ODE shouldn’t play name game
I was greatly puzzled at the editorial note prior to Brian Stubbs’s guest commentary on Feb. 7 (Abortion supporters must use facts, logic to persuade, ODE). Exactly how is it “standard newspaper” practice to call those who hold to a pro-life position “anti-abortion”? Whoever creates the “standard newspaper practice” clearly doesn’t think about the issues, but likes to begin the dialogue with slick rhetoric that places preconceived notions into the reader’s mind.
For example, being pro-life does and always will mean being pro/for the life of the fetus/child. If there was a method of abortion that terminated pregnancy but kept a fetus/baby alive someone with a “pro”-life position would support that.
When the Emerald or any editorial force sways an opinion by using a new name like anti-abortion, or even more absurd, “anti-choice,” they are not sticking to the issues but playing off of human emotion and a cultural distaste for perceived oppression. Not only do these names not accurately represent a pro-life position, they change the argument to one where we are not even arguing about the same things.
Pro-life simply means for the life of the child, period.

Mike Alverts

Eugene

Emerald shows bias again
In reference to “Abortion supporters must use facts, logic to persuade” (ODE, 02/07), doesn’t it seem a bit ridiculous for the Emerald, before printing a guest commentary, to qualify the author’s word selection, in this case objecting to the term “pro-life”?
Moreover, isn’t it a back-handed slap to the guest writer? If the Emerald wants a wide range of viewpoints to appear on its letters page, the Emerald would be well advised to treat its commentators better.
Would the Emerald describe the other side as “pro-abortion?” Of course not; they use “pro-choice,” which is not the linguistic opposite. In fact, on Jan. 23, Emerald writer Ben Hughes used the clearly biased phrasing “anti-choice” — in a news article, no less.
The fact is, “pro-choice” is no more semantically descriptive than the term “pro-life,” to which the Emerald so notably objects. Even then, “pro-choice” is less descriptive, because it leaves the point of contention out of the discussion, viz. abortion.
Especially when using loaded words such as “progressive” and “diversity” as a matter of routine, the Emerald is in no position to criticize others’ self-applied political designations. Instead of being the unbiased journal of record that it purports to be, the Emerald once again reveals itself to be liberal by default.

William W. Beutler

editor emeritus

Oregon Commentator

Let’s … roll?
I have the highest respect for the Office of the Presidency, but (President George W.) Bush is now besmirching that office and insulting the intelligence of the American public by saying “Let’s Roll.” It’s not exactly “When in the course of human events …” or “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country …” I’m sure his speechwriters can come up with something better. A truly strong president has no need for a catch phrase.

Chuck Slothower

freshman

pre-journalism