The Semantics Debate

I've long argued that the pro-abortion lobby has won - not in its argument for dismembering children in the womb...that's impossible to defend - but in the war of semantics. By calling abortion (murder) a "choice", they have successfully dehumanized unborn children. The have succeeded in making the public forget about what the act of abortion really is and does to a child, and instead shifted its idea of abortion to the woman. This is why I think it's so important for those of us in the pro-life movement to cease using the term coined by our opponents - "pro-choice" - and use the term that truly highlights what they really are - pro-abortion.

It has become clear in recent months, and even the last couple of years, that the abortion lobby is not by any means pro-choice. They despise the idea of a woman choosing life for her baby. Never was this more clear than in the "Tebow Super Bowl Ad" debate. Luckily it was such a benign ad that it made the pro-aborts look even more ridiculous.

I came across this post today that I think sums up the fraudulent argument of pro-"choice"ers. I like how the author points out that because "scientifically, medically, constitutionally, morally and ethically, the case for abortion rights is so intellectually bankrupt," the abortion lobby has to succumb to moronic, baseless arguments like "choice" to keep people's attention. I especially like this paragraph:

"Nevertheless, I must also admit to finding great satisfaction in finally being able to lay to rest one of the most offensive, hollow, and illogical arguments of the pro-abortion lobby. The euphemistic label of not being pro-abortion, but rather "pro-choice" has plagued this debate for decades. Intellectually speaking, this argument has always been beyond silly. To say that you're pro-choice is absolutely meaningless unless you acknowledge what act you believe people should have a choice in doing. The question has always been, 'choice to do what?'"

Exactly. Calling abortion simply a "choice" completely voids what is actually being chosen. I use this argument any time someone asks me, shocked, "So you don't believe in a woman's right to choose?" [Gasp!] I ask them back, "To choose what?" This puts them in the position of having to defend their position of believing it's OK to kill a human being. There are a LOT of things I believe women have the right to choose: who to date, who to vote for, what doctor to go to, what college to go to, what to eat for breakfast, what shoes to wear to their best friend's wedding...you get the picture. In fact, "choice" is not a Constitutional right. There are a lot of things people aren't allowed to choose to do. Beat their wives. Beat their children. Drive drunk. Rape. Do you see how using the word "choice" doesn't even begin to address the issue of abortion?

I'm not trying to trivialize the situation, but I am trying to point out how the abortion lobby attempts to trivialize the act of abortion by spinning the semantics of the issue.