One of the great frustrations of pro-life advocates is that the mainstream media consistently shades the abortion debate in favor of those who advocate a "right" to abortion. As but one example of many, pro-lifers are "anti-abortion," even if opposition to abortion is only one of the fronts in the Right to Life battle; abortion advocates are, on the other hand, "pro-choice," even though the term gives no indication that the "choice" for which they lobby is for the choice to kill children.
One pro-life site has put together a helpful guide to the language issues, titled Coming to Terms: A Pro-Life Semantics Guide:
Those who govern the culture’s language govern the culture. Why so? Because words shape ideas and form the way people think. Put simply, words teach. Unfortunately, those who govern the language today are the mass media in America who are enemy #1 of vulnerable human life. Their semantics are why so many have come to think that killing itself is a human ‘right.’
"At least five different terms exist in the media’s lexicon for killing, such as abortion ‘rights,’ ‘right’ to the body, ‘right’ to choose, women’s ‘rights,’ privacy ‘rights,’ and reproductive ‘rights.’ At the same time, the most fundamental right of all, to life itself is censored by them, erasing it from public thought. Pope John Paul, spoke on this grave moral evil in his encyclical The Gospel of Life [Evangelium Vitae].
"’The moral conscience, both individual and social, is today subjected, also as a result of the penetrating influence of the media, to an extremely serious and mortal danger: that of confusion between good and evil precisely in relation to the fundamental right to life…’ #24."
"Friend, the culture war is largely a war of words and no one fights it better than the media elite. Better than anyone they know that if you want to change the way people think, just change the words. Yet verbal engineering applies to us as well. Using honest vocabulary is vital to restore protection for life. Terminology that devalues it is explained in this guide. Honest phrasing is given to restore its dignity."
The guide goes on to compile a list of words commonly used in the abortion debate and then offers alternative word choices to clarify what the euphemisms hide (e.g., abortion "clinic" v. abortion "site"). We could quibble with some of the suggestions (e.g., using "abortionist" as a replacement for "doctor"; like it or not, many doctors are abortionists and abortion is only a subset of their medical practice), and with the advisability of using some of the suggestions in all circumstances (such as when attempting to engage abortion advocates in discussion of the issues).
Despite certain deficiencies, though, the guide is useful in demonstrating the scope of the problem of how language whitewashes the abomination that is abortion.
My own view is that there is a problem when our public discourse is dominated by talk of “rights”. Framing public morality in terms of rights at least connotes, and perhaps denotes, that a person can choose to have their rights enforced or not. If I have a right to a particular piece of property I can choose whether or not to have trespassers expelled. If I have a right to life it at least connotes the idea that I (or my representative, if I am not competent) get to choose whether or not I live, and the manner in which I am willing to live.
But that underlying connotation of choice does not obtain as an objective moral matter. As a gedankenexperiment, even if (though this is not possible in reality) the baby herself did not want to live, that would not make it morally acceptable to abort her.
So I agree that language is a big part of the cultural problem and has to be addressed. But I think the rabbit hole goes deeper than most people realize.
The page is a great idea.
There is a quibble, but it’s not a quibble I would advance, except for the fact that seamless-garment liberal Catholics will almost always bring it up. This is a quibble by proxy.
These seamless garment types will claim that we can’t truly be pro-life unless we also oppose the death penalty (and, currently, the war in Iraq). This linkage waters down the term, since one can legitimately disagree over the death penalty (or war), while there is no legitimate disagreement over abortion. Direct abortion is objectively evil.
Peace be with you,
Bob
Along the line of “Women’s Rights”, “Reproductive Rights”, etc we pro-lifers should make it known that we stand for “Birth Rights”
Chris, that’s a very good way of putting it. I’ll have to remember to use that one when the other side is talking about “rights”.
A physician is someone who heals. If a person in addition to healing also murders, then that person is not a healer and thus not a physician. Murders are never a subset of any healing practice anymore than rapes can be a subset of a healing practice.
Thus pro-lifers are right to say that abortionists are not physicians.
“A physician is someone who heals. If a person in addition to healing also murders, then that person is not a healer and thus not a physician. Murders are never a subset of any healing practice anymore than rapes can be a subset of a healing practice.
“Thus pro-lifers are right to say that abortionists are not physicians.”
Vinegar, a physician is someone who is licensed to practice medicine and whose goal should be to seek to heal. Whether or not a particular physician actually heals a person is not a given. It is dependent on a number of factors, not the least of which may be God’s providence.
