Abortion Speak
By Michael P. Tremoglie (01/23/04)
There will be a Right To Life march in Washington DC January 22, 2004. There is one every year. You would never know it judging from the paucity of media mention.
Whether one is pro or anti abortion everyone can concur that the media bias towards this issue is unconscionable. It is so egregious that the editor of the LA Times felt compelled to send a memo to his staff cautioning them about being biased about issues – especially the liberal bias which he believed was endemic. As an example he used an article about abortion in which the writer clearly considered anti-abortion people to be atavistic.
Last year I listened to Kate Michelman of NARAL address an audience of pro-abortion politicians, feminists, and other pro-abortion advocates celebrating the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. This was mentioned by the media myrmidons who – if polled – would probably be in favor of any type of abortion on demand.
The affair, in and of itself, was unremarkable. One would expect NARAL to be celebrating Roe v. Wade. What was remarkable was Michelman’s Orwellian speech. She spoke of abortion as a “reproductive right.” Now it seems to me that is a non sequitur. After all abortion rights, if indeed abortion can be considered a right, is a right NOT to reproduce is it not?
Yet, the pro-abortion crowd calls abortion that which it is not. Just as remarkable is the lack of comment by the media about this paradox.
I have learned that there are similar terms in the abortion lexicon that are every bit as deceptive as calling abortion a reproductive right. For example, the very term they use to define themselves is rather sophist. Pro-choice? Whose choice? Certainly it is the pregnant woman’s choice. Yes, it is the doctor’s choice. However, I am not so sure it is the unborn’s choice. We never know if it is the father’s choice.
Maybe they could change the term to Pro-some choice.
Then there is the term “emergency contraception.” Now for me this conjures a whole set of images. However, what the pro-abortion people mean by it is a super birth control pill. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, (NARAL) defines “emergency contraception” on their website as a concentrated dosage of ordinary birth control pills that can dramatically reduce a woman's chance of becoming pregnant if taken as soon as possible after sex.
Inexplicably, the NARAL website neglects to mention one way women (and men) can dramatically reduce the chance of pregnancy is by abstinence. Admittedly that is not as much fun, however, it does make more sense for a couple to wait until they are willing and able to have a baby.
Then there is this phrase from the NARAL website, “ NARAL Pro-Choice America works to reduce the need for abortions. Americans need better access to contraception, health care and sex education. But, anti-choice forces are chipping away at a woman's right to choose which results in more unintended pregnancies and more abortions.” NARAL an organization formed to promote abortion is now trying to reduce abortions? They are doing so by wanting to make abortions more accessible?
I can understand how the government collects more tax revenue by cutting income taxes. I can understand how allowing more gun ownership reduces crimes. I cannot figure how making abortions more available reduces abortions.
Maybe NARAL can explain this, then again maybe not. One thing is for sure; no one in the mainstream media will ask them.
The mainstream media will cover the pro-abortion march that NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood (using federal funds no doubt), and other liberal, fanatical feminist organizations have planned in April. NOW’s website announces this march as being for “a public demonstration of historic size in support of abortion rights and reproductive freedom for all women. Our rights are under attack as they haven't been in over a decade, and Roe v. Wade hangs by a thread in the Supreme Court.”
At least NOW has the integrity to say this is for “abortion rights.” Although they too use the disingenuous phrase “ reproductive freedom.”
If this were just a question of semantics it would not be important, after all, abortion by any other name is still an abortion. If this were simply a question of abortion remaining legal in certain circumstances I do not believe people like myself would be all that interested.
However, the issue of “ reproductive rights” is not a semantical issue, and it is not simply about a healthcare issue or even a birth control issue. It is an issue of the government interfering in the lives of individuals.
What is that you say? The government meddles in private lives when it passes laws against abortion?
Well the laws the feminazis want are interfering with private lives. The most arrant is the elimination of parental notification. This means that a minor child can be taken to have an abortion without their parent even knowing about it.
Think about this. A kid who normally would not be able to have a wart removed - without a parent present - is able to have a major surgical procedure without their parent. The government tells the parent - who must bear the responsibility of providing and nurturing the kid - they are not fit to make this choice.
Who is suitable? The government says the doctor who profits from it is. The government says the mother of the boy who got the girl pregnant is suitable to make the choice (this is an actual case).
Pro-abortion people say prohibiting parental notification protects kids from abusive parents. A molesting or incestuous father who wants to keep the relationship secret would be the type to force their kid to have an abortion - so outlawing parental notification for that reason is ludicrous.
Such is the Orwellian world of abortionspeak – where good is bad, where all are equal and some are more equal than others. Regardless of one’s opinion of abortion it is quite apparent that the pro-abortion apostles are perpetrating a deceit whereby the only thing of concern is their own ambition.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Michael P. Tremoglie
