Let's stop using the word "abortion"

[Joe_5859]

I do think that words matter. And the words that we choose to use often frame the debate. I read an article the other day from a Catholic grammarian who made the side note:

(I knew we had lost the political battle on same-sex “marriage” when we started arguing for “traditional marriage.” To qualify a noun by an adjective—“traditional” marriage—concedes that there are other types of that noun. No one talks about “traditional triangles.”)

So I can appreciate the point that using sanitized language can make the reality of abortion more palatable and less offensive. Read up on Randall Terry and Operation Rescue. I’ve heard him make the same argument with regards to the word “abortion.”

That said, as others have pointed out already, using that language is more likely to turn people off and/or get them emotionally riled up against you than it is likely to actually get them to rethink their position.

Most of the sentences you flagged as “wrong” are not linguistically incorrect. Saying a woman is 6 months pregnant is a factually correct statement and one that I fail to see how it would de-humanize the unborn child. (I also don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone state “God became man at Bethlehem.” But if I did, I would concede that their theologically imprecise statement should be corrected. )

Further, words like “miscarriage” and “abortion” have specific meanings. Yes, a baby dies in both, but they are a specific type of death. Using such words for the purpose of greater specificity is what we do with language. If someone told me their friend committed suicide or drowned, I wouldn’t stop and correct them saying, “You mean your friend died. Stop using euphemisms!” Not only would that be insensitive, but it also isn’t a necessary correction. They are words that denote how the person died. They aren’t euphemisms.

I do think there really is a lot of language in the abortion debate that is used to mislead and/or dehumanize the unborn. But the examples you have chosen are not the ones I would go with. I think it is better to do what we can to illustrate the humanity of the unborn. From there, people can arrive at the point that it is a real person who dies in an abortion without them being put on the defensive.

 

[USMC_Convert]

First, okay, you are right on several points.

Second, I have a question for you. If I was trying to bring someone home to the Catholic Church and I told them “you killed your baby and you are wrong!”, would I have brought them closer to accepting the truth or pushed them away?

I have no issue with “calling a spade a spade” but what I do have an issue with is taking the human aspect out of it. We are called to show these people mercy, to love them and to bring them to God. Not to attack them.

Jesus doesn’t turn to people and say “you’re a prostitute, repent!” He tells them to go and sin no more.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

My main objection would be to your first suggestion:

Wrong: She had an abortion.
Right: She killed her baby.

The reason we don’t call it murder or baby killing is not because abortion is less serious than killing born children. Rather, it is a way of showing love to post-abortive women and abortionists. When we call abortion “murder”, those people automatically hear us tell them, “You are murderers”, and feel the pain and defensiveness. It creates division and anger and prevents healing.

Also, calling abortion murder fails to take into account the nature of the average abortion. While those who kill born children commonly do so out of anger or intentional attack, abortive women simply do not do so out of malice 99.9 % of the time. Abortion is the only way women can stop another person from feeding off their bodies for a six month period and is often the only way women can cure themselves of the ailments of pregnancy, such as hyperemesis gravidarum. Thus abortion is morally complex in a manner the average killing of a born child is not. So to attach the stigma of being awful, malicious and cold-hearted to abortive women, through the word “murder” or the term “baby killer”, is to demonstrate an ignorance for abortion’s complexity and the reasons women seek abortions.

Finally, the term “murder” implies illegal killing. Where abortion is legal, it does not qualify as murder on technicality.

 

[CrystalMayner66]

So I can appreciate the point that using sanitized language can make the reality of abortion more palatable and less offensive. Read up on Randall Terry and Operation Rescue. I’ve heard him make the same argument with regards to the word “abortion.”

That said, as others have pointed out already, using that language is more likely to turn people off and/or get them emotionally riled up against you than it is likely to actually get them to rethink their position.

Most of the sentences you flagged as “wrong” are not linguistically incorrect. Saying a woman is 6 months pregnant is a factually correct statement and one that I fail to see how it would de-humanize the unborn child. (I also don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone state “God became man at Bethlehem.” But if I did, I would concede that their theologically imprecise statement should be corrected. )

Further, words like “miscarriage” and “abortion” have specific meanings. Yes, a baby dies in both, but they are a specific type of death. Using such words for the purpose of greater specificity is what we do with language. If someone told me their friend committed suicide or drowned, I wouldn’t stop and correct them saying, “You mean your friend died. Stop using euphemisms!” Not only would that be insensitive, but it also isn’t a necessary correction. They are words that denote how the person died. They aren’t euphemisms.

