By Sam Pierce -
Perhaps some of us on the right struggle with vocabulary more than others. Some can speak or write eloquently and impact policy or its perception. Still others string words together in an artful yet shallow manner. it really does seem that vocabulary and phraseology are often stumbling blocks or at least challenges to effective communication of arguments for life, liberty, and property.
The challenge presents itself on multiple fronts. The most egregious and dastardly of these are the intentional misleading abuse of language by the enemies of society on the left. The trickiest challenge, though, comes from the actual broad definitions of politically charged words such as abortion, immigrant, and gender.
Illinois Family Action recently cross-posted an article from Townhall.com by Robert Knight, titled "How Weasel Words Pave the Road to Hell." From the article:
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker drew “whoops and cheers” from onlookers on June 12 as he signed The Reproductive Health Act, which he called “a beacon of hope in the heart of this nation.” A widely published AP photo shows him grinning broadly and holding up a pen as female abortion activists applaud.
The Reproductive Health Act repeals the state’s parental consent requirement and the state’s ban of partial-birth abortions, clearing the way for killing unborn children right up to the moment of birth. It’s similar to the law enacted in enlightened New York and ones proposed in a number of other Democrat-heavy states, including Virginia. While Republican-led states are passing “heartbeat” bills that protect human life after a heartbeat is detected, Democrats in response think this is a pregnant moment to do away with all restrictions on the “procedure.”
The Illinois law itself bears the glaring weasel word phrase: “reproductive health.” It has nothing to do with health or with reproduction but their opposite — destroying a human life in the womb and even the birth canal. “In this state,” Mr. Pritzker chivalrously declared, “women will always have the right to reproductive health care.” What a prince.
Women already had the “right to reproductive health care.” Nobody was stopping women from getting pregnant, having babies, getting prenatal care, or acquiring birth control devices or drugs.
The term “reproductive health” now means abortion. It also conveys the idea that women have the “right” to force other people to pay for their birth control and abortions. Democrats are still trying to coerce the Little Sisters of the Poor and the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby into offering abortifacients as a “right” regardless of their belief that this would make them complicit in taking innocent human lives. So much for “choice.”
Speaking of weasel words, there’s confusion over just what constitutes a “right.” In the name of economic equality, progressives (i.e. socialists) insist that poor women have the right to free birth control and free abortions. But having a right to do something or acquire something is not the same as forcing others to pay for it.
Knight packs many examples in his article but one might think that a person writing for a conservative site might be engaging in his own manipulation. A few visits to the Twitter feeds of prominent "progressive" leaders such as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Alexandria Ocrazio-Cortez shows that Knight is simply describing an all too common practice. Viewing the outlandish statements and proposals followed by the idiocy of their dronish supporters can be very entertaining. That is until the realization that there are so many that have been indoctrinated or conditioned to believe what is being shoveled. The "weasel words" appear to be effective and will be difficult to counteract. One of the concerns is if the generations of indoctrinated youth can be convinced that right is indeed right and what they have been force-fed is wrong.
While the abuse of vocabulary by those playing "Pander The Vote" is as alarming as the fact that Alexandria Ocrazio-Cortez is a college graduate, the barriers placed by the definitions of some words can be just as challenging. Immigration, abortion, and gender all have definitions that allow the same political prostitutes latitude to twist meanings into weapons against common sense, decency, and sovereignty.
From Merriam-Webster.com:
Definition of immigration:
an act or instance of immigrating
specifically : travel into a country for the purpose of permanent residence there
Definition of abortion:
1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: such as
Definition of gender:
1a: a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms
b: membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass
c: an inflectional form (see INFLECTION sense 3a) showing membership in such a subclass
2a: SEX sense 1a the feminine gender
b: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
Each of the words have definitions that allow for the misuse by those who seek to destroy the already frayed fabric of our constitution for gains of personal power, ill-gotten wealth, or misguided sense of justice. The freaks in the Democrat circus seem obvious in their omission of the word "illegal" every time they tug at the heartstrings of those foolish enough to listen when addressing those who enter our nation and stay illegally. In a similar fashion, the use of the word gender to include more than Baskin-Robbins has flavors would also be received as a ridiculous joke to reasonable people.
"Abortion" is another matter. I should have come to this realization much earlier due to personal experience. In 2002 my wife had a miscarriage of our fourth child (since we have had four more healthy children), early in the pregnancy. She was bleeding and the doctor could not find the baby's heartbeat. We were sent to have an ultrasound to confirm the diagnosis. At the hospital, we were given a paper with the order for the ultrasound. I don't remember if it said "reason" or "diagnosis" or something similar, but the reason stated was "Threatened Abortion." Given what the term abortion meant to us, this compounded how devastated we were. At the time I didn't follow politics to the degree I would later so eventually that shock faded.
I have noticed pro-abortion activists and apologists claiming that banning abortion would lead to criminalizing miscarriages. At first I dismissed these claims as the rantings of imbeciles such as Illinois Review troll "no really." Recently, however, I have noticed the advocates for infanticide claiming that bans or restrictions would force women to carry dead fetuses to term or forbid treatment of ectopic pregnancies (pregnancy in the fallopian tube as opposed to the uterus). These claims seemed outrageous but it occurred to me that some weaker-minded audiences might be frightened into supporting abortion if they believed this type of spin. This situation could potentially prevent decent people from supporting bans of elective abortion.
I know that intellectually honest people refer to illegal immigrants or aliens in an appropriate manner. I suggest that a concerted effort be made to referring to "elective abortion" as opposed to "abortion" when fighting for the sanctity of innocent life.
