Words can be used as strong forts to protect us from harsh realities.
For my history class this semester, we jumped right into it and discussed the reading that was assigned for the first day. We were reading Plain Style by Christopher Lasch, which is basically a college student's guide to effective writing. In the section we read for the class, we discussed how during different points throughout history, society has used words to avoid facing the realities of bad decisions or nasty situations that need to be addressed even though no one wants to face them for what they are.
Immediately, I thought of a glaring example of this same intentional ignorance that is contemporary us. Can you guess what it is?
I wondered if anyone in my class could guess it too and would actually bring it up. I asked my professor, and indirectly the whole class (it's a conversation-based class), "What negative realities, like so-called shell shock, do we use rhetoric to avoid today?" I think his answer involved something regarding the Gulf War, but frankly I didn't worry about remembering it because I already knew it wasn't the answer I was looking for.
I wanted to see if anyone in my class would say, "abortion." Most people in my class are Liberal and pro-choice, so no one dared indict their own side.
But it's ok, because I (and all of you) know the pro-choice rhetoric is blatantly subdued to evade the serious, disturbing nature of what abortion is. It's just too unpleasant for people to think about and they'd rather not acknowledge reality—even at the expense of innocent life—because it makes them uncomfortable.
Of course, the pro-abortion side has rhetoric of their own, which Cambria will now explore:
The pro-life movement is constantly bombarded by antagonistic rhetoric. In the hands of the abortion advocates, rhetorical euphemisms are powerful tools that mask abortion’s barbarity. As pro-lifers, it is our duty to redefine their misleading rhetoric so that the people may know the real story behind abortion: blatant murder and disregard for human life. Below is a pro-lifer’s dictionary that explains common pro-abortion mantras.
- Anti-abortion extremists: The mainstream media’s name for pro-life advocates.
- Why it's wrong: Extremism connotes terrorism. According to the FBI, international terrorism is defined as involving “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life.” Contrary to the media’s claims, abortion is the ultimate threat to human life. Poisoning and/or ripping a child apart in the womb is the ultimate “violent act”, not protesting abortion by donating to pregnancy centers, speaking out on social media, campaigning for pro-life leaders, and marching for life in our nation’s capital.
- Fetal tissue: A term used in lieu of “unborn children.”
- Why it's wrong: According to Dictionary.com, tissue is defined as “a large mass of similar cells that make up PART of an organism and perform a specific function” (emphasis added). Multiple parts make up a whole, therefore fetal tissue makes up a whole human being. This medical confusion blurs the reality of humanity in the womb.
- Pro-choice: A term used to indicate a woman’s right to choose life or death for her unborn child, based on the notion that it is her body, her choice.
- Why it's wrong: This is the greatest lie abortion advocates tell. If abortion supporters were truly pro-choice, they would provide adoption as an option. However, Planned Parenthood’s militant stance on abortion proves that they are not pro-choice, but pro-death.
- Product of conception: a pro-abortion medical term used to describe the unborn child.
- Why it's wrong: A product indicates an object, not a living, breathing, moving human child. Of course, the latter is scientifically true. By calling the unborn “products,” abortion advocates replace humanity with inanimacy, a tool that lets them dehumanize the unborn while making abortion palatable.
- Reproductive rights: a woman’s entitlement to abortion in the name of “family planning.”
- Why it's wrong: Murder is a criminal offense, not a Constitutional right. Murder of unborn children is the greatest human rights violation of our age, yet pro-abortion advocates deem abortion a reproductive right. The right to murder others for no reason other than personal convenience does not exist under Constitutional law. The mere phrasing of “reproductive rights” implies a woman’s natural right to bear children, not kill them.
- Selective reduction: Refers to the act of choosing to abort one or more babies in high-risk pregnancies, such as the birth of triplets or quadruplets.
- Why it's wrong: Selective reduction is an insult to equality, a subject that abortionists praise. Choosing one child to save while another is killed undermines the very nature of motherhood and fatherhood. Selective reduction is one of the greatest evils of abortion that scars all family members, haunting them of an aborted son, daughter, brother, or sister.
- Women's healthcare: A branded name for abortion, as demonstrated by its frequent use by @PPact, Planned Parenthood’s Twitter account.
- Why it's wrong: The scope of “women’s healthcare” does not include the killing of children. In fact, women’s healthcare should be used to describe medical fields that are uniquely pro-life: obstetrics and embryology. According to Dictionary.com, “Healthcare” is defined as “the field concerned with the maintenance or restoration of the health of the body or mind.” Abortion threatens the health and bodily support of unborn children. Therefore, it is illogical to assume that Planned Parenthood, supposedly the largest national provider of “women’s healthcare,” really cares about women’s health, since that would at least mean letting unborn women live.