorthand. There is an element of advertising jingoism in there too. “Choice” equates to “freedom”, which has good, liberty-orientated associations which are appealing to Americans. Freedom for women is an undeniable entitlement in Western countries, and so pro-choice advocates try and (successfully, I think) link this to pregnancy termination rights.
Yes, indeed it’s shorthand. It’s generally recongnized that the right choosen is terminating pregnancy, so that is the phrase used. Of course as Gene Stoner has so helpfully pointed out, this is an inprecise and sloppy use of the English language.
Not unlike “pro-life”, another term frequently used by the media, which might, if you thought about it, imply that that the person refered to was, for example, against the death penalty. And yet this is often not the case. In fact “pro-life” could imply many thing that are not the case.
I am all for more precise language in the media.
Because choice does not automatically equal abortion.
It could mean:
I have the right to choose if I want to have sex
I have the right to choose NOT to have sex
I have the right to choose to use birth control
I have the right to choose to have a child
I have the right to choose to have an abortion
I have the right to choose NOT to have an abortion
etc etc…
If you’re truly upset about jargon usage in the abortion debate, by all means join my minor crusade to have news organizations refer to the “antis” as “anti-abortion rights” (or just “anti-abortion”) and the “pros” as “pro-abortion rights”.
If you’re teed off about legalized abortion in general or media bias, have at it directly.
If you want to protest poor grammar, your complaint seems misplaced (and by the way, “womans” and “dont” should have an apostrophe between the next-to-last and last letters of both words). 
Guinastasia said:
I posted a similar thought on the a thread, which I could not find using search, about some state putting “choose life”, on their license plates. My argument was that the phrase “choose life” was a pro-choice stance, but others said that the phrase has been used so much by the pro lifers, that it means “no abortion”.
Similarly, the word “choice” has become the replacement word for abortion in the pro-choice movement. Therefore, a woman’s right to choose means her right to have an abortion.
I’m not sure that made sense, I’ll try again after I’ve had my coffee and a shower.
Exactly what you said.
The only correct terms are “pro-choice” and “anti-abortion.” ANYONE who uses the incorrect, judgement, and just plain ridiculous term “pro-abortion” should not be listened to.
I disagree. I am pro-choice. I am also anti-abortion. I don’t like them and I wish women didn’t have them, but I’m also not a woman and I have no business telling anyone other than me what they may or may not do with their bodies, absent harm to me. “Anti-abortion” does not adequately describe the position of those encompassed under that label. They are often not just anti-abortion. They are anti-birth control. They are anti-gay. They are anti-sex outside of marriage. They ultimately want to regulate behaviour far beyond whether or not a woman has the legal right to terminate her pregnancy legally and safely. “Anti-abortion” is a misnomer. “Anti-choice” is the appropriate descriptor.
I see your point. Mostly, I am really upset with people who use the term “pro-abortion.” Nobody is pro-abortion, and fact the anti-choice group uses this term says a lot.
As Andy Rooney once wrote “I don’t know if I’m pro-choice or pro-life. But I like the pro-choice people a lot more than the pro-life people.”
or NOT. say, her husband wants to terminate? she can say,“it is my right to chose,and i want this baby”
Perhaps you’re referring to a different language, but when I learned English there wasn’t anything wrong with ending a sentence with an infinitive. Am I not allowed simply to declare my right “to vote”? Must I specify for what or for whom I am voting?
I believe the appropiate descriptor in this case is “Republican.” :rolleyes:
This OP is concerned with the proper label to use for those people that support a women’s right to choose abortion. Blatant stereotyping of people holding a particular viewpoint does not help your argument.
Women already have this right, and I’ve never heard it disputed. I don’t think either side of this debate supports a husband’s right to terminate his wife’s pregnancy despite her objections.
Jackmannii, I think you’re on to something there. Both sides in this are at the point of using euphemisms for euphemisms, it’s getting ridiculous.
The main problem, is that a good portion of the mainstream media has a reporting bias when it comes to the abortion issue. The most comprehensive review of this was done by Pulitzer Prize winner David Shaw of the Los Angeles Times in 1990. The original column pre-dates the LA Times web site, but is carried here.
In summary: "A comprehensive Times study of major newspaper, television and newsmagazine coverage over the last 18 months, including more than 100 interviews with journalists and with activists on both sides of the abortion debate, confirms that this bias often exists.
Responsible journalists do try to be fair, and many charges of bias in abortion coverage are not valid. But careful examination of stories published and broadcast reveals scores of examples, large and small, that can only be characterized as unfair to the opponents of abortion, either in content, tone, choice of language or prominence of play"
Shaw also examined the stereotypes of abortion foes in the media.
Another example…
The terms that the 2 sides in the debate would each like for self-reference are “pro choice” and “pro life”… (one can debate, I suppose, whether the terms are “accurate”, but they are indeed the preferred self-referential labels for each group)
"Most media organizations, including the Associated Press , the world’s largest news agency, use the label “pro-choice”, the preferred label of abortion-rights advocates, but not “pro-life”, the preferred label of those who oppose abortion. During the first nine months of 1989, the TV networks used “pro-choice” in 74% of their references to abortion-rights advocates and used “pro-life” in only 6% of their references to abortion opponents. "
Other highlights of the several part LA Times series can be found here.
Anti choice is not an appropriate descriptor.
Firstly, it doesn’t describe which choice they are anti. I’m anti the choice to to drive home drunk. You can choose to do it regardless of its illegality. Therefore I’m anti choice, right? If we’re going to quibble over terms “anti-abortion choice” would be better. It sure aint perfect but at least it’s a little more descriptive. It states which choice anti-abortion-choicers are as opposed to anti-choice which is an insulting and demeaning blanket statement that implies that anti-abortion-choicers are anti every choice that doesn’t run precisely according to their desires on any topic in any walk of life. On the same topic, Pro-life is also an insulting label as it insinuates that everyone who isn’t “pro-life” is pro abortion and as we know, no-one is “pro-abortion”.
Secondly, I dislike abortion, whilst I concede that in the current environment it is necessary, I still dislike the fact that the practise is a part of our society. My view is, to an extent, shared by beagledave Spoofe(I think) iampunha JubliationTCompone(sp?) and Bob Cos - all prominent board members (I hope you don’t mind me speaking for you, guys. This is just what I’ve picked up from reading your posts over the months. Please set me straight if I’m mistaken). I detect not one whiff of anti gay, anti contraception, or anti non marital sex in any of their posts. These guys aren’t part of some special ‘liberal pro life’ club. They are just people who broach the topic thoughtfully and logically (not to suggest that only pro-lifers are logical and thoughtful), as many others do. I think you’ve been letting the vocal actions of a small minority of anti-abortion-choicers sway you in your choice of label. In all my experience it doesn’t fit.