This is the generation that will abolish abortion

Abortion Terminology and Hate Speech

I find it fascinating how many people think that by simply saying, “abortion is the killing of a human person,” I am somehow practicing hate speech. It seems like even those who are opposed to the killing of innocent human persons are reluctant to call it just that: killing. Some have even told me not to use the word abortion because it might offend someone who has had one if they have to think about what they have done. The crazy part about this is that these statements often come from those who call themselves Christian and pro-life.

I recently got an e-mail from a Christian who was furious at me for using the term “abortionist”. He was appalled that I would refer to someone who performs abortions as an abortionist because that is saying he wants to commit abortions.  Are you confused? I was when I read his e-mail; I actually had to read it a couple of times through just to make sure I was not mis-reading it.

I explained to him that “abortionist” was simply a technical term such as therapist, anesthesiologist or scientist. He claimed that no one wants to perform abortions and using a term like that was hateful. I actually think that using the term is too kind; abortionists don’t deserve professional titles.

In almost any genre, field, clique, movement or belief system you will find terminology that is unique and not often know outside of that group. You will find that inside the pro-life movement people often refuse to call the building is which abortions are performed, “clinics,” but rather “abortion mills.” The fact is a clinic is a place where people go for healing, not to have someone else killed. The term “abortion mill” comes from the fact that most of these places cycle through large groups of mothers in short periods of time and will kill the largest quantity of babies in the shortest periods of time; therefore, we call it a mill.

Another term often used is “pro-abortion” instead of the inaccurate term coined by the abortion industry, “pro-choice.” Before you rant at me about this one please read my commentary about this particular subject as it is too much to cover inside this commentary – Tough Questions – Pro-choice or Pro-abortion; is There a Difference? . The simple answer to this is that if someone is “pro” the right to abortion then they are pro-abortion; this is just basic logic here.

Most pro-lifers will also refuse to say “terminate a pregnancy”; we would call it what it really is: child-killing. I refuse to refer to a child in the womb as a “pregnancy”. Why do we feel the need to sanitize abortion and not call it what it really is, the killing of a human person? Why do we have to change everything to not hurt people’s feelings by using correct and proper terms?

I understand that there have been some harsh aspects of the pro-life movement and people that have no business being involved in the movement. I know that a few idiots have done some inexcusable things in the name of pro-life and that is wrong.

I believe we need to love those who have been hurt by abortion and be compassionate in our work. I don’t think we need to scream and yell at people but rather love them and offer hope.

In the same manner I refuse to dishonor the over 50,000,000 full human persons who have been killed by abortion by referring to them as “terminated pregnancies”. I will never afford the term “doctor” to a man who uses his God-given talents to rip babies limb from limb and leave mothers hurting for the rest of their lives.

Why is it that we only want to tip toe around the atrocities of abortion and not other heinous crimes? Imagine if someone started calling rapists “involuntary sex partners” just to soften the term so there is not as much stigma in the name? What if we called murder “post-pregnancy termination” so it would not make the person who committed the murder feel bad for what they had done?  Maybe we could call people who believe it is ok to molest little children “pro-choice” because they should have the choice to do what they believe?

I hope you find these examples ludicrous; I do. What I find more ludicrous is when I am told I am using hate speech for call the killing of an innocent human person “homicide.” I find it unthinkable to reduce the lives of precious babies to simply “choices”; that to me is the real hate speech.

One Comment

  1. Al Grayson
    Posted July 4, 2014 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    Are you ready, as a legislator, for all who vote to elect legislators are themselves legislators “by proxy,” to propose bills and to sponsor and to vote for legisltion to remove the “who has been born” Bill of Attainder from the criminal homicide laws?

    Example: “Human being” means an individual who has been born and is alive.
    As added by Indiana Public Law 311-1983, SEC.15.

    This exclusion from the protection of the criminal homicide laws of individuals who are alive but have not (yet) been born is an unconstitutional and thus unlawful Bill of Attainder.

    Are you ready as a Juror to vote for “guilty” if a woman prosecuted for murder for killing, or having killed, her preborn child?

    Are you ready as a Judge to sentence such a woman to the maximum punishment prescribed by the law?

    To see that incrementalism will not work, and even if it did, millions of innocent children who cannot raise more than a tiny finger in their defense (see “The Silent Scream” in which the doomed child struggles with the suction tube) will be brutally murdered while repeals and enactments plod through the legislatures, courts, read Supreme Court justice Harry Blackmun:

    “… in many States, including Texas, 49 by statute or judicial interpretation, the pregnant woman herself could not be prosecuted for self-abortion or for cooperating in an abortion performed upon her by another.” — See Smith v. State, 33 Me., at 55; In re Vince, 2 N. J. 443, 450, 67 A. 2d 141, 144 (1949). A short discussion of the modern law on this issue is contained in the Comment to the ALI’s Model Penal Code 207.11, at 158 and nn. 35-37 (Tent. Draft No. 9, 1959).

    Footnote 54: “When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained [410 U.S. 113, 158] in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother’s condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment’s command?

    “There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out, n. 49, supra, that in Texas the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by [former 1961] Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder prescribed by [former] Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?”

    Blackmun recognized that no state had ever held the aborting mother to account, and when an illegal abortionist was prosecuted, it was a misdemeanor, not a felony, and certainly not a capital felony. The child who is alive but has not been born is excluded from the protection of the criminal homicide laws. Their lives hang on their mothers’ wishes.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>