Updated below: CT editor responds to NewsBusters.
Evangelical magazine Christianity Today is using the term "anti-abortion," rather than "pro-life," to refer to a CatholicVote.com ad which NBC has refused to air during the Super Bowl. (h/t @pdavidy8)
The term "anti-abortion" isn't used by reporter Sarah Pulliam in the body of her article posted at CTliveblog, but it is used in her January 30 article's headline -- Anti-Abortion Super Bowl Ad Rejected by NBC -- on the magazine's Twitter page (see screencap at right).
By using "anti-abortion" in its headline, Christianity Today appears to be following the lead of the Associated Press. The AP calls for the term "anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice" in its Stylebook. AP goes further and frowns on the term "abortionist," saying it "connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions," so a reporter should "use a term such as abortion doctor or abortion practitioner," it counsels.
While many journalists and news agencies outside the AP follow the Stylebook, including (for the most part) this organization, they are free to supercede the manual where they see fit. For example, our very own NewsBusters Style Guide has this mandate for our contributors:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓Refer to both sides [of the abortion debate] using their preferred language, pro-life and pro-choice.
So the question posed by David Drake [@pdavidy8] of Wyoming, Michigan, to Christianity Today remains:
Can we use the term "Pro-Life" Anti-Abortion seems like pejorative labeling
Update (11:40 p.m. EST): Christianity Today online managing editor Ted Olsen sent this reply defending the choice of "anti-abortion" as the label for the video in question:
A two-second search would have shown that we use pro-life quite a bit, Ken. What was the point of the post? To suggest that CT is compromising on abortion? What the heck?
The headline is specific. The ad is against abortion. It's not about embryonic stem cells, assisted suicide, emergency "contraception," etc. It's about abortion. And it's against it. It's an anti-abortion ad from a pro-life group.
Can you name one mainstream pro-life group that considers anti-abortion pejorative?
Proud to be anti-abortion,
Ted
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Can't we just call it what
January 30, 2009 - 17:35 ET by taterCan't we just call it what it really is?
Baby murder.
www.theholyrosary.org
"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia
Official terms of the
January 30, 2009 - 18:17 ET by EdhenryOfficial terms of the struggle to give the unborn the right to life and not be murdered:
"Prolife"
"Baby killers"
positive or negative
January 31, 2009 - 03:48 ET by m1xramTerminology determines how the ad sounds.
The ad is so good I'd use option 1. My personal preference, like yours, is for option 2.
Pelosi
January 30, 2009 - 18:37 ET by rick007What a freak!!!
Shes worse than the Killer Kennedy.
My Preferred Language
January 30, 2009 - 19:23 ET by BondPlainBondAnti-Abortion: as opposed to Pro-Abortion. A pejorative? Perhaps. But abortion is a contemptuous act and the term frames my disapproval accordingly.
Pro-Choice: a propaganda tool, a misnomer used by the feminists and those that support and defend those that murder the unborn. The baby has no choice in deciding whether it lives or dies.
Abortionist: every individual that performs abortions - in every circumstance, clandestine or not.
I'm with Christianity Today on this issue.
As far as the anti-abortion commercial being pulled and the sexually suggestive PETA commercial allowed to remain; it stresses to me the continuing desire of advertising agencies to further the premature sexualization of America's youth.
Have sex (liberalism) vs be responsible (conservatism).
Well, the ad itself is not
January 30, 2009 - 20:57 ET by Ken ShepherdWell, the ad itself is not focused on any particular abortion issue, the ad is focused on conveying the pro-life ethic: that every life has God-given potential for greatness. So calling it an anti-abortion ad is not as accurate as saying it's a pro-life ad.
Well the dirty little secret is
January 30, 2009 - 23:51 ET by nwahsWell the dirty little secret is Evangelicals don't really consider Catholics "Christian". Perhaps Christian light, but not bonafide "Christians."
Its the damn Irish in the lot
catholic
January 31, 2009 - 04:31 ET by m1xramI'm not Catholic and I don't think of Catholics as non-Christians. Every denomination has problems, see Matthew 13:24-30 and Romans 3:10. Matthew will tell you why there are problems within the church and so will Romans.
