Abortion is one of the most-skewed topics in politics today. The left constantly asserts that abortion is a “right,” and that that right is exclusively the domain of the mother-to-be with nary a mention of the child growing inside or the father.
It is twisted and distorted with ease. When Texas passed legislation to make the process safer for women by mandating a baseline of medical standards, Republicans were accused of waging a “war on women” in the Lone Star State; few media outlets reported the truth- that the legislation sought to provide a safer medical environment for women.
The modern left thinks in terms of hashtags and slogans and seemingly avoids at all cost the prospect of deeper, substantive discussions in favor of name-calling and assigning misleading labels. Nowhere is this more evident than in discussions surrounding abortion.
“Keep your politics out of my womb,” “My body, my choice” and other slogans adorn signs and bumper stickers frequently in order to frame abortion as a women’s rights issue and the mainstream media has been compliant in this distraction.
Now, the BBC is taking the lead on providing cover for the baby-killing crowd.
The BBC recently told reporters that they are to refer to “pro-life” positions as “anti-abortion.”
Meanwhile, those who hold a favorable viewpoint of abortion are to be labeled as “pro-choice” as they “favour a woman’s right to choose.”
The broadcaster’s official style guide states: “Avoid pro-abortion, and use pro-choice instead. Campaigners favour a woman’s right to choose, rather than abortion itself.”
The same style guide later tells staff to use “anti-abortion” instead of “pro-life” without indicating why.
By the same “logic” as above, shouldn’t the BBC see those who abhor abortion as being “campaigners who favour the preservation of life”? Thus, it stands to reason that “pro-life” is a perfectly applicable label.
Peter D. Williams of campaign group Right to Life blasted the “systemic” bias, saying,
“Whether or not BBC bias on life issues is unconscious or pathological, this document shows that is systemic, and that the BBC staff who composed it either cynically or in gross ignorance have stacked the language of the debate in abortion lobbyists’ favour.”
“The BBC must reverse this policy, and apologise for their utter lack of consultation and fair-mindedness in forming it.”
The BBC defended the shameful bias, saying:
“Our aim is to report impartially and we use the terminology that most accurately reflects both sides of the abortion debate.”
BBC’s liberal bias is disappointing but not altogether surprising. Modern liberal ideology cannot survive if those who identify with the dogma apply a modicum of scrutiny to their ideological stances. Political self-awareness is wholly incompatible with much of the left’s doctrine and the fragility of a belief system built upon a prioritization of feelings over thoughts cannot abide applying a congruent standard for these beliefs.
Thus, it is easier to create labels and catchy slogans that satisfy the political yearnings for those who can appreciate superficiality but who remain uncomfortable with shining a light on the ideological incongruences they harbor.