I do think there really is a lot of language in the abortion debate that is used to mislead and/or dehumanize the unborn. But the examples you have chosen are not the ones I would go with. I think it is better to do what we can to illustrate the humanity of the unborn. From there, people can arrive at the point that it is a real person who dies in an abortion without them being put on the defensive.

Well said!

 

[CrystalMayner66]

“Baby” usually connotes the particular age of child, one who was recently born. To be precise, we would need to say “She killed her fetus” or “She killed her embryo” and do we really think that’s more effective than saying “She had an abortion”?

Good point.

 

[goout]

What would the victim call it, if the victim could speak?
What does God say?

this comes to mind:
“Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground”
Which reminds us that no matter how we speak, the victims are heard by the Only One who really matters, and He understands the transcendent language spoken by all human life.

 

[Allegra]

This sounds more like a temper tantrum than an effective means of reducing abortion.

 

[mikekle]

Its 1st degree premeditated murder imo, but when its the parent doing the killing and murder is ‘masqueraded’ as something else, of course lots of people are going to fall for it.

The state has no qualms about imposing 2 murder counts when a pregnant woman is murdered, so best I can tell, that means they legally consider the unborn fetus to be an actual separate life.

 

[randomuser]

They did a survey here in Ireland re reasons for choosing abortion and one couple said that this year they were having a holiday abroad so they chose that above the life of the baby. Maybe next year they said.

They should survey Congress and see how many would make delivery expenses be tax-deductible, let alone let families claim their unborn babies as dependents, both of which would go farther making a “pro-life” culture than simply not saying the word “abortion” anymore. Where are the free and discounted delivery options?

 

[tony12356]

Let’s call it what it is: baby-killing. The fact that we use another word shows that we don’t really think of the two as morally equivalent. Murdering a baby x months before birth is no better than doing so x months after.

First, it’s not a baby until after a certain time. If you are going to have an argument then please use the correct terminology. I don’t think that anyone even on an emotional level would have an equal reaction to a miscarriage, then their new born baby actually dying.

Wrong: She had an abortion.
Right: She killed her baby.

Even on a medical level you are still wrong. A baby and a fetus aren’t the same.

While we’re at it, let’s get rid of anti-life speech in general:

Wrong: They have 4 children and one on the way.
Right: They have 5 children.

If a child is then same as a fetus, then what’s wrong with removing it? After all children can live outside the womb. Unless somehow a fetus isn’t a fully developed human being and needs to stay in the mother’s womb to continue to live. See all your doing is purposely mixing words with others when they actually provide a distinction between the two.

Wrong: She miscarried/had a miscarriage.
Right: Her baby died.

Really? Then why don’t people have funerals for their miscarriages. Yes, it can be something that is sad. However, to say it’s the same thing is to reject the emotion difference between the two events.

Wrong: She’s 6 months pregnant.
Right: Her baby is minus (or negative) 3 months old.

What do you call something that existed for 0.000… seconds? By definition that is called non-existence. To say something is -3 months old is to say that the thing never existed for 3 months. Now if you are going to call a fetus a baby, then you would have to say that the baby is six months old. It appears that you are contradicting yourself.

You get the idea. We’ve all heard variations of these errors, maybe even made them. Let’s stop. When I was an atheist, I cited examples like these to “prove” that Christians didn’t really believe the pro-life idea. Don’t prove my pre-Christian self right.

Well, I’m not going to say that you don’t believe in pro-life. I really do believe you. However, if you are going to make an argument than it should in your best interest to use the actual definitions that everyone else agreed to use.

 

[PRmerger]

First it’s not a baby until after a certain time.

What time does it become a baby?

And even if it’s not a baby, is it a human person?

If not, what is a human person?

 

[PRmerger]

A baby and a fetus aren’t the same.

Well, that’s true enough.

But aren’t “fetus” and “baby” just descriptive terms of development?

Kind of like “toddler” and “teenager”.

We could just as logically say: A toddler and a teenager aren’t the same.

But that doesn’t mean it’s permissible to kill one of them.

 

[tony12356]

What time does it become a baby?

