Tag Archives: pro-choice

1 Comment

Looking back at Tiger Woods

One of the "bad" things about reading blogs the way that I do is that I end up with a lot of open tabs.  The upside is that I end up with different perspectives and/or a running commentary from different sources.

Truth in Advertising (Parchment and Pen)

If You Can Find a Better Deal, TAKE IT! (Ann Coulter)


There May Be More Errors- can we please stop calling them "errors"?  If you repeat a lie, it doesn't make it an "error", it makes a lie that you're repeating.

I Knew the Data Hadn't Been Verified - can we stop calling it "not verified"?

President Obama's pro-abortion record

(no, not "pro-choice)

On Haiti

What Pat Robertson Should Have Said

Who Will Be Left...? (I love the Hillbuzz guys!)

Doctrinal Issues (could be research paper fodder

Why I believe the Canon is Fallible and Am Fine With It (Reclaiming the Mind)

Case Studies...

Michigan Politics

In one of the worst economies in the country...our Senator Levin says that "unemployment has not been his focus."  Thanks for all the "help", Senator.

Tim Keller reviews "The Shack"


I thought I had written on the terms "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" before, but there were a few posts that got "lost" when I changed web hosts.  I'll end up writing again, because I do not self-identify as "pro-life", but prefer the term "anti-abortion".

I read an article at "GetReligion.org" about a couple of news stories:

This one is from "Newsbusters":

Christianity Today Favors 'Anti-abortion' Over 'Pro-life' Label?

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.

The gist of the story seems to be saying that "Christianity Today" magazine prefers one label over the other.  The reality is that the ad being spoke of is not "pro-life" in general, but is specific to the abortion issue.  Thus, if CT generally uses "pro-life", but for this specific, anti-abortion ad, uses "anti-abortion", it doesn't mean that they prefer the label in general, only that it is more accurate for that particular ad.

Here is the CT story in question.

I think that this is a "not a story", but rather a commentary  on how groups "self-describe".

I self-describe as "anti-abortion".  I also make a distinction between those more general "pro-choice" folks and those who have never seen an abortion that they did not support (pro-abortion).

For example:  Roe v. Wade is "pro-choice".  FOCA is pro-abortion.

A Michigan blog I've just discovered:  Torch Lake Views.


From Dark Roasted Blend (one of my favorite photo blogs)


Gay activists are angry at Barack Obama;

Pro-lifers are angry at Rick Warren...



The Dugger family welcomes child #18.  (profanity alert:  the link goes to the Huffington Post and evidently the only time "pro-choice" applies is when a family is "choosing" a small family...or better yet, abortion.)


A "New Years Resolution" of a different sort?  Lignon Duncan will be reading and blogging through "Calvin's Institutes" in 2009