Pro-choice and pro-life

Pro-choice and pro-life are terms of self-identification used by the two sides of the abortion debate: those who support access to abortion, and those who seek to restrict it, respectively. They are generally considered loaded language, since they frame the corresponding position in terms of inherently positive qualities (and thus position their opponents as "anti-choice" or "anti-life"). For this reason, more neutral or descriptive alternatives are sometimes preferred, for example by describing groups or individuals as supporters or opponents of abortion or abortion rights.

The term pro-life began to be used by opponents of legal abortion around the early 1970s, born from the related term "right to life". The term pro-choice (or "right to choose") was coined in response by abortion rights advocates shortly after.

Origins

Pro-life

The earliest use of the term pro-life cited by the Oxford English Dictionary is in the 1960 book Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing by educator A. S. Neill, though Neill uses it in a more general sense not specific to abortion:

No pro-life parent or teacher would ever strike a child. No pro-life citizen would tolerate our penal code, our hangings, our punishment of homosexuals, our attitude toward bastardy.[1][2]

The earliest citation for an abortion-specific sense of the term is a 1971 reference in the Los Angeles Times to "pro-life, anti-abortion educational programs".[2]

The adjective pro-life seems to derive from earlier constructions involving the word life used by opponents of legal abortion, particularly the phrase "right to life". For example, anti-abortion organizations founded in the late 1960s included the Right to Life League and Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life. However, in early usage, prior to the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, the "pro-life" or "right to life" position was more commonly conceived as also encompassing progressive views such as opposition to war, the death penalty, or euthanasia.[1] New York Times language columnist William Safire credits Nellie Gray with popularizing pro-life as a shortened form of the "right to life" slogan.[3] Gray founded the annual March for Life in Washington in 1974.

Pro-choice
A sign at the 1976 Democratic National Convention reading "Freedom of Choice". This and the slogan "right to choose" prefigured the popularity of the term pro-choice.[3]

The term pro-choice entered currency after pro-life and was coined by those who supported legal abortion as a response to the success of the pro-life branding.[1][4] The first use of the term cited by the Oxford English Dictionary is in a 1969 issue of the California daily newspaper the Oxnard Press-Courier, which referred to "Pro-choice and anti-abortion activists... headed to the Women's Clinic."[5] Authors Linda Greenhouse and Reva B. Siegel identify a 1972 memo by Jimmye Kimmey, executive director of the Association for the Study of Abortion, as the genesis of the subsequent widespread adoption of the pro-choice label. In the memo, Kimmey identifies "the need to find a phrase to counter the Right to Life slogan", and suggests "Freedom of Conscience" and "Right to Choose" as possibilities, with a preference for the latter because of its brevity and focus on action rather than the "internal matter" of conscience.[1][6] William Safire suggests the slogan may have drawn influence from the use of "Freedom of Choice" as an anti-integration slogan in the previous decade.[3]

In the years before pro-choice became widely adopted, the qualifier pro-abortion was commonly used by those advocating for legal abortion. For example, a representative of Planned Parenthood referred to "pro-abortion" legislation in a 1975 statement to The Wall Street Journal. Since abortion was legalized in the United States, the term has fallen out of fashion, seen as distracting or inaccurate because many people support legal access to abortion without arguing that it is the right choice.[7][8]

Criticism and analysis

Those who identify as pro-choice generally reject the framing of the term pro-life and vice-versa. The terms are commonly interpreted as derogating the other side of the debate by implying that they are either "anti-choice" or "anti-life" (or "pro-death").[9][1][3] The decision to brand the movements in positive rather than negative terms has been compared to the earlier use of the phrase "right to work" instead of "anti-union".[3]

Planned Parenthood announced in 2013 that it would no longer use the label pro-choice. The organization suggested that the word choice might have an undesirably "frivolous" connotation, and that polling suggested that the binary labels pro-choice and pro-life failed to capture the nuanced views of Americans toward abortion. For example, one poll sponsored by the organization showed that 35% of voters who identified as pro-life did not believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Another survey found that 12% of respondents identified with both the labels pro-choice and pro-life simultaneously.[10] Planned Parenthood deliberately declined to propose a replacement term.[10][7]

Expanded definitions

On one Mothers' Day, US pastor-turned-senator Raphael Gamaliel Warnock argued that being 'anti-abortion' and being 'pro-life' are not synonymous. [11]

An article in the National Catholic Reporter has asserted that climate change is the "No. 1 pro-life issue" facing the Catholic Church today.[12]

Media usage

Many press style guides, including those used by NPR and the Associated Press,[13] advise against using the terms pro-choice and pro-life, except when they occur in the name of an organization or in a quote. NPR's policy recommends alternative constructions such as "abortion rights supporters" and "abortion rights opponents". It permits the qualifier "anti-abortion", but not "pro-abortion rights".[13] The style guide of The Guardian recommends the terms "anti-abortion" (rather than "pro-life") and "pro-choice" (rather than "pro-abortion").[14]

See also

References
  1. Merelli, Annalisa (28 January 2017). "A brief history of a marketing masterpiece: branding the anti-abortion movement "pro-life"". Quartz.
  2. "pro-life". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. Retrieved 16 March 2022. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
  3. Safire, William (18 March 1979). "ASAP's Fables". The New York Times.
  4. Harmon, Amy (22 May 2019). "'Fetal Heartbeat' vs. 'Forced Pregnancy': The Language Wars of the Abortion Debate". New York Times.
  5. "pro-choice". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. Retrieved 16 March 2022. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
  6. Greenhouse, Linda; Siegel, Reva (2012). Before Roe V. Wade: Voices that Shaped the Abortion Debate Before the Supreme Court's Ruling (PDF) (2nd ed.). Yale Law School. ISBN 9780615648217.
  7. Rothman, Lily (23 January 2013). "The End of Pro-Choice: Will 'No Labels' Really Help the Abortion Debate?". The Atlantic.
  8. Barbato, Lauren (31 July 2014). "Should We Say "Pro-Choice" Or "Pro-Abortion?"". Bustle.
  9. Jensen, Elizabeth (29 May 2019). "Reviewing NPR's Language For Covering Abortion". NPR Public Editor. NPR.
  10. North, Anna (9 January 2013). "Planned Parenthood Moving Away From "Choice"". BuzzFeed.
  11. Time magazine, Volume 200, July 4/July 11 2021, "The Reverend Senator", page 41 "On Mother's Day, his address was title 'A Mother Trying to Make it,' in which he engaged the question of Roe v. Wade. He insisted that being anti-abortion is not the same as being pro-life. He discussed a range of issues that illustrated the breadth of the impact of women's reproductive health and freedom. He preached about other issues that should fall under the heading of being 'pro-life,' including criminal-justice reform, maternal mortality, and Medicaid reform."
  12. "Climate change is church's No. 1 pro-life issue". National Catholic Reporter. Vol. 50, no. 16. 20 May 2014. p. 28. Retrieved 14 September 2017.
  13. Shepard, Alicia C. (24 March 2010). "NPR Changes Abortion Language". NPR Public Editor. NPR.
  14. Glenza, Jessica (7 June 2019). "Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses to describe abortion bans". TheGuardian.com.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.