You Don’t Say!
Newsweek senior reporter Sarah Kliff penned a “web exclusive” titled “I Am Zygote, Hear Me Roar.” Kliff works hard at dehumanizing the earliest human person in our midst … the human individual. The problem is that she uses inaccurate language to achieve her goal.
This is not really due to her ignorance but rather her zeal to convince the reader that preborn children are not really anywhere near as valuable or as human as those of us who survived the womb.
She writes that Colorado’s first personhood effort in 2008 “would have revised Colorado's state constitution to define a fertilized egg as a person, thereby outlawing abortion.” Kliff is wrong. We don’t say that. In fact, “fertilized egg” is a scientifically inaccurate term that is used by pro-abortion forces to relegate the preborn child during his first days of life to a non-human status.
Average citizens who hear the term “fertilized egg” have a mental idea of the same sort of egg one finds in a chicken coop or the refrigerator and automatically, as the pro-aborts hope, the citizen is put off by such a silly idea, saying things such as “who would ever argue that an egg is a person!”
Those of us who understand the biological development of the human being know that the correct words to say are “human being” or “human zygote.”
Kliff also tells the reader that the “idea” regarding when a human life begins has always been at the center of “anti-abortion-rights ideology.” In other words, she relegates the actual scientific facts regarding human development to nothing more than an “idea,” and the defense of those facts as theory. By carefully choosing her words, Kliff obfuscates, but that too is intended.
We don’t say “idea,” and we don’t say “ideology” because both are inaccurate, which is precisely why our opponents do.
Freelance writer Wendy Norris recently created a blog entitled “Financial Issues Dog Second Colorado Egg-as-Person Campaign.” In case you missed it, she too cleverly gets that little old “egg” into her headline. Just a coincidence? I don’t think so.
Norris is a bit more jaundiced in her remarks, focusing on the absence of adequate funding for Personhood Colorado’s activities. She focuses on the most recent campaign finance report in terms of what she defines as the organizational leadership’s “vow of poverty.” By suggesting that the group has little funding, she avers that in their lack of income, one can see their downfall.
In fact, Norris was so worried about where the group got the money to fund a mailing that might have cost a thousand dollars that she desperately tried to call the leadership for an explanation.
Claiming “The peculiarities on Personhood Colorado campaign's recent financial disclosure form may very well be an oversight by fledgling activists. Or it could point to a much more cynical attempt to thwart public accountability by a well-oiled theocratic political machine,” she misses the whole point.
When grassroots pro-lifers are committed to a cause, they frequently use their own personal resources to finance a campaign until such time as there is a thriving fundraising effort. I have known people who worked a regular job and poured all their excess income into a pro-life program, and the last time I looked that was not a crime!
Where has this woman been? Or is she simply making an attempt to destroy Personhood Colorado by tossing innuendo the way a Southerner tosses pancakes?
By using phrases such as “shadowy activities” and “reporting snafus” it would seem that Norris is hell-bent on doing whatever she can to bring down Personhood Colorado based on nothing but her personal opinion. Norris is apparently not adept at arguing articulately about her reasons why personhood is not necessary.
Perhaps this is because she knows there are no intellectual, logical arguments to support her pro-death tendencies, so character assassination appears to be her main course.
We don’t say such things, because we don’t have to; we have the facts which speak for themselves … if given a chance to be born, of course.
USA Today has joined this linguistic circus as well – recently blogging about the reasons why aborting a child prior to birth is really what health insurance reform should be about.
In an opinion piece subtitled “It’s a legal medical procedure—and insurance should cover it,” the editors posit the dubious claim that aborting a child is in the same category as removing an infected tooth. But what is most egregious about this blather is the following:
“Since the mid-1970s, abortion opponents have managed to cut off insurance coverage for the procedure for a larger and larger number of Americans. With exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother, federally funded abortions are banned for women covered by military insurance, Medicaid, the health benefits program for federal employees, and the Indian Health Service.
“This is, of course, the result of deep religious conviction. For those who believe that life begins at conception, pursuing such policies is a moral obligation. But it is simultaneously an intrusion into the private lives of millions of American women of other beliefs in a nation where the government is supposed to be religiously neutral. Now, the same forces are pushing for more.”
Note that the writer equates a “ban” with the funding of at least some, if not more than a few child killings. I never knew that banning something was the same as permitting it. I wonder where we find that definition.
The blogger further suggests that the reason for curtailing federal funding is some “deep religious conviction.” Well, pardon me, but again we are dealing with human embryology, which is a science, not a church. We are further dealing with logical analysis of scientific facts, which is not a dogma but a function of the intellect if one cares to use it. Apparently, in the world of abortion advocacy, there isn’t much desire for cerebral exercise these days. Overstatements and misstatements appear to be favored fare when writing about preborn human beings.
Finally, there is this idea that one’s position on abortion is based on a personal belief. Such assertions are loaded with deliberately inaccurate terminology designed to continue the grand scheme that has been in play for nearly forty years.
The culture of death architects devised a long-range plan which has always been to convince an unthinking public that abortion is not killing anyone but rather a surgery like any other. The tragedy of this strategy is that children die, mothers are wounded, families are destroyed and death persists unabated because ignorance rules.
This is why we don’t say “belief,” we say “fact.” We don’t say “I think,” we say “I know.” We don’t say “that’s my opinion,” we say “look at the truth,” the 4-D ultrasound, the images so beautifully presented by eminent photographers like Lennart Nilsson.
We don’t lie, we tell the truth.
For this very reason, every now and then, someone from the dark side’s inner sanctum sees the light. Abby Johnson of Bryan [Texas] Planned Parenthood just had her encounter with the truth and now she tells the media, "I feel so pure in heart (since leaving). I don't have this guilt, I don't have this burden on me anymore that's how I know this conversion was a spiritual conversion."
We do say, thank God!