5 ms·

Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses to describe abortion bans

17 points by okket 7y ago

jamesmackennon 7y ago
For some reason, any sort of styleguide discussion always reminds me of this: https://33hpwq10j9luq8gl43e62q4e-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/1984_-_newspeak_dictionary.pdf https://33hpwq10j9luq8gl43e62q4e-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-...
joelrunyon 7y ago
> 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 7y ago
  > 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 7y ago
    > 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.
    - me_me_me 7y ago
      no, it might and that is a big difference. Because it doesn't have to develop into heart. What about case where twins are developing and one cannibalizes the other? Is that a murder now?
    - Xylakant 7y ago
      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 7y ago
        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.
- Qwertystop 7y ago
  > Isn't a heartbeat in general to be considered an "electrically induced flickering" of sorts? My reading is that the argument is not that a heartbeat isn't "electrically induced flickering" but that the thing flickering should not yet be classified as a heart, and so it's disingenuous to call it a heartbeat.
- Xylakant 7y ago
  > Isn't a heartbeat in general to be considered an "electrically induced flickering" of sorts? I don’t think the criticism is on the “electrically induced flickering” part of the statement. The entire embryo at that stage is about the size of a kidney bean. There’s no heart to speak of, and probably no audible beat. (Doctors, correct me here)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- sparrish 7y ago
  It is a heartbeat. It is a human baby with separate DNA from his/her mother. It is life. If we found a similar 'clump of cells' on Mars, the headlines would be filled with "Life found on Mars!" They feel the need to change the language to obfusticate the truth. Innocent life must be protected.
  - foolrush 7y ago
    If they found a blob of cells growing inside of a human woman on Mars, they would say “Look we found a human woman on Mars!” There is literally no heart there. Downvotes. By dudes. Fuck this cesspool. Consider the woman involved here before you idiots force your regressive legislations.
  - fortydegrees 7y ago
    >Innocent life must be protected. I think this is the commonly attacked premise for abortion, roughly along utilitarian lines.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    It doesn't pump blood. It's not a heart.
    - andrenth 7y ago
      Is it also not a human being? Is it not a life?
      - gtf21 7y ago
        Inasmuch as a the millions of sperm/eggs that don't make it is a human being, it doesn't really have any human characteristics yet.
        sparrish 7y ago
        That's just not true. The science is very clear on that. "Weeks 6 to 7 Arm and leg buds start to grow. Your baby's brain forms into 5 different areas. Some cranial nerves are visible. Eyes and ears begin to form. Tissue grows that will become your baby's spine and other bones. Baby's heart continues to grow and now beats at a regular rhythm. Blood pumps through the main vessels." https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm
- gtfratteus 7y ago
  I have no strong opinions on whether life begins at birth or conception, but I highly doubt this "electrical flickering" argument is going to be very persuasive amongst the general public. It seems quite transparent that they're just trying to dehumanize the fetus in order to help their political agenda. When pregnant women go in for ultrasounds from now on, is the doctor going to start calling it "electrical flickering?" My guess is not because it is a heartbeat for all intents and purposes except legalizing abortion.
- mcphage 7y ago
  > Isn't a heartbeat in general to be considered an "electrically induced flickering" of sorts? A heartbeat is an "electrically induced flickering", yes. Neon lights are also "electrically induced flickering", but I wouldn't call that a heartbeat.
Damorian 7y ago
Say what you will about abortion, but this is giving me some serious 1984 newspeak vibes.
- Freak_NL 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    I am thinking you've drastically missed the point of the comment you're replying to.
    - lightbritefight 7y ago
      > 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 7y ago
        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).
- thinkingemote 7y ago
  this newspaper speaks to its own readers, it doesn't intend to attract outsiders in. It's very middle class Labour voting chattering classes in its political point of view. Generally it's of good quality. I think it's doing a regular politically correct exercise here. They should be honest about that at least.
exabrial 7y ago
> "anti-abortion" over "pro-life" Seems fair. > and “pro-choice” over “pro-abortion” ok... what
- taborj 7y ago
  And here they said they were doing this to avoid political obfuscation. I sense they're being a bit disingenuous.
  - plotteddancer16 7y ago
    Yes, it’s very disingenuous
  - gtf21 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      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 7y ago
        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.
gl0pratch3t 7y ago
“These bills present the idea that there’s something that looks like what you or a person on the street would call a baby – a thing that’s almost ready to go for a walk,” said Dr Jen Gunter, a gynecologist in Canada and the US who runs an influential blog. “In reality, you’re talking about something that’s millimeters in size and doesn’t look anything like that.” I am slightly above 1828.8 millimeters in size.

