Please stop using Marxist newspeak*. Legitimate news sources call organizations by the name they choose to call themselves. Pro Life chooses to call itself, "Pro Life." Legitimate news surces call it "Pro Life." Marxist propagandists call it, "anti-abortion." The Associated Press (AP) has gone Marxist. The "AP Stylebook" prohibits the use of the name "Pro Life." Don't be a Marxist propagandist like the AP. Be a legitimate news source.
I'm sorry but this is hilarious: “pro -life" is a perfect example of the way political propaganda misuses and manipulates language in ways that affect our ability to think and understand things as they are.
Also, the AP style guidelines do recommend using "anti-abortion” instead of "pro -life,” except for as a proper noun like the name of an organization, for example. You say " call organizations by the name they choose” and "the name ‘Pro Life’" The AP doesn't disagree, and this article doesn't violate this standard (despite it's other failures as “journalism").
Both “pro choice” and “pro life” are expressions/words that used in the context of abortion do not clarify the specific issues and policies or positions in question, but are emotionally appealing and politically charged labels, useful and strategic rhetoric to advance a political aim or goal. Propagandistic and not intended or capable of clarifying what is actually meant, in a way Orwell wrote about often and very much could not stand.
Written by a guy who's never been pregnant. Pro life means pro life. Pro abortionists rehetoric is nothing but emotion. Science proved 50 years ago that life begins at conception.
Life, human life, means much more and extends far beyond pregnancy. So when "pro life" means only anti-abortion, that ignores other instances where someone who is anti-abortion can and will justify, excuse, allow, and even call for the end of human life, death (war, poverty, the mother giving birth despite the possibility and abortion might have her life, etc.). On the other hand, the same applies to "pro choice" as for abortion rights: it does not mean pro-abortion, but that one believes in the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion. But someone who identifes in this context as "pro choice" doesn't necessarily mean they are in favor of there being choices for *all* people in all contexts, etc. etc.
The issue the previous commenter had with the article was one that only existed in his imagination. I simply tried to explain what the AP rules and guidelines actually are and why, and point out that the article does not change the name of any organization with "Pro Life" in it, and the AP does recommend using "Pro Life" when referring to it as a name, as in a proper noun, etc. but not when "anti-abortion" more accurately and specifically clarifies the actual policy or practice being opposed. The same goes with their recommendation to use "abortion rights" instead of "pro choice" unless again: it is used as a name as in a proper noun and not to describe a policy or specific to the issue of abortion.
Y'all are mad for reasons that have nothing to do with anything I wrote above. I would recommend you read the article recently posted here on the "literacy crisis" if only I didn't think it was extremely problematic; your comments perfectly demonstrate the crisis exists and it's consequences...
Sorry... The AP doesn't get to define what I believe based on their politicly correct definition. Anti abortion is included in Pro Life. Pro Life isn't always defined on anti abortion. Pro life is all encompassing... Prolife of the child, the mother, the fetus, the father. It means protecting the life of. It means offering alternatives to murder or ending the life. If a mother's life is in danger, than it's a difficult decision as to who lives, but very few abortions are due to the life of the mother. Most of them are due to the use of abortion as a form a birth control. Even the original Roe vs Wade wasn't passed for that purpose. The wording "anti-abortion" is a generality that implies it's 1 issue issue... Kind of like "anti-war" that encompasses anything having to do with war. It's about life!
The AP does get to make recommendations and guidelines for journalists, and news and media organizations are free to adopt them or not. And your comment is supportive of why when talking about abortion, using the language of anti-abortion is preferred because more specific and clear about the policy and laws concerned....
“Use 'anti-abortion' instead of 'pro-life' and 'pro-abortion rights' instead of 'pro-abortion' or 'pro-choice.'”—"The Associated Press Stylebook 2016" (p. 3)
Yeah, that's not a real citation Ed. And it would be considered outdated and incorrectly formatted citation as well. And it's misleading as you leave off the relevant part:
“Use the modifiers anti-abortion or abortion-rights; don’t use pro-life, pro-choice or pro-abortion unless they are in quotes or proper names.”
Thank you all for conceding that I am right. While your comments may be interesting, they are irrelovant to the topic, which is that the AP Stylebook promotes propaganda by saying journalists are to,“Use 'anti-abortion' instead of 'pro-life' and 'pro-abortion rights' instead of 'pro-abortion' or 'pro-choice.'” You fail to prove that this is untrue. Logically without such proof, you concede I am right, regardless of your opinions and speculations.
Pro life means pro life, anti abortion, no killing of innocent life, a life that is separate from the mother with its own DNA. Most "pro abortionists" still think like they did when Roe vs Wade was passed. Science caught up a long time ago. Abortions are performed based on "feelings" and rhetoric. If science and logic were used, abortions wouldn't exist.
I hope history looks back at the killing of unborn babies the same light history looks back at the evil of slavery. Future society will hopefully look back with disbelief and horror as to how humans could have been so barbaric: the cavalier destruction of babies growing in would-be mother's wombs. God is forming life in the woman's womb, and mini gods have no problem ripping them out. Or instead of becoming God fearing people, will this country continue to degenerate to the point where we don't stop with the unborn? Will we become so vile that snuffing out life up until the baby starts to crawl becomes acceptable?
