Opinion

Pro-choice language dehumanizes children in the womb and obscures honest debate about abortion

cecile-richards

The pro-choice community is so desperate for support that they will literally redefine words in order to champion their agenda. “Fetus” is a formal term to identify the developmental state of a human or animal. But as a means of undermining the cruelty of termination, they simply manipulate the term fetus to be a clump of cells or abstract tissue. It’s no wonder that this form of dehumanization instills a great apathy towards their view of the value of life.

This type of objectification towards the baby is manifested in other ways such as with the following quote by Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood. In regards to the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding towards abortive procedures outside the risk of the mother’s life, Richards responds:

“For too long this country has punished low-income women seeking abortion, forcing those who have the least to pay the most to access care.”

Two words in this phrase stick out as manipulative and dishonest: punished and care.

‘Punished’

Punishment comes as a consequence to wrongful actions but since nobody is suggesting that the woman is wrong to be pregnant there is thus no need for a punishment. Prohibiting tax dollars from funding an elective procedure that does not cure a medical condition is not a punishment.

The Hyde Amendment is not punishing women for having sex or being pregnant. It is simply prohibiting tax dollars from funding a procedure that has significant ethical and moral implications.

‘Care’

Nobody is made “more healthy” for having an elective abortion. But again, the pro-choice community must manipulate the narrative in order to sound halfway accurate.

Richards is pushing a narrative that is necessary for organizations like hers to remain in business. Her and her pantomimes must continue this flow of deceiving rhetoric to fool people into believing that abortion is a women’s rights issue and a tenant of health care.

If Richards was indeed concerned about the well-being of women, then why doesn’t her company distribute funding towards proactive plans to ensure low-income women are provided for? Instead of demanding tax payers pay for an abortion, why doesn’t she use the $30 million she used to woo politicians and redistribute it towards women who she thinks actually need it?

READ NEXT
Comments
To Top

Send this to friend