S
SgtSchultz
Guest
I was on the train today and saw one of those adverts that they have in most cities for “sexual health” clinics. I usually just roll my eyes when I see those, but this time I read it and was rather surprised at what I came across. In their list of service offerings, along with “STD prevention techniques” (who wants to bet that chastity isn’t one of them?), I noticed a rather awkwardly redundant phrase: “pro-choice abortion options”.
This made me stop and think. Why was it necessary to put the qualifier “pro-choice” in front of “abortion options”? Aren’t both terms mutually inclusive? Do they assume that the public believes in such a thing as “pro-life abortion options”? It’s certainly implied that they do, as the wording of the statement “pro-choice abortion options” necessarily presupposes other abortion options that are not pro-choice.
I pondered this peculiarity for a while, silently chiding the Philistine copywriters for their poor English diction. But then it hit me: could this strange circumlocution be intentional? Could this obviously pro-abortion organisation be trying to insinuate that abortions are so normal and acceptable that everyone, even those who are pro-life, allows it? That there’s a public pro-abortion consensus that differs only in degree - first trimester versus second, perhaps?
Maybe I’m thinking too much, as I’m often wont to do. On the other hand, some of the more radical pro-abortion groups are known to engage in complex sophistry when preaching their twisted message of death. Does anyone have any of their own experiences to share regarding abortion groups’ clever manipulation of language? Have you ever run into any one-on-one canvassers on the street, perhaps, that try and convince you of their beliefs? What sorts of distortions do they make?
This made me stop and think. Why was it necessary to put the qualifier “pro-choice” in front of “abortion options”? Aren’t both terms mutually inclusive? Do they assume that the public believes in such a thing as “pro-life abortion options”? It’s certainly implied that they do, as the wording of the statement “pro-choice abortion options” necessarily presupposes other abortion options that are not pro-choice.
I pondered this peculiarity for a while, silently chiding the Philistine copywriters for their poor English diction. But then it hit me: could this strange circumlocution be intentional? Could this obviously pro-abortion organisation be trying to insinuate that abortions are so normal and acceptable that everyone, even those who are pro-life, allows it? That there’s a public pro-abortion consensus that differs only in degree - first trimester versus second, perhaps?
Maybe I’m thinking too much, as I’m often wont to do. On the other hand, some of the more radical pro-abortion groups are known to engage in complex sophistry when preaching their twisted message of death. Does anyone have any of their own experiences to share regarding abortion groups’ clever manipulation of language? Have you ever run into any one-on-one canvassers on the street, perhaps, that try and convince you of their beliefs? What sorts of distortions do they make?