Tom Kovach
Changing the language of abortion
Let's use "linguistic judo" to stop the slaughter of innocents
By Tom Kovach
Just as I'm often shocked at how quickly some modern Christians are willing to compromise their principles of faith, I'm equally shocked at how quickly modern political conservatives can compromise their positions. Nowhere is this more true than in the abortion debate, where the political Left controls most of the language. This column is submitted in hopes of changing the language of the debate in a way that will — hopefully — put a stop to the slaughter of innocent pre-born babies.
controlling the language
It is widely held that, "If you control the language, then you control the debate." By extension, if one controls the debate, then one also controls the cultural actions that stem from rhetorical debate. So far, the political Left has done an amazing job of controlling the language, the debate, and the culture. What fruit has grown from their tree? Since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision by the United State Supreme Court (410 US 113; decided 22 Jan 1973), enough babies have been killed in their mother's wombs in the United States to equal the manpower of our entire Armed Forces ... at least twenty times over!
Just as the Left is terrified of the word "invasion" when it comes to any discussion of border security and illegal aliens, the Left is equally terrified of words that describe an abortion in any truthful terms. The political Right has long used the scientific point that a pre-born baby is genetically different from either the father or the mother. Thus, the fetus is not merely "an oblongate parasite," as one pro-abortion activist asserted. Instead, the fetus is a separate human person, who simply happens to reside inside the mother's body for the first nine months after conception. But, the Left eschews any description of a fetus as a person, because that would lead to a conclusion that an abortion for convenience is ... well ... exactly what it is: a murder for hire. (Not all killings are murders. This is made clear by the Holy Bible and by centuries of jurisprudence. Murder is the intentional killing of another person for some type of personal gain, advantage, or revenge. Destroying a baby in the womb, so that one or both of the parents can go on to lead "happy" lives without nurturing the life that they created, is murder. Killing a pair of armed robbers before they kill your family is not murder.)
linguistic judo
A key principle of most martial arts, especially judo, is that of using an opponent's own momentum against him. Let's apply that concept to the language of the abortion debate. Pro-abortion advocates say that the fetus is "merely an unwanted part of the woman's body." Anti-abortion advocates say that the fetus is a separate person. If the Right is right, then abortion is murder. But, what if we accede the argument of the Left?
a surgical procedure, huh???
The Left claims that a woman — without consulting the baby's father — can simply go to an abortion mill (it is not a "clinic," because the purpose is to kill the patient), and then have this "body part" removed. Well, if the Left says that a fetus is a body part, then what do you call a medical procedure to remove a body part? That's right: an amputation. And, an amputation is a serious surgical procedure. I propose that we refer to an abortion as a "fetal amputation." So, when a woman goes to an abortion mill to get a "fetal amputation," then she should be required to get the same type of medical counseling that she would get if she went to get her arm amputated. That would include discussions of anesthesia, surgical risks, side effects, etc. That, in turn, would require mention of the documented link between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer. That, in turn, would cause some women to reconsider having an abortion. And that, in turn, would save thousands — perhaps millions — of innocent lives per year!
who's cryin' now?
Just imagine: the way to beat the Left is to agree with them! "Who woulda thunk it?" So, I encourage all anti-abortion activists to begin using the term "fetal amputation" whenever they discuss abortion in any public forum. It could take awhile for this linguistic change to catch on. But, when enough "neutral" people hear the term often enough, they will begin asking questions. And, when the answers don't stand up to logical scrutiny, then the Left will be exposed for the charlatans that they are.
And, when the term "fetal amputation" begins showing up in legislative discussions, then the government money faucet will be turned off shortly thereafter. And, when the faucet gets turned off, then abortions will not be performed nearly so often. Although abortions proponents hide behind terms such as "women's rights," the truth is that fetal amputation is primarily about money. If the procedure is a success, then the patient cannot sue, because the patient is dead. If the procedure goes wrong, most women will not stand up in the daylight of an open courtroom to sue the providers. Thus, the owners of such mills can truly become "filthy rich." But, there is a price to be paid — if not in this world, then in the next.
But, while we're still in this world, we need to fight with every bit of the good mind that God gave us. And, that includes learning to control the language better than our enemies. Using the term "fetal amputation" takes the argument of the Left and turns it back against them. How can they challenge us when we agree with them?
