Syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker wants to reassure those frightened about dwindling abortion options following the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. (I know pro-aborts hate that term, preferring it called the Dilatation and Extraction Abortion Ban or the Intact Dilatation and Evacuation Ban. Sorry.)
In fact, women can still render themselves unpregnant, in the vernacular of choice-speak, by several means. They can “disarticulate the fetus” and even “reduce” or “separate the fetal calvarium.”
If the vocabulary is confusing, that’s the point. Using Orwellian language to sanitize the issue, so to speak, is a time-honored tactic of the “pro-choice” arbiters. If we don’t say what it is, we can pretend what it isn’t.
Herewith, a brief translation:
Disarticulating a fetus, which sounds like suspending a pre-born’s instant-messaging privileges, means to dismember it. Reducing a calvarium – a thoroughly desirable-sounding procedure, like lancing a boil – means to suck the brains from the baby’s head. Separating the calvarium means to sever the head with scissors….
Paying attention to the language of abortion – or anything else for that matter – is instructive when trying to consider right from wrong. If you have to dress something up to obfuscate the truth of what’s in play, you can probably assume it’s wrong.
When a man murders his wife, we don’t say, “Mr. X rendered his wife unalive by efficiently evacuating her cranial cavity with an instrument customarily associated with construction.” We say, “He bashed her brains out in a brutal attack with a claw hammer.”
We apparently have no stomach for similarly descriptive (honest) terminology when it comes to the unborn….
Reality pop quiz: When rational people can dispassionately discuss whether it’s better to dismember or collapse the skull of a pre-born baby, are they still allowed to call themselves rational?
Is anyone prepared to take that pop quiz?
[Hat tip: Patte S.]