From: sbrady@afit.af.mil (Stephan P. Brady)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:19:28 GMT

bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.203155.25224@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>The media used the "pro-choice" label 97 percent of the time when referring
>>to the pro-abortion side of the debate.  They used the "pro-life" label just
>>21 percent of the time when refering to the anti-abortion side (usually 
>>calling them "anti-abortionists").  Again, this has nothing to do with the
>>validity of the two sides' choice of names--only whether or not the media
>>chooses to use the chosen (positively spun) label, or whether it instead 
>>makes the judgement that another (more accurate?) label should be used.  

>Well, I think your mistake is in assuming that pro-choice ==
>pro-abortion and pro-life != anti-abortion.  I find the pro-life label
>dishonest because it implies that since I'm pro-choice I am therefore
>anti-life and pro-abortion.  Geez, I guess I'll have to mow over some
>bicylists on my way home this evening and I'll have to quit neglecting
>my job of recommending abortions to my pregnant co-workers.


Gee,forgive me while I diagree.  Now let's see, if you switch your
statement around, won't it sound quite silly?  See:  "I find the
pro-choice label dishonest because it implies that since I'm pro-life I
am therefore anti-choice and anti-abortion.  Geez, I guess I'll have to
only order Big Macs at McDonalds on my way home this evening and I'll
have to start tying pregnant women ("parasitically challenged" according
to U.S. News and World Report in June) up to keep them from even
considering an abortion"

Sounds rather silly, eh?  well, so did your statement.  The problem
REALLY is that the two sides are arguing about two VERY DIFFERENT
issues.  As Eliyahu Goldratt, the father of the Theory of Constraints
wounld say, they need to "Check their assumptions!"

Pro-life people are not against choice.  That would be absurd.  WE would
then be like Henry Ford who said you can have any color car you want as
long as it is black.  Choice is inherent in our society.  Pro-life
people just realize that there are certain choices that carry dire
circumstances, and we are not allowed to make without any repercussions.
Imagine the person who exercises the "right to choose" to drive on the
left side of a major (US, for you Brits) highway.  *IF* they survive,
and DON'T kill anyone else, they *WILL* be arrested when caught.  That
is a choice that society does not want to see.  The same is true for
choices to pay our income taxes.  What would Bill Clinton (" I am
pro-choice, but not pro-abortion") say if we "Choose" to NOT pay his tax
increase?  I would guess he would send the IRS cops.

Now see, even CHOICE has it's bounds, so can we really say it is a
"fundamental" right?  Oh, yeah, I forgot, only "WOMEN" have the
"Fundamental right to choice!"

heehee--Tongue FIRMLY placed in cheek!

>Brendan
>-- 
>Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
>Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
>Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail.

-- 
sbrady@galaxy.afit.af.mil
"Opinions held on every subject.  While they may not actually reflect the
opinions of my employer, they are a tribute to the freedoms enjoyed under
the First Amendment"