Media Bias and Abortion Language
Foxnews.com has posted my op-ed, "Media Bias and Abortion Language." Here are the first few paragraphs:
In a recent essay in the August 10 New York Times magazine titled, “Two-Minus-One Pregnancy,” author Ruth Padawar discusses cases where a pregnant woman chooses to “reduce twins to a singleton.” The expectant mother, after choosing not to endure the extra burden of raising twins, aborts one of the fetuses.
Except, technically, she does not abort the fetus. Instead, a doctor inserts a long needle into her abdomen. Then, using a sonogram, he directs the needle into the chest of one of the fetuses and injects it with potassium chloride, quickly killing it. The body of the dead fetus remains in the womb and shrivels during the remainder of the pregnancy. It is removed during the live birth of its twin.
Although the above description uses the word “kill,” the New York Times author does not. Instead, she uses euphemisms such as “extinguish,” “eliminate,” and “reduce to a singleton.”
Such language is par for the course when the media discusses abortion. As I document in "Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind," journalists overwhelmingly adopt the language of “pro-choice” and “abortion rights” advocates over the language of “pro-life” advocates.
To see how thoroughly pro-choice advocates have influenced the language of journalists, imagine a counter-universe—one where advocates of other issues exert similar influence over the language of journalists. In such a world journalists would not describe John Boehner’s position as “pro- tax cut." Instead, they would note that he is “pro-choice” on tax cuts. After all, under his plan, if people want to pay their former higher tax rate, they can still send a check to the U.S. Treasury. Mobsters would not favor murder, but would be described as “pro- revenge-killing rights.” Jefferson Davis would be, not “pro- slavery,” but “pro-choice” on slavery, or “pro-slave owner rights.” After all, he did not advocate that all white people own a slave; only that they have that right.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: Media Bias and Abortion Language
The definition of life, that is, those terms that best convey the relevant biological assumptions, has become one of convenience to suit social rather than scientific thinking. Usual scientific unambiguity has been corrupted in the service of a non-scientific ambiguous cause, and, sad to say, many scientists have adopted that position. They must know better. Primitive life forms, factual and theoretical, are distinguished from the inert by characteristics familiar to a high school biology student. And, yet, there is this obfuscation, which I imagine must be uncomfortable for the biological cognoscenti to claim as truth. But, then, emotions can trump facts, and then even the most ardent scientist can find what he's looking for. Truth isn't always what we think - or want - it to be.
Sep '10
Re: Media Bias and Abortion Language
Excellent op ed Tim. It would be fascinating to hear the NYT editorial board reaction to a "pro choice" position on misogyny.
Mar '11
Re: Media Bias and Abortion Language
The palpable bias of the media on the question of abortion is what drove me rightward years ago.
Dec '10
Re: Media Bias and Abortion Language
Well, I can't believe you chose to post this.
When all is said and done, the issue of abortion is the only issue that My Baby and I disagree upon, completely.
But I am a guy. So I am not allowed to have an opinion on this subject.
In that vein, you are just another guy with an opinion, in a world where every woman I have have ever met believes that anybody that is against abortion has been influenced by arguments made by men.
You study social concepts, so forget the facts.
How do people get to have an opinion on this subject without being paternalistic, as most people I have ever met, believe?
That's the only question that I have ever wanted answered.
Nov '10
Re: Media Bias and Abortion Language
To CJRun------
For starters, I am a woman and I am pro-life. Or to use Mr. Groseclose's proposed framework, I am "pro-choice for the unborn," that is, I believe that babies in the womb should have the right to decide whether to live.
The saying "abortion stops a beating heart" is undeniably true. Before the heart starts beating at twenty-one days, the baby is too small for the abortionist to find. So when a baby undergoes an abortion, it has every organ it will ever have-----not just a heart but a brain, kidneys, liver etc., plus ten fingers and ten toes------it is a fully formed human. All it has left to do is grow, an opportunity denied to aborted babies.
You don't have to be a man or a woman to understand that.
Nov '10
Re: Media Bias and Abortion Language
So, how do you get to have an opinion on it? You look at the facts and you make your decision.
May '10
Re: Media Bias and Abortion Language
I would be happy if people would stop saying "abortion" altogether and simply refer to it as the slaughter of children in utero.
CJRun, my usual argument goes like this:
Many abortions are motivated by fear. Too often, we forget the fourth part of that argument.
The third part, the question, is crucial. The strongest part of any argument when faced with emotional opposition is a question which the person can make their own. "It's my body" is a willful distraction. Ignore it and repeat the question. Demand an answer.
Jun '10
Re: Media Bias and Abortion Language
Well said Aaron.
Nobody wants to justify murder. They want to say that killing a baby in an abortion is something less than murder. They must be very clever to do this, as anyone who has seen an ultrasound can attest to. We've argued here in the past on "what a fetus is", but it is sure that words like fetus, terminate, singulation or singleton (whatever the hell that means) are simply vagueness used by the clever to help them convince themselves that the unborn baby is less than a human being. Sheer sophistry.
May '11
Re: Media Bias and Abortion Language
What a terrific op-ed Mr. Groseclose. The ridiculousness of the 'pro-choice' wording has long been documented, but your mobster and Jefferson Davis retorts were fresh and devastating.
I'm pro-life (or 'anti-abortion' or 'anti-choice' -- if I were to use their phrasing) because I'm pro-science. It's insulting to say that a fetus becomes human only in that magical instant when he or she is removed from the woman but was nothing but tissue before that.
But yeah. Conservatives are 'anti-science'.
Jonah Goldberg had a brilliant analysis of the Left's selective anti-science charge:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/275903/re-anti-science-smear-jonah-goldberg