“Pregnancy and fetal development are a continuum,” said the [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists] president, Dr Ted Anderson. “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.”
I don’t wonder that this doctor is confused, given that the electrically induced flickering of the clump of cells in his chest is obviously not a heartbeat. How could it be, since he is himself heartless?
FYI, that piece Lucas posted is by David Daleiden. You probably remember him from the undercover videos that the Center for Medical Progress did a few years ago.
Why are NPR journalists themselves told not to use them? In the case of “pro-choice,” the language is accurate. Those on that side want women to have the option to choose whether to have an abortion. People who oppose abortion rights don’t see it as a choice between two morally equivalent positions, but, opinions aside, that language does go back to the central focus of the legal and political controversy: it is a choice that the Supreme Court so far has ruled lies with the pregnant woman.
“Pro-life” is a bit murkier.
It seems to me that, by the nature of the case, to “not take a side” in the abortion debate is to take a side. This is because you simply can’t decide to be neutral on whether or not it’s a person. There is no middle ground.
Sure. But each side has its preferred terms (“pro-choice” and “pro-life”). To use those terms involves a certain amount of question-begging, but it’s hard for anyone to squawk too much.
But framing the question around being for or against “abortion rights” is question-begging of epic proportions. And scolding your reporters for calling an unborn baby a “baby”, as though anyone calls an unborn baby anything other than a “baby,” well, that’s just advocacy.
Full disclosure: I didn’t read the NPR article posted.
: