Abortion and the English Language
by Joseph Sobran
In his famous essay "Politics and the English Language," George Orwell
analyzed the corrupting influence of dishonest politics on the way we speak
and think. There is no better example than the effect abortion has had on
our language.
Though abortion -- including the killing of viable infants at the verge of
birth -- is now a sacrament of the Democratic Party, nobody admits to being
"pro-abortion"; they are "pro-choice." This is an obvious lie. The right to
choose anything presupposes the right to live. The child, fetus, embryo, or
whatever you want to call the entity growing within its mother's womb has no
"choice" about being killed. It will never have a choice about anything.
The pro-abortion side is pro-abortion in the same way that advocates of
slavery were pro-slavery. "Oh," they protest, "but we don't insist that
everyone get an abortion; we only want people" -- that is, mothers -- "to
have a choice!" Then nobody was pro-slavery either, since nobody insisted
that every white man own a slave; they were "pro-choice." They wanted each
white man to be "free" to decide whether to buy slaves; or they wanted every
state to decide whether to permit slavery. Of course they overlooked the
obvious fact that the slaves themselves had no choice; in their minds this
was irrelevant.
The bad conscience of the pro-aborters shows in their studious avoidance of
the word kill to describe what abortion is. Why be coy about it? We don't
mind speaking of "killing" when we kill lower life forms. Lawn products kill
weeds; mouthwashes kill germs; insecticides kill bugs; mousetraps kill mice.
If the human fetus is an insignificant little thing, why shrink from saying
an abortion kills it? But the pro-abortion side prefers the evasive
euphemism that abortion "terminates a pregnancy."
As Orwell noted, dishonest people instinctively prefer the abstract to the
concrete. Abstract language avoids creating unpleasant mental images that
might cause horror and shame; concrete language may remind us of what we are
really doing. This is why military jargon dehumanizes the targets of bombs
and artillery: so that soldiers and pilots won't vividly imagine the men,
women, and children they are killing. Part of the job of military leadership
is to anesthetize the consciences of fighting men. And political leaders
(who usually start the wars in the first place) do their part by describing
the bombing of cities as "defending freedom."
In the modern world people are trained to avoid looking directly at the
effects of violence they commit or sanction. If possible, the killing is
delegated to specialists, who themselves are increasingly remote from their
victims -- as in recent U.S. bombings of Iraq and Yugoslavia, where American
casualties were nearly zero. Most of us don't mind if our military kills
people on the other side of the world; we feel no pain, even vicariously. We
may even buy the official explanation that our bombs are "preventing another
Holocaust." It may seem otherwise to the Iraqis and Slavs on whose homes
those bombs are falling.
But just as the news media refrain from showing us what those bombs actually
do, they never show us what an abortion looks like. They even refuse to
carry ads by abortion opponents, on grounds that pictures of slaughtered
fetuses are in "bad taste." They certainly are in bad taste; all atrocities
are. But the media are willing to show some atrocities, as in the killing
fields of Rwanda a few years ago. Since we're forever debating abortion, why
not let us see one? Why the blackout?
The answer, of course, is that the news media themselves are pro-abortion.
They adopt the dishonest language of the pro-abortion side: pro-choice,
fetus, terminate, and -- my favorite -- abortion provider (to make the
abortionist sound like a humanitarian).
A few years ago NBC produced a sympathetic movie about a woman seeking an
abortion -- Norma McCorvey, the "Roe" of Roe v. Wade. But when Mrs. McCorvey
later changed her mind and became an active opponent of abortion, did NBC do
a sequel? Unimaginable.
We have to keep our guard up at all times against political language,
especially in seemingly bland journalism, that is subtly infected with
propagandistic purposes.
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