Did PEW do some kind of poll on this?
In my teens
January 31, 2009 - 19:51 ET by nwahsIn my teens I experimented in religion and as a baptized Catholic, I met a lot of bigotry in Evangelical/Pentecostal churches. It may have changed in more recent years, but from what I read, there still seems to be tiers among Christians with Evangelicals assuming the throne.
I experimented in religion
February 1, 2009 - 05:35 ET by Dan The Man 2I experimented in religion and as a baptized Catholic,
And you did not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior and tehrefore will suffer forever in Hell. Some Catholics are Christians and some evanjecals are Christians and some who sit teh pews and are faithful churchgoers are not. The difference between a Christian and nonChristian reading teh Bible is understanding what it says.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
no tiers
February 3, 2009 - 03:18 ET by m1xramI don't know what you mean by tiers. No Christian is better than any other. Did you look up Romans 3:10?
Matthew 13:24-30 is the Parable of the Weeds. It basically says that good and bad people coexist everywhere and they can be difficult to tell apart. We are supposed to let God judge them.
This is probably why you had problems in your youth. I had similar problems. When church leaders or the congregation don't do the right thing they become stumbling blocks to people. Christians are supposed to focus on how Jesus taught us to live.
Pick one of the Gospels and read it if you want to understand Christianity. The Gospels aren't that long. Matthew 1. Click next chapter to advance.
Pro-Life / Pro-Death
January 31, 2009 - 07:49 ET by kilrodMy opinion, which aint worth much, the correct terms are Pro-Life / Pro-Death. The "choice" has already been made; If you are against abortion you are Pro-Life/"for" the life of the unborn, if you are for abortion, the death(murder) of the unborn, you are Pro-Death/"for" death. You're also polo caca scum of the earth.
When are all the intelligent, educated, successfull folks of this nation gonna get their head outta their arses and realize that God has forsaken this nation untill abortion becomes illegal and the life of the unborn is protected, honored and precious again?? I refer you to the results of the last election, if you still don't "get it", you will by the end of 2010~~!!
I would rather have a Pro-Life Catholic in my foxhole than a queer are a dimocrap!!~~!!
kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
The World Has Changed
January 31, 2009 - 11:19 ET by BlueCat57The world has changed over the last 30+ years.
As a student at a conservative Christian college in the 70's I could depend on Christianity Today to provide good, conservative perspective on Christianity.
Not anymore. Christianity Today is now a liberal publication that represents Evangelical, not conservative/Fundamentalist Christians. There is a difference folks. Do some research, especially on the difference between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. The differences are subtle, but significant. Like calling Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint Republicans. A BIG! difference between the two of them. Think of Graham as an Evangelical and DeMint as a conservative/Fundamentalist.
So all you conservatives out there stop relying on Christianity Today. They no longer represent your way of thinking. They are Liberal through and through. They are like the RINOs that are cited by the MSM to prove that Republicans agree with Democrats.
Don't be fooled. The Newsbusters staff is probably holds more conservative Christian values than the Christianity Today editorial staff.
We aren't going to win in the war of ideas if we continue to allow the liberals to define the terms. I can define any term in such a way that I can always win the argument.
I'm pro-choice. When you choose to have sex (and I mean intercourse ex-Pres. Clinton) you choose to accept responsibility for the consequences. But I can't use pro-choice as I define it so I lose the argument.
Based on what I’ve seen recently of Christianity Today I would say yes, they are beginning to compromise on abortion. It starts slowly and subtly. I lived through that at the conservative Christian college I attended. The compromise has begun and don’t let them tell you otherwise. We can only judge by what we see, and I see compromise in Christianity Today.
Pro-life vs Pro-death, Anti-abortion vs Pro-abortion, Human-rights vs Abortion-rights. If abortion is no big deal then why do they have to hide it with nice sounding words?
Pro-MURDER is my choice.
January 31, 2009 - 17:51 ET by Massage_Master07Why don't we just call it what it is, huh? Pro-MURDER, of the defenseless, unborn babies.
Now, some of the few people, with hindsight being 20/20, who SHOULD have been aborted, our ever hypocritical Fuehrer and his Goering (Pelosi) and Goebbels (Reid). Heil Obama.