A physician who commits abortion fails to live up to his calling and does indeed commit murder with every abortion he performs, but he is still a physician. A poor example of his profession, to be sure, but a physician nonetheless.
Interesting. Somebody turned on the bold and forgot to turn it off.
The Hippocratic Oath forbids abortion. Ergo medics who perform abortions are not doctors.
You can’t seriously be arguing that it’s the Oath that makes someone a doctor.
Many medical students (I would guess most) graduating these days do not take the original Hippocratic Oath, but rather one that has been made more “modern” (and hence often more PC). But even taking the original version of the Hippocratic Oath does not “make” one a physician.
Yes, in opposing the ways people who are pro-abortion twist the language to promote their position we should not try to twist the language ourselves. A doctor/physician is someone who has completed certain educational requirements and who has been licensed to practice medicine. A doctor who kills babies (before or after they are born) is an evil doctor just as a doctor who poisons his wife is an evil doctor.
I just referred to “people who are pro-abortion”. Experience has shown that if I were to do that in a discussion with people who are pro-abortion they probably would object, “We’re not pro-abortion, we’re pro-choice,” which would divert the discussion into a futile discussion of langauge. Therefore, I use the phrase “supporters of legal abortion” or similar phrases such as “people who support legal abortion”. This avoids sidetracking the discussion without using the dishonest “pro-choice”.
Incidentally, people who support legal abortion used to call themselves “pro-abortion” before they discovered the public relations euphemism “pro-choice”. I have documentation of that fact that I will send to anyone who requests it.
Incidentally, people who support legal abortion used to call themselves “pro-abortion” before they discovered the public relations euphemism “pro-choice”.
The presumption is that “pro-choice” is less accurate but more politically expedient. I am not certain that is the case.
One can be against abortion and still not be pro life…
If a person does not accept ALL the babies that God has decided to give his/her family then that person IS NOT pro life, just against abortion. For example, in my town, which is 60% Catholic, there are families who have 6, 8, 10 , 12 kids per family. (I now have 4 Justin Alexander was born at 12:25 am.) These heroic families have sacrificed their bodies, incomes, time and toys to bring in more LIFE to the world. I have many patients who claim to be Catholic and prolife who are on contraceptive pills, have had their “tubes tied”, etc… who say “Wow, 4 kids in 5 years of marriage better you than me.”
Or, “I had 2 kids and that’s all I want, so I got fixed.”
That’s not pro life that’s pro choice, they choose how many kids they want, but their still anti-abortion.
Oops… typos
“Vinegar, a physician is someone who is licensed to practice medicine and whose goal should be to seek to heal.”
Michelle, an abortionist is not seeking to heal. An abortionist is seeking to kill. Thus by your own statement, an abortionist is not a physician. A physician need not be licensed to practice medicine. Physicians existed long before licenses to practice medicine were established. St Luke was physician. He did not have a license.
vinegar, perhaps you didn’t read Michelle’s comment very carefully. She said “a physician is someone who is licensed to practice medicine and whose goal should be to seek to heal,” not “and whose goal is to heal.”
Dr Eric, While I agree that having tubes tied etc is not an answer, it IS reasonable for someone to be daunted by the prospect of having children on a yearly basis. It is in the best interest of the baby to be nursed the first year so if someone wants to give that first year to the baby and nurture it without competiton (so to speak) it seems actually like this spacing is good thing.
I do not mean to critizice your choice – I know some families are able to handle this both financially and physically, but I cringe when I see the ‘baby every year’ presented as the ‘TRUE’ pro life position.
I think It’s a women right to decide if she wants a baby or not. Some of women can’t be prepared to become mothers.
The Church agrees with you, Sally!
It is a woman’s right to (for grave reasons, and along with her husband) decide whether or not to have a baby. She is, in that case, absolutely free to avoid sex on those days when she is most likely to conceive.
And it is true that some women are not prepared to be mothers. They are called “single”. They are also not prepared to have sex.
Happily, we do have a process that helps prepare such women to be mothers. It is called “Holy Matrimony”.
We even have women who never get married OR have sex! They are called “women religious” or “sisters”. They’re spouse is Christ, and they look after his children.
Now, wasn’t that easy?
Sorry, that was me.
Ambien cr buy online no rx.
Buy ambien online no rx. Ambien cr buy online no rx.