Posted on March 26, 2010 in Abortion Accountability Journalists & Pundits Sexuality
“I am half sick of shadows,” said
The Lady of Shalott.
— Alfred, Lord Tennyson
When it comes to the whole abortion controversy ((For the record, I have been calling myself pro-Choice even though I have personal concerns about abortion as a means of birth control. I simply cannot think of a reasonable way to outlaw it for this purpose without denying much needed help for victims of rape and women whose lives are endangered by their pregnancies. So I live with what I consider vile just as I live with legal alcohol.)) , I feel like the Lady of Shallott: there’s this huge game where each side can’t even agree about what they should call the dispute. Is it about Life or about Choice? The alternatives thrust us not into clarity, but twilight.
Such terminology — and the dispute over what that terminology should be — is an invitation to holy war. You not only fight about the laws and court decisions, but you are led to have this second fight over language. Where we are divided, we are divided a second time and completely unable to talk civilly about the meat of the issue.
For this reason, I support the decision by National Public Radio to change the terms of the debate in its coverage. A memo to all NPR staffers says:
NPR News is revising the terms we use to describe people and groups involved in the abortion debate.
This updated policy is aimed at ensuring the words we speak and write are as clear, consistent and neutral as possible. This is important given that written text is such an integral part of our work.
On the air, we should use “abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)” and “abortion rights opponent(s)” or derivations thereof (for example: “advocates of abortion rights”). It is acceptable to use the phrase “anti-abortion”, but do not use the term “pro-abortion rights”.
Thank the Universe that someone is trying to change things! (And if this is not neutral enough for you, I invite you to suggest something else.