Abortion - War of the Words
There is a war with words on the abortion issue.
The same event is described differently by opponents and proponents.
The opponents say "abortion", "baby killing" and "murder".
The proponents say "terminate pregnancy", "exercise choice", and "medical procedure".
No matter what the words, the child is just as dead.
But then, even the word "child" is disputed.
The opponents 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 accurate.
The proponents have their own terminology for the "thing" inside the woman.
They use the word "fetus" even though that term refers to any unborn mammal.
"Fetus" is word that is also used to specify the fetus of a dog, pig, or goat.
They use no qualifier to identify what species, just the single word "fetus".
They won't even say "human fetus", just "fetus".
The proponents of abortion will only use words that dehumanize the child.
"Lump of flesh" or "growth" implies that the child is not a separate being from the mother.
Science clearly demonstrates the child has its own unique DNA well before it is big enough to be seen by the naked eye.
That DNA is a blending of the DNA of both the father and the mother.
It remains the same though out that person's entire life.
Proponents also want to label the use of the above descriptive words, such as "baby killing" and "murder", as "hate speech" and thus influence the debate in their favor.
Silencing the opposition is a very effective technique.
Clearly "hate speech" must be advocating some sort of illegal activity to actually 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 ongoing debate, there could be legal consequence.
Opinions must be allowed.
Certainly, restrictions on foul language and other abusive language can be enforced.
But content must be permitted in the "public square".
So when a proponent asks a candidate: "Are you pro choice?" that same question can be asked by an opponent as: "What is your position on baby killing?"
The same event is described differently by opponents and proponents.
The opponents say "abortion", "baby killing" and "murder".
The proponents say "terminate pregnancy", "exercise choice", and "medical procedure".
No matter what the words, the child is just as dead.
But then, even the word "child" is disputed.
The opponents 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 accurate.
The proponents have their own terminology for the "thing" inside the woman.
They use the word "fetus" even though that term refers to any unborn mammal.
"Fetus" is word that is also used to specify the fetus of a dog, pig, or goat.
They use no qualifier to identify what species, just the single word "fetus".
They won't even say "human fetus", just "fetus".
The proponents of abortion will only use words that dehumanize the child.
"Lump of flesh" or "growth" implies that the child is not a separate being from the mother.
Science clearly demonstrates the child has its own unique DNA well before it is big enough to be seen by the naked eye.
That DNA is a blending of the DNA of both the father and the mother.
It remains the same though out that person's entire life.
Proponents also want to label the use of the above descriptive words, such as "baby killing" and "murder", as "hate speech" and thus influence the debate in their favor.
Silencing the opposition is a very effective technique.
Clearly "hate speech" must be advocating some sort of illegal activity to actually 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 ongoing debate, there could be legal consequence.
Opinions must be allowed.
Certainly, restrictions on foul language and other abusive language can be enforced.
But content must be permitted in the "public square".
So when a proponent asks a candidate: "Are you pro choice?" that same question can be asked by an opponent as: "What is your position on baby killing?"
Source...