Disturbing Semantic Trends

[Kenny_Kamel]

Recently in another thread a fellow member made the following posts which I questioned for elaboration:

Not to mention the fact that 20+% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion.

Their response to my inquiry:

“Spontaneous abortion” is the accepted medical term for “miscarriage.” So-called “medical/surgical abortions” are a subset of all abortions, of which miscarriages are another subset. Your understanding that only the surgical or pharmacological termination of a pregnancy is in error.

This is an example of the disturbing trend my thread title refers to, specifically how the world is removing distinctions and thus perverting the understanding of commonly understood definitions. According to the quoted member abortion is abortion, miscarriage is abortion… does a stillborn (baby) fall under the abortion umbrella terminology as well? I would perceive that common medical terminology now defines any form of death in the uterus as abortion. The issue is that abortion, by definition, is the deliberate act of killing an unborn baby whereas a miscarriage has always been understood as distinctly different.

Another example is contraception versus abortifacient contrivance. Contraception is that which prevents conception whereas that which is abortifacient kills what has been conceived. Abortifacients are now falling under the contraceptive umbrella term with the rationalization that anything that prevents pregnancy is contraception.

And LOVE may be among the most prevalent words that are commonly mischaracterized. Nowadays it seems that anyone can steep love in relativism and make it whatever they want. Even love as it is understood in the English language is lacking, I tend to direct people to the Greek distinctions of Agape, Eros, Philia, and Storge.

My local Bishop, Thomas John Paprocki, has been outspoken in calling for clear and definitive distinctions to be made in such matter although it seems that the truth as we have come to understand it has fallen on many deaf ears consumed by the world’s confusion.

 

[DaveBj]

Recently in another thread a fellow member made the following posts which I questioned for elaboration:

Their response to my inquiry:

This is an example of the disturbing trend my thread title refers to, specifically how the world is removing distinctions and thus perverting the understanding of commonly understood definitions. According to the quoted member abortion is abortion, miscarriage is abortion… does a stillborn (baby) fall under the abortion umbrella terminology as well? I would perceive that common medical terminology now defines any form of death in the uterus as abortion. The issue is that abortion, by definition, is the deliberate act of killing an unborn baby whereas a miscarriage has always been understood as distinctly different.

Another example is contraception versus abortifacient contrivance. Contraception is that which prevents conception whereas that which is abortifacient kills what has been conceived. Abortifacients are now falling under the contraceptive umbrella term with the rationalization that anything that prevents pregnancy is contraception.

And LOVE may be among the most prevalent words that are commonly mischaracterized. Nowadays it seems that anyone can steep love in relativism and make it whatever they want. Even love as it is understood in the English language is lacking, I tend to direct people to the Greek distinctions of Agape, Eros, Philia, and Storge.

My local Bishop, Thomas John Paprocki, has been outspoken in calling for clear and definitive distinctions to be made in such matter although it seems that the truth as we have come to understand it has fallen on many deaf ears consumed by the world’s confusion.

This is not a case of the world’s “removing distinctions and thus perverting the understanding of commonly understood definitions.” The phrase “spontaneous abortion” has been the medical term for “miscarriage” for a long, long time. The limitation of the definition to pharmacological or surgical intervention is a much more recent development.

I think that you may be underestimating the general public’s ability to distinguish between a spontaneous abortion (a natural, but still very unfortunate occurrence) and a surgical/pharmacological abortion (the murder of a child). In the former case the pregnancy was aborted by nature, and in the later case by another human.

I completely agree with you that abortifacients (like the so-called “morning-after pill”) should distinguished from true contraceptives (like condoms), and that both are to be condemned. I also agree about the mongrelization of the word “love.”

 

[Oneofthewomen]

In the case of abortion, DaveBj was correct.
It is not a “semantics” game, but the proper medical terminology.
When coding for billing purposes, proper terminology for a miscarriage is “spontaneous abortion”. The terminology for an elective abortion is “legally induced abortion” and then there are codes for illegal abortions also.

So, while I understand what you are saying, it is not semantics, but medical terminology.

In this link, you can see all the ICD-9 codes that are allowed by the Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services in the US that relate to abortion

 

[CHRISTINE77]

In the case of abortion, DaveBj was correct.
It is not a “semantics” game, but the proper medical terminology.
When coding for billing purposes, proper terminology for a miscarriage is “spontaneous abortion”. The terminology for an elective abortion is “legally induced abortion” and then there are codes for illegal abortions also.

So, while I understand what you are saying, it is not semantics, but medical terminology.

In this link, you can see all the ICD-9 codes that are allowed by the Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services in the US that relate to abortion

Yes and also, to abort means to abruptly terminate something. Whether a pregnancy is terminated by the brutal act of a physician or just spontaneously happens, the pregnancy has been aborted.

However an abortion usually occurs because something is wrong. For example an aborted flight happens because something is wrong with the flight. Nature will abort a fetus because something is wrong with the fetus.

But doctors perform abortions even though there is nothing wrong with the fetus. So that is what I would call a perverted abortion.

 

[Murmurs]

Yes and also, to abort means to abruptly terminate something. Whether a pregnancy is terminated by the brutal act of a physician or just spontaneously happens, the pregnancy has been aborted.

However an abortion usually occurs because something is wrong. For example an aborted flight happens because something is wrong with the flight. **Nature will abort a fetus because something is wrong with the fetus.
**
But doctors perform abortions even though there is nothing wrong with the fetus. So that is what I would call a perverted abortion.

Church teaching absolutism aside, would there therefore be a slightly greater justification for a medical abortion if it were for a medical reason (something wrong with the embryo or foetus), rather than the inconvenience (however great) to the mother?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Church teaching absolutism aside, would there therefore be a slightly greater justification for a medical abortion if it were for a medical reason (something wrong with the embryo or foetus), rather than the inconvenience (however great) to the mother?

How should I know? People will try to justify anything.

 

[Rau]

Church teaching absolutism aside, would there therefore be a slightly greater justification for a medical abortion if it were for a medical reason (something wrong with the embryo or foetus), rather than the inconvenience (however great) to the mother?

Given that it is “absolutely wrong” to kill a person, it seems meaningless to consider the degree of wrongness applicable when the person is “healthy” vs. “not entirely healthy”.

If you put aside the “absolute wrongness” of murder, how should the rightness or wrongness of murdering a person be gauged according to the health of that person?