Ever the media watchdog, I shot off a letter to the NY Times today that reflects my interest in the uses and abuses of political language. (Interested Kos readers can refer back to my diaries of 1/20 and 2/3.) It is pretty much self-explanatory:
Dear Sir:
In the note following a letter to the editor today, the Times described the letter-writer as “pro-life.” I object.
In general, I respect the norm of civility that holds that we should call people by the names that they choose for themselves. If they call themselves “pro-life,” that’s what we should call them, right? Wrong. “Pro-life” is a propaganda term whose intent is obviously invidious. It is meant to convey the idea that advocates of the opposing point of view are somehow against, or at best indifferent to, life. It is therefore pointedly offensive to me, a strong supporter of abortion rights who considers himself as “pro-life” as the most fervent opponent of abortion.
Rather than fall in line with partisan propaganda, the Times should use a more neutral, strictly descriptive term to refer to opponents of abortion rights. How about simply “anti-abortion?”