Andrew Marr says "abortion safer then birth, but obviously not for babies"

[darleneconnor]

I'm to have just heard this on his BBC1 show this morning.

He was reading out the newspaper headlines. One was "abortion safer than birth", which he quoted then quipped "but obviously not for babies".

Now I'm not what I'd call pro-abortion but I still think this was a very inappropriate thing for him to say. Firstly using the terminology 'baby' instead of 'foetus' or 'embryo' is very loaded. He is taking a very biased stance on a sensitive political topic- I thought the BBC were supposed to be neutral????

But if its still inside my body, its entirely my choice, so it still doesn't matter what you want to call it.

but the amount of abortions at that time limit is vanishing small anyway, so its place in the argument is overstated.

Putting a perm baby in an incubator is always artificial gestation, whether at 22 or 32 weeks. I don't think it's a meaningful distinction if the baby can survive.

'Foetus' is a medical term for a baby in utero, just as ('scuse this example!) 'micturition' is the medical term for weeing. The medical terms create a sense of distance and make the subject less personal, which is why people choose 'foetus' for an unwanted baby, and 'baby' for a wanted one. Neither term is more correct than the other; it's all about context.

So, in the context of Marr's statement, one could argue that either term was equally appropriate.

you could. I would personally argue that as a professional he should either have not commented or stuck to the distancing language so as not to create offence. Its not his job to make those kinds of judgements.

'perm baby!? Work that Jeri Curl!

Obviously, I meant 'prem!'

But 'foetus' is not necessarily the neutral of the two terms, so one could argue that either term could cause offence to an oversensitive listener.

Besides, news hasn't been objective for a good decade or more now, journalism has changed so much over the years. There was a hilarious example of a journo not creating distance last night - he described a cricketer as having forgotten to switch his brain on!

Not read all of the thread (probably a huge mistake) but I also found it quite funny. It's true, after all.

On the use of "baby" - I think it's reasonable here as it's looking ahead to what the foetus would become if it wasn't aborted.

Obviously a highly emotive subject though so difficult to say anything without upsetting someone. And all of the people are reasonable to get upset. If you say foetus that upsets some people, if you say baby that upsets others, I'm not sure it's something that there can ever be a "right" way with it as there are so many utterly conflicting views about abortion.

which is why its not a subject for quick quips on morning television.

Nor is death! Or immigration! Or a million other subjects! If anything this thread has shown that some people will react sensitively to some topics of conversation/ ways of saying things, and some won't. So as far as the OP goes there can be no hard and fast rules.

I'm pretty much with Buzz on all of this.

I think Marr's "quip" says more about him than it does anyone (or anything) else.