|
| Battle of the Words |  There is a continual battle between words on the abortion issue. The similar occasion is described in a different ways by opponents and proponents. The adversaries say “abortion”, “baby killing” and “murder”. The advocates say “terminate pregnancy”, “exercise choice”, and “medical procedure’. Regardless of what the words, the child is just as dead.
But then, even the word “child” is argued. The adversaries refer to the unborn human life form as a “babe”, “person”, “baby”, “infant”, “unborn baby”, “child”, “unborn child”, “human”, and “unborn human”; all clear and precise.
The adversaries have their own words for the “thing” inside the woman. They use the word “fetus” even supposing that term refers to any unborn being. “Fetus” is word that is also used to identify the fetus of a dog, cat, or sheep. They use no determinant to recognize what species, just the single word “fetus”. They won't even say “human fetus”, just “fetus”.
The adversaries of abortion will only use words that dehumanize the baby. “Lump of flesh” or “growth” suggests that the child is not a separate being from the mother.
Science strictly shows the baby has its own exclusive DNA well before it is big enough to be seen by the naked eye. That DNA is a medley of the DNA of both the father and the mother. It stays the same though out that person's entire life.
Adversaries also want to tag the use of the above expressive words, like “baby killing” and “murder”, as “hate speech” and thus influence the debate in their good turn. Silencing the resistance is a very effectual method.
Obviously “hate speech” must be advocating some sort of illegal action to really be such. That is like, something has to first be a crime, before it can be designated a “hate crime”.
We still have freedom of speech in the USA whether we are for abortion or against it. That freedom is protected to such an extent that should one attempt to censor either side of the current debate, there could be legal result.
Opinions must be allowed. Surely, limits on unclean language and other rude language can be compulsory. But content must be allowed in the “public square”.
So when an advocate asks an applicant: “Are you pro choice?” that similar question can be asked by an adversary as: “What is your position on baby killing?”
|
|
