Those left-wing mind-molders in their ivory towers falsely insist that language is man-made, invented for personal and subjective use. George Orwell suggested in his essay Politics and the English Language that “any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism” at least in the eyes of the literati. Language, we are told, much like the Constitution must “evolve” and “adapt” to the changing times. The misuse of speech today becomes the orthodoxy of tomorrow.
“Many things are permissible to men not perfect in virtue, which would be intolerable in a virtuous man.” St. Thomas Aquinas
It is commonplace among the left to make a false distinction between the euphemism ‘pro-choice’ and its obvious antecedent ‘pro-abortion.’ But then, modern speech codes are designed to protect the ‘hyper-sensibilities of a debilitated and soft intelligentsia’ that prohibit plain and honest speech, especially on matters of human sexuality. Those who favor the legality of abortion argue that it is not the termination of a human life but the excision of some type of bio-material. No other generation in human history was confused about what grows in a woman’s womb after conception, but today’s deceivers pretend that it is a real question.
When the sperm fertilizes an egg, conception produces a human being with his or her own unique DNA sequence. This separate being is either human or it is not. There is no scientific reason to suggest that it is not and even less ground in the philosophical anthropology to assert that it is not.
Let us be reasonable and assume that this newly conceived child is indeed a human being endowed by the Creator with an inalienable right to life. Human personhood begins at conception. This conclusion is not only in right relationship to the proper use of the intellect, but should be fairly obvious, even to the dim-witted, just by the observation of a newborn. Is it not self-evident that what is born is exactly that which has been in the womb for nine months?
Pro-choice is but an euphemism, a corrupt and dishonest means to suggest that a mother has a right to murder her unborn child. There is nothing healthy about an abortion which kills one patient and emotionally, physically and spiritually scars the other for life. Pro-choice is a rewording whose de facto antecedent is pro-abortion, whose legal antecedent is the termination of a life in the womb, whose moral antecedent is murder in the womb, whose ontological antecedent is the killing of an innocent, whose biblical antecedent is spilling the blood of Abel.
If a fertilized egg is a human, which clearly it is, and that human is innocent, which surely it is, then to terminate the life of that child in the womb is the murder of an innocent human being. In the realm of natural law, which flows out of the eternal and divine law, it is a most unnatural act for a mother to participate in the murder of her own child. And murder is clearly what the act of abortion is, but the clarity of the act becomes obscure when it is called an abortion, or women’s health, or pro-choice, or reproductive rights, or any other euphemism used to confuse the public.
If you are pro-choice, to claim that you support the right of a woman to murder her unborn child is analogous to the absurd statement that one supports the right of a woman to murder her neighbor. In even more disturbing terms, image for a moment that pro-choice was meant to denote a man’s choice to choose whether or not he was going to rape a woman. Would it be easy to say that while you don’t support rape and would never rape anyone, you do support his right to rape – after all it is his body and he can do with it what he chooses!
All humans have the choice to lie, murder, or steal, but we are morally confused if we say something like “I support the right of the liar to lie to whom he will, or the thief to steal what he wants, or the murderer to kill whomever he pleases.” A decent human would never condone such behaviors or say that he tolerates anyone’s right to choose to commit a crime, not just because they are objectively wrong, but because they damage the fabric of society.
Abortion is a moral crime worse than those mentioned above. What kind of person would encourage such an evil on women and children? Clearly it is first a moral derangement. Obama once said he would encourage his own daughter to procure an abortion if she were to become pregnant. I can hardly imagine a more public or devastating disavowal of manly virtue than that.
Our moral duty to protect innocent life is the bedrock of civilization and the founding principle of this great nation. To first legalize and justify, and now to praise the murder of innocents and to denigrate calls to protect innocent unborn babies is the beginning of the end.
Source: The Pro-Choice Delusion by Steven Jonathan Rummelsburg, which can be read in full at this link.