{"id":325092,"date":"2025-01-25T10:50:30","date_gmt":"2025-01-25T16:50:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=325092"},"modified":"2025-01-25T12:30:16","modified_gmt":"2025-01-25T18:30:16","slug":"new-york-times-unborn-child-why","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/new-york-times-unborn-child-why\/","title":{"rendered":"The New York Times is suddenly using the term ‘unborn child.’ The question is, why?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

The New York Times published a piece<\/a> this past week titled, “A New Fear for Undocumented Women: Will My Unborn Child Be a Citizen?”<\/p>\n

It’s a response to a move President Trump made on his first day in office when he issued an order seeking to end<\/a> birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants. Lawsuits have already been filed against the controversial order, and a judge has issued a temporary injunction<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Regardless of the point of the article, it was the Times’ use of humanizing language that really got people’s attention.<\/p>\n

Changing the language when it fits the narrative<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Times has a history of using dehumanizing language such as “fetus” and “embryo” when reporting about abortion. While these are scientifically<\/em> accurate terms, they are often used by the media with the intent to muffle any potential compassion that adults naturally feel towards preborn children \u2014 the most vulnerable among us.<\/p>\n

\n

Quite the shift from the usual birthing people, fetus and clump of cells terminology pic.twitter.com\/Kr3FvZAoph<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Dr. Ben Braddock (@GraduatedBen) January 22, 2025<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n