17 points by okket 7y ago

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

joelrunyon 7y ago

> 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 7y ago
> 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 7y ago
  > 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.
  - me_me_me 7y ago
    no, it might and that is a big difference. Because it doesn't have to develop into heart. What about case where twins are developing and one cannibalizes the other? Is that a murder now?
  - Xylakant 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      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.
Qwertystop 7y ago
> Isn't a heartbeat in general to be considered an "electrically induced flickering" of sorts? My reading is that the argument is not that a heartbeat isn't "electrically induced flickering" but that the thing flickering should not yet be classified as a heart, and so it's disingenuous to call it a heartbeat.
Xylakant 7y ago
> Isn't a heartbeat in general to be considered an "electrically induced flickering" of sorts? I don’t think the criticism is on the “electrically induced flickering” part of the statement. The entire embryo at that stage is about the size of a kidney bean. There’s no heart to speak of, and probably no audible beat. (Doctors, correct me here)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sparrish 7y ago
It is a heartbeat. It is a human baby with separate DNA from his/her mother. It is life. If we found a similar 'clump of cells' on Mars, the headlines would be filled with "Life found on Mars!" They feel the need to change the language to obfusticate the truth. Innocent life must be protected.
- foolrush 7y ago
  If they found a blob of cells growing inside of a human woman on Mars, they would say “Look we found a human woman on Mars!” There is literally no heart there. Downvotes. By dudes. Fuck this cesspool. Consider the woman involved here before you idiots force your regressive legislations.
- fortydegrees 7y ago
  >Innocent life must be protected. I think this is the commonly attacked premise for abortion, roughly along utilitarian lines.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  It doesn't pump blood. It's not a heart.
  - andrenth 7y ago
    Is it also not a human being? Is it not a life?
    - gtf21 7y ago
      Inasmuch as a the millions of sperm/eggs that don't make it is a human being, it doesn't really have any human characteristics yet.
      - sparrish 7y ago
        That's just not true. The science is very clear on that. "Weeks 6 to 7 Arm and leg buds start to grow. Your baby's brain forms into 5 different areas. Some cranial nerves are visible. Eyes and ears begin to form. Tissue grows that will become your baby's spine and other bones. Baby's heart continues to grow and now beats at a regular rhythm. Blood pumps through the main vessels." https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm
gtfratteus 7y ago
I have no strong opinions on whether life begins at birth or conception, but I highly doubt this "electrical flickering" argument is going to be very persuasive amongst the general public. It seems quite transparent that they're just trying to dehumanize the fetus in order to help their political agenda. When pregnant women go in for ultrasounds from now on, is the doctor going to start calling it "electrical flickering?" My guess is not because it is a heartbeat for all intents and purposes except legalizing abortion.
mcphage 7y ago
> Isn't a heartbeat in general to be considered an "electrically induced flickering" of sorts? A heartbeat is an "electrically induced flickering", yes. Neon lights are also "electrically induced flickering", but I wouldn't call that a heartbeat.

Damorian 7y ago

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

Freak_NL 7y ago
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 7y ago
  I am thinking you've drastically missed the point of the comment you're replying to.
  - lightbritefight 7y ago
    > 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 7y ago
      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).
thinkingemote 7y ago
this newspaper speaks to its own readers, it doesn't intend to attract outsiders in. It's very middle class Labour voting chattering classes in its political point of view. Generally it's of good quality. I think it's doing a regular politically correct exercise here. They should be honest about that at least.

exabrial 7y ago

> "anti-abortion" over "pro-life" Seems fair. > and “pro-choice” over “pro-abortion” ok... what

taborj 7y ago
And here they said they were doing this to avoid political obfuscation. I sense they're being a bit disingenuous.
- plotteddancer16 7y ago
  Yes, it’s very disingenuous
- gtf21 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      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.

gl0pratch3t 7y ago

“These bills present the idea that there’s something that looks like what you or a person on the street would call a baby – a thing that’s almost ready to go for a walk,” said Dr Jen Gunter, a gynecologist in Canada and the US who runs an influential blog. “In reality, you’re talking about something that’s millimeters in size and doesn’t look anything like that.” I am slightly above 1828.8 millimeters in size.