Linguistic contortions: Liberals say "abortion provider" but not "anesthetics provider"

WORLD May 26, 2001: Linguistic contortions

var isContents=false

Call 1-800-951-NEWS (6397) to subscribe today!

ARCHIVE FROM:
May 26, 2001
Volume 16
Number 20

A.side {color:white;}

9/11 - Special Report-->

Islam - Special Report

Read Central Ideas in the Development of American Journalism, Telling the Truth and Prodigal Press, three books on journalism by Marvin Olasky. Click here for WORLD apparel!-->

Add Olasky, Belz, and other great thinkers to your reading list!

Free Book!

Find out how to contact us.

Not familiar with WORLD Magazine? Find out more about us.

Read our Mission Statement.

If you are already a WORLD reader, head to Help Us Out to find out how to help us grow. Interested in using WORLD articles in your paper or magazine? Find out how.-->

Find out about this site.

Excellence in Home Education starts here. Visit the new God's World Book Club Online! www.gwbc.com.

Check out the World Journalism Institute website at www.worldji.com and apply online!

Since 1981, God's World News has been helping children to understand and interpret the world around them. Now you can visit God's World News Online at GWNews.com

JUDGMENT CALLS

Linguistic contortions

Liberals say "abortion provider" but not "anesthetics provider"

By Timothy Lamer

The lady from the newspaper was polite but firm. No, she said over the phone, she would not sell WORLD a photo that we wanted to buy for a story about abortion, because her paper didn't want to "take sides" on the issue.

WORLD occasionally publishes photos that we buy from newspapers, and we rarely run into such opposition. It's a routine practice: The newspaper sells the photo to us, and we run a credit at the bottom of the page on which the photo appears.

But this time a newspaper balked, and we had to find photos elsewhere. The photo was the newspaper's property, and the paper had every right to deny our request. But what's interesting is one of the grounds on which the paper's staffers made the decision: In describing the story to them, we had used the word "abortionist" to refer to a doctor who performs abortions full-time.

WORLD, it seems, had committed a major media faux pas. It isn't controversial to call a doctor who deals with the nervous system a "neurologist," or a doctor who specializes in hearts a "cardiologist." But it is now beyond the pale to use the similarly neutral term "abortionist" to refer to a doctor who performs abortions. "Abortion doctor" and, especially, "abortion provider" have become the media's acceptable descriptions of abortionists.

A Nexis search of four major metropolitan dailies (the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post) proves the point. In labeling abortionists, reporters go through linguistic contortions that they don't feel the need to perform when labeling other types of doctors.

During a recent one-month period, the four newspapers had 39 references to "dermatologist," with no references to "skin doctor" or "skin care provider." They had 34 references to "anesthesiologist," with no references to "anesthetics doctor" or "anesthetics provider." But the word "abortionist" appeared only 8 times (and many of those were references to "anti-abortionists," the press's favorite term for pro-lifers), while "abortion doctor" appeared 21 times and "abortion provider" showed up 36 times.

It doesn't seem to matter that "abortionist" is the actual English word for someone who performs abortions. Most dictionaries have an entry for "abortionist," or at least a reference to the word under the entry for "abortion." (An abortionist is "a producer of abortions," according to my Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.) No dictionary that I could find had an entry or reference for "abortion provider" or "abortion doctor."

So why do liberals and reporters insist on avoiding the proper word for this occupation? If an abortion is really no more morally wrong than the removal of a pimple, why is the label "abortionist" more offensive to liberals than the label "dermatologist"? Why must reporters call an abortionist an "abortion provider" but not call an anesthesiologist an "anesthetics provider"? If abortion is truly a fundamental right for women, then wouldn't a doctor be proud to be an "abortionist"?

Apparently not. Abortionist Ron Fitzsimmons famously said a few years back that he didn't want people to make him feel like a "dirty little abortionist" for performing the partial-birth abortion procedure. Liberal reporters and activists have been happy to comply, going even further in torturing the language than liberal politicians who speak of "a woman's right to choose" while studiously avoiding the word "abortion." (See WORLD, "Ducking the 'A' word," July 3/10, 1999.) Reporters have actually invented a new term-abortion provider-to avoid using direct language.