And even if it’s not a baby, is it a human person?

If not, what is a human person?

By definition after it’s born. I don’t care if you are pro- life or pro- choice. If you are going to make an argument, then please actually use the definitions that everyone else agrees with.

ba·by
ˈbābē/Submit
noun
1.
a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
“his wife’s just had a baby”
synonyms: infant, newborn, child, tot, little one; More

 

[tony12356]

Well, that’s true enough.

But aren’t “fetus” and “baby” just descriptive terms of development?

Kind of like “toddler” and “teenager”.

We could just as logically say: A toddler and a teenager aren’t the same.

But that doesn’t mean it’s permissible to kill one of them.

Again, I’m not arguing for pro-choice or pro-life. I’m arguing for people using the correct words in an argument. If I killed a teen I’m not going to say I killed a 90 year old man.

 

[PRmerger]

By definition after it’s born. I don’t care if you are pro- life or pro- choice. If you are going to make an argument, then please actually use the definitions that everyone else agrees with.

ba·by
ˈbābē/Submit
noun
1.
a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
“his wife’s just had a baby”
synonyms: infant, newborn, child, tot, little one; More

And what is a human person?

And when is it permissible to kill an innocent human person?

 

[PRmerger]

By definition after it’s born. I don’t care if you are pro- life or pro- choice. If you are going to make an argument, then please actually use the definitions that everyone else agrees with.

ba·by
ˈbābē/Submit
noun
1.
a very young child, **especially **one newly or recently born.
“his wife’s just had a baby”
synonyms: infant, newborn, child, tot, little one; More

Also, did you note that there is a qualifier here in this definition, which I have bolded?

Your very own reference for a definition doesn’t exclude the unborn as being a baby.

 

[tony12356]

Also, did you note that there is a qualifier here in this definition, which I have bolded?

Your very own reference for a definition doesn’t exclude the unborn as being a baby.

Actually it does.

ba·by
ˈbābē/Submit
noun
1.
a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
“his wife’s just had a baby”
synonyms: infant, newborn, child, tot, little one; More

Notes that it says a very young child. So the time line is a young child. So yes, this excludes the unborn.

 

[tony12356]

And what is a human person?

And when is it permissible to kill an innocent human person?

Wow, don’t listen to how I told you that my argument wasn’t for or against pro-life and pro-choice.

 

[PRmerger]

If you are going to make an argument, then please actually use the definitions that everyone else agrees with.

You should know that you have actually argued for the prolife position here that we should be calling the products of conception inside a womb a “baby”–for that seems to be the “definition that everyone else agrees with”.

To wit:

wgntv.com/2017/05/24/woman-unborn-baby-killed-in-woodridge-murder-suicide/

nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/men-convicted-drive-by-shooting-killed-unborn-baby-article-1.3226919

youtube.com/watch?v=nTCMeseVJ0I

momjunction.com/articles/your-unborn-babys-development_00389566/

etc etc etc

 

[10gr8kids]

First, it’s not a baby until after a certain time. If you are going to have an argument then please use the correct terminology. I don’t think that anyone even on an emotional level would have an equal reaction to a miscarriage, then their new born baby actually dying.

Even on a medical level you are still wrong. A baby and a fetus aren’t the same.

If a child is then same as a fetus, then what’s wrong with removing it? After all children can live outside the womb. Unless somehow a fetus isn’t a fully developed human being and needs to stay in the mother’s womb to continue to live. See all your doing is purposely mixing words with others when they actually provide a distinction between the two.

Really? Then why don’t people have funerals for their miscarriages. Yes, it can be something that is sad. However, to say it’s the same thing is to reject the emotion difference between the two events.

What do you call something that existed for 0.000… seconds? By definition that is called non-existence. To say something is -3 months old is to say that the thing never existed for 3 months. Now if you are going to call a fetus a baby, then you would have to say that the baby is six months old. It appears that you are contradicting yourself.

Well, I’m not going to say that you don’t believe in pro-life. I really do believe you. However, if you are going to make an argument than it should in your best interest to use the actual definitions that everyone else agreed to use.

Have you ever had a miscarriage? I have lost 8 children

It is harder on me to lose my child than to lose a parent. That doesn’t make my parents less of a person.

I had to feed my newborns, my teens feed themselves. I guess when they were newborns they really weren’t fully human.