© Tom Kovach
Just as I'm often shocked at how quickly some modern Christians are willing to compromise their principles of faith, I'm equally shocked at how quickly modern political conservatives can compromise their positions. Nowhere is this more true than in the abortion debate, where the political Left controls most of the language. This column is submitted in hopes of changing the language of the debate in a way that will — hopefully — put a stop to the slaughter of innocent pre-born babies.
controlling the language
It is widely held that, "If you control the language, then you control the debate." By extension, if one controls the debate, then one also controls the cultural actions that stem from rhetorical debate. So far, the political Left has done an amazing job of controlling the language, the debate, and the culture. What fruit has grown from their tree? Since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision by the United State Supreme Court (410 US 113; decided 22 Jan 1973), enough babies have been killed in their mother's wombs in the United States to equal the manpower of our entire Armed Forces ... at least twenty times over!
Just as the Left is terrified of the word "invasion" when it comes to any discussion of border security and illegal aliens, the Left is equally terrified of words that describe an abortion in any truthful terms. The political Right has long used the scientific point that a pre-born baby is genetically different from either the father or the mother. Thus, the fetus is not merely "an oblongate parasite," as one pro-abortion activist asserted. Instead, the fetus is a separate human person, who simply happens to reside inside the mother's body for the first nine months after conception. But, the Left eschews any description of a fetus as a person, because that would lead to a conclusion that an abortion for convenience is ... well ... exactly what it is: a murder for hire. (Not all killings are murders. This is made clear by the Holy Bible and by centuries of jurisprudence. Murder is the intentional killing of another person for some type of personal gain, advantage, or revenge. Destroying a baby in the womb, so that one or both of the parents can go on to lead "happy" lives without nurturing the life that they created, is murder. Killing a pair of armed robbers before they kill your family is not murder.)
linguistic judo
A key principle of most martial arts, especially judo, is that of using an opponent's own momentum against him. Let's apply that concept to the language of the abortion debate. Pro-abortion advocates say that the fetus is "merely an unwanted part of the woman's body." Anti-abortion advocates say that the fetus is a separate person. If the Right is right, then abortion is murder. But, what if we accede the argument of the Left?
a surgical procedure, huh???
The Left claims that a woman — without consulting the baby's father — can simply go to an abortion mill (it is not a "clinic," because the purpose is to kill the patient), and then have this "body part" removed. Well, if the Left says that a fetus is a body part, then what do you call a medical procedure to remove a body part? That's right: an amputation. And, an amputation is a serious surgical procedure. I propose that we refer to an abortion as a "fetal amputation." So, when a woman goes to an abortion mill to get a "fetal amputation," then she should be required to get the same type of medical counseling that she would get if she went to get her arm amputated. That would include discussions of anesthesia, surgical risks, side effects, etc. That, in turn, would require mention of the documented link between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer. That, in turn, would cause some women to reconsider having an abortion. And that, in turn, would save thousands — perhaps millions — of innocent lives per year!
who's cryin' now?
Just imagine: the way to beat the Left is to agree with them! "Who woulda thunk it?" So, I encourage all anti-abortion activists to begin using the term "fetal amputation" whenever they discuss abortion in any public forum. It could take awhile for this linguistic change to catch on. But, when enough "neutral" people hear the term often enough, they will begin asking questions. And, when the answers don't stand up to logical scrutiny, then the Left will be exposed for the charlatans that they are.
And, when the term "fetal amputation" begins showing up in legislative discussions, then the government money faucet will be turned off shortly thereafter. And, when the faucet gets turned off, then abortions will not be performed nearly so often. Although abortions proponents hide behind terms such as "women's rights," the truth is that fetal amputation is primarily about money. If the procedure is a success, then the patient cannot sue, because the patient is dead. If the procedure goes wrong, most women will not stand up in the daylight of an open courtroom to sue the providers. Thus, the owners of such mills can truly become "filthy rich." But, there is a price to be paid — if not in this world, then in the next.
But, while we're still in this world, we need to fight with every bit of the good mind that God gave us. And, that includes learning to control the language better than our enemies. Using the term "fetal amputation" takes the argument of the Left and turns it back against them. How can they challenge us when we agree with them?
© Tom Kovach
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