Liberals speak of "choosing" instead of "abortion," and "providers" instead of "abortionists," because accurate language about the procedure makes people uncomfortable. The term "abortionist" is precise but raw, bringing to mind exactly what it is that these doctors do for a living. Cuddly terminology serves to deflect attention away from the true violence of the abortion procedure.

And it may even be that liberals aren't just acting as propagandists when they bend the language on abortion. They may also be trying to fool themselves. Maybe deep down in their hearts, where the law of God is written, liberals know that abortion is evil, and they don't like the word "abortionist" because they don't want to be reminded of that fact.

Search for more
articles about:

if(parent.frames.length>0&&!isContents) top.location.replace(document.location)

Pro-life Bump

Pro life Bump

Smack.......

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.....

Baby bump........pink and blue........

ping for life

You: "Whaaaaaaaaaaaa...." Me: Actually, during the abortions the babies' cries (as they are ripped apart limb from limb by the abortionists' bloody scalpels) are muffled by the mothers womb and because the babies' lungs are filled with fluid - so the cries of the massacred unborn are silent.

I was hoping for a live birth.

I encourage all pro-lifers to use the term "preborn" instead of "unborn" because "unborn" sounds likes you're talking about a zombie or something. "Preborn" is accurate because you're talking about an individual human life, i.e., a person, who will be born but has not yet been born. The choice of words can be very important as the thrust of this article suggests.

Also, I wrote a play a few years ago entitled, "The Trial of Little Deer", which ridicules the pro-choice position without mercy. If anyone would like a copy I'd be happy to email it to you. The only caveat is that you cannot produce the play without my written permission.

Abortionist Ron Fitzsimmons famously said a few years back that he didn't want people to make him feel like a "dirty little abortionist" for performing the partial-birth abortion procedure.

Isn't it interesting that Fitzsimmons worried more that someone might "make him feel like a dirty little abotionist" than he did about actually being one.

If the shoe fits . . . .

Maybe deep down in their hearts, where the law of God is written, liberals know that abortion is evil

Too rarely is this very real possibility pointed out.

I'm sure child molesters don't like for other people to make them feel like 'dirty little pedophiles,' but that is still what they are.

Actually, during the abortions the babies' cries (as they are ripped apart limb from limb by the abortionists' bloody scalpels) are muffled by the mothers womb and because the babies' lungs are filled with fluid - so the cries of the massacred unborn are silent.

Actually, most abortions are performed at 10 weeks, when the foetus is about the size of your thumb and is still in the very early developmental stages. Certainly not to the point of having functional vocal cords. Also, as far as I am aware, scalpels aren't used in abortions. The procedure is along the lines of a dilation and curettage. The lining of the womb is scraped, but I think there would be some major medical misadventure claims if that was done with a scalpel!

But these things don't matter to the propaganda-pushers, do they? I find that telling the truth about things is far more effective.

provide: Definition #1 to take precautionary measures [~for the common defense -- U.S. Constitution]#3: to make preparation to meet a need esp: to supply something for sustenance or support. ( Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary)

NEWSPEAK LIVES!!CHILDREN DIE!!

Sorry to spoil the party, but "abortionology" is not a recognized medical specialty, such as anaesthesiology, dermatology, etc. The abortion surgery (or medication) is usually provided by a gynecologist, sometimes by a general surgeon, or some other medical doctor with generalized training that qualifies them under state law to provide abortion services. That's why doctors who perform (voluntary, induced) abortions are correctly referred to as abortion providers.

It would be semantically incorrect to refer to an "abortionist" as one would refer to a "anaesthesiologist."

One title denotes specialized training in a medical specialty, the other does not.

That's why doctors who perform (voluntary, induced) abortions are correctly referred to as abortion providers. I'll just stick with 'serial killers' 'cause that's waht they are, dirty little serial killers hired to do a hit on a helpless human, being an individual human prior to the birth process. They're just serial killers. Screw this PC crap of titling them as trained medical personnel, they're just trained, happy to do the deed and get paid for it, serial killers.

i CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT THE BABY IS STILL DEAD????oh well, it didn't actually cry.....brilliant

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't happend to completely agree - for one thing, they have the law on their side, serial killers don't.

Most people aren't in favor of abortion, including me, but it does have medical benefit to the woman at least, and the law doesn't recognize a non-viable human being as a separate individual.

Work to change THAT, is my idea.