Please stop using Marxist newspeak*. Legitimate news sources call organizations by the name they choose to call themselves. Pro Life chooses to call itself, "Pro Life." Legitimate news surces call it "Pro Life." Marxist propagandists call it, "anti-abortion." The Associated Press (AP) has gone Marxist. The "AP Stylebook" prohibits the use of the name "Pro Life." Don't be a Marxist propagandist like the AP. Be a legitimate news source.
* See Orwell's "1984" for details
I'm sorry but this is hilarious: “pro -life" is a perfect example of the way political propaganda misuses and manipulates language in ways that affect our ability to think and understand things as they are.
Also, the AP style guidelines do recommend using "anti-abortion” instead of "pro -life,” except for as a proper noun like the name of an organization, for example. You say " call organizations by the name they choose” and "the name ‘Pro Life’" The AP doesn't disagree, and this article doesn't violate this standard (despite it's other failures as “journalism").
Both “pro choice” and “pro life” are expressions/words that used in the context of abortion do not clarify the specific issues and policies or positions in question, but are emotionally appealing and politically charged labels, useful and strategic rhetoric to advance a political aim or goal. Propagandistic and not intended or capable of clarifying what is actually meant, in a way Orwell wrote about often and very much could not stand.
Y'all goofy.
Written by a guy who's never been pregnant. Pro life means pro life. Pro abortionists rehetoric is nothing but emotion. Science proved 50 years ago that life begins at conception.
Life, human life, means much more and extends far beyond pregnancy. So when "pro life" means only anti-abortion, that ignores other instances where someone who is anti-abortion can and will justify, excuse, allow, and even call for the end of human life, death (war, poverty, the mother giving birth despite the possibility and abortion might have her life, etc.). On the other hand, the same applies to "pro choice" as for abortion rights: it does not mean pro-abortion, but that one believes in the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion. But someone who identifes in this context as "pro choice" doesn't necessarily mean they are in favor of there being choices for *all* people in all contexts, etc. etc.
The issue the previous commenter had with the article was one that only existed in his imagination. I simply tried to explain what the AP rules and guidelines actually are and why, and point out that the article does not change the name of any organization with "Pro Life" in it, and the AP does recommend using "Pro Life" when referring to it as a name, as in a proper noun, etc. but not when "anti-abortion" more accurately and specifically clarifies the actual policy or practice being opposed. The same goes with their recommendation to use "abortion rights" instead of "pro choice" unless again: it is used as a name as in a proper noun and not to describe a policy or specific to the issue of abortion.
Y'all are mad for reasons that have nothing to do with anything I wrote above. I would recommend you read the article recently posted here on the "literacy crisis" if only I didn't think it was extremely problematic; your comments perfectly demonstrate the crisis exists and it's consequences...
Be well.
Sorry... The AP doesn't get to define what I believe based on their politicly correct definition. Anti abortion is included in Pro Life. Pro Life isn't always defined on anti abortion. Pro life is all encompassing... Prolife of the child, the mother, the fetus, the father. It means protecting the life of. It means offering alternatives to murder or ending the life. If a mother's life is in danger, than it's a difficult decision as to who lives, but very few abortions are due to the life of the mother. Most of them are due to the use of abortion as a form a birth control. Even the original Roe vs Wade wasn't passed for that purpose. The wording "anti-abortion" is a generality that implies it's 1 issue issue... Kind of like "anti-war" that encompasses anything having to do with war. It's about life!
The AP does get to make recommendations and guidelines for journalists, and news and media organizations are free to adopt them or not. And your comment is supportive of why when talking about abortion, using the language of anti-abortion is preferred because more specific and clear about the policy and laws concerned....
“Use 'anti-abortion' instead of 'pro-life' and 'pro-abortion rights' instead of 'pro-abortion' or 'pro-choice.'”—"The Associated Press Stylebook 2016" (p. 3)
Yeah, that's not a real citation Ed. And it would be considered outdated and incorrectly formatted citation as well. And it's misleading as you leave off the relevant part:
“Use the modifiers anti-abortion or abortion-rights; don’t use pro-life, pro-choice or pro-abortion unless they are in quotes or proper names.”
Thank you all for conceding that I am right. While your comments may be interesting, they are irrelovant to the topic, which is that the AP Stylebook promotes propaganda by saying journalists are to,“Use 'anti-abortion' instead of 'pro-life' and 'pro-abortion rights' instead of 'pro-abortion' or 'pro-choice.'” You fail to prove that this is untrue. Logically without such proof, you concede I am right, regardless of your opinions and speculations.
Pro life means pro life, anti abortion, no killing of innocent life, a life that is separate from the mother with its own DNA. Most "pro abortionists" still think like they did when Roe vs Wade was passed. Science caught up a long time ago. Abortions are performed based on "feelings" and rhetoric. If science and logic were used, abortions wouldn't exist.
I hope history looks back at the killing of unborn babies the same light history looks back at the evil of slavery. Future society will hopefully look back with disbelief and horror as to how humans could have been so barbaric: the cavalier destruction of babies growing in would-be mother's wombs. God is forming life in the woman's womb, and mini gods have no problem ripping them out. Or instead of becoming God fearing people, will this country continue to degenerate to the point where we don't stop with the unborn? Will we become so vile that snuffing out life up until the baby starts to crawl becomes acceptable?