Opinion

Roe by any other name

Shakespeare’s Juliet once said, “That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” But sometimes, horrors are hidden by the names we give them. Take Roe, for example.

The 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the United States, has been widely celebrated as a case defending the liberty of women. Roe has been credited with everything from bringing women out of the dark ages to allowing women to sleep peacefully at night. The anniversary of Roe is always marked with jubilant celebration from countless politicians and women’s rights advocates who see Roe as the hallmark decision of a battle for women’s equality.

But why is Roe worth celebrating?

The answer for many Roe supporters was brought to light in a Twitter account created by Planned Parenthood to celebrate the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade this past January. The account invited supporters to tweet about what Roe meant to them, with each tweet starting with either the phrase “Because of Roe…” or the phrase “Since Roe…” The hundreds of responses were strikingly repetitive, a few being:

Because of Roe, i’ve been able to pursue a career and successfully manage my finances. —Wendy Robin S.

Because of Roe, I got to choose between having a baby or staying in college. I direct the path of my own life. —Erica P.

Because of Roe, I wasn’t tied to the wrong man for the rest of my life.

Because of Roe, I live in a society in which we are working toward every child being a wanted child. –Elizabeth G

Because of Roe, I am in control —Tina B.

These candid responses clearly seem designed around American ideas of liberty, freedom, and equal opportunity for all. The tiny word Roe is hardly even noticed. It seems so positive, so innocuous.

But what is Roe?

Roe is perhaps the greatest euphemism in America today. It masks the sinister truth that on January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court, through the cases Roe .v Wade and Doe v. Bolton (decided the same day), ruled that it was legal to kill an unborn child – to stop a tiny heartbeat and end a human life – throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Yet that tiny word, Roe, has been successfully used to win campaigns, earn millions of dollars of funding, and shame those who oppose abortion. Roe is the unmatched rallying cry of abortion supporters.

This rosy picture of Roe, however, is instantly shattered when the euphemism is dropped. Try reading the above testimonies with the phrase “killing children became legal” substituted for “Roe.”

Because killing children became legal, i’ve been able to pursue a career and successfully manage my finances.

Because killing children became legal, I got to choose between having a baby or staying in college. I direct the path of my own life.

Because killing children became legal, I wasn’t tied to the wrong man for the rest of my life.

Because killing children became legal, I live in a society in which we are working toward every child being a wanted child.

Because killing children became legal, I am in control.

How many Americans would truly sign their names to these statements?

I offer Planned Parenthood this challenge. Planned Parenthood, when you ask for testimonies on the next anniversary of Roe v. Wade, change the mandatory opening phrase from “Because of Roe…” to “Because killing children is legal…” See for yourself if your thousands of supporters truly support your cause, or just the name you have given it. When it comes down to the truth, Roe by any other name is tragically horrific.

Live Action on Facebook
  • Agamemnon

    Nice! Great to see another High School student with a brain (and a heart)!

  • peach

    It’s not legal to kill children.

    • grdawg

      Uh…yeah it is.  Abortion is legal and abortion kills children – or babies if you prefer that word.

      • peach

        Actually, I prefer the word fetus.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          Gee, I wonder why……..

          • peach

             Because that’s the accurate term?

          • Anonymous

            These people aren’t big on accuracy, I’m afraid…

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Pot, meet kettle.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Nah, I’m pretty sure that’s not it.

          • peach

             Well don’t leave us hanging. What is it?

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Because it helps you avoid thinking about your position’s victims as human beings, therefore helping you sleep better at night.

        • grdawg

          Which just so happens to mean “little one” in Latin.  So fine, it’s legal to kill “little ones” of the human species.  Hmmm…sounds like children to me.

        • SuperLogic

          A rose by any other name IS still a rose… You can try and confuse and whitewash the issue with some obscure label, it doesn’t change the reality of what it is, a living human being, in the same way that an infant is no less human then a child, and a child no less worth then an adolescent, and a teen of no less valuable then an adult!

        • SuperLogic

          By the nick name I am under the impression you are a woman? Do you realize women weren’t even considered persons in Canada until just under 100 years ago?? We’re they right??

          • peach

             Yeah and abortion was illegal back then too. Go figure.

          • grdawg

            So neither women nor children were valued or recognized as complete human beings.  Today, the children still aren’t.

          • SuperLogic

             So, what’s your point?   So should killing of women have been legal too since they weren’t considered persons??   Your answer has no relevance.

        • Jenny

          ok lets humor you and call it a fetus. What is it called once its born and takes a breath? still a fetus? It is legal to in some states to let a baby which has been born alive by “mistake” to breath and then left to die. Or how about post birth abortion? This is on the political table. Killing a child or “allowing” ( see not helping or feeding or keeping warm) a child to die if after it’s birth parents immediatly decide that they can’t support or emotionaly handle or plain old don’t want because of some birth defect to their baby. So I ask you peach where do you draw the line? Have you ever looked up real abortion facts? Seen pictures of dead baby parts that the Dr. has to put back together to make sure they didnt leave anything in the  mother? How about seen a preemie in ICU? Babies can be saved at 20/22 weeks gestation. We can abort them up untill and really after birth. So call it whatever you want ,it breathes has a heartbeat and people are killing it. We fight to save baby seals but not our own babies.

    • MoonChild02

      Kill:
      1. To deprive of life in any matter; cause the death of; slay
      2. To destroy; do away with; extinguish
      3. To inflict or cause death

      Life: The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to environment originating from within the organism.

      Child:
      1. An unborn or recently born person
      2. A young person, especially between infancy and youth
      3. An unborn infant; a fetus
      4. An infant; a baby
      5. One who is childish or immature
      6. A son or daughter; an offspring

      Being that an embryo/fetus is living, and abortion “gets rid of” the embryo/fetus, that means that abortion ends the life of the embryo/fetus.

      So, yes, it is legal to kill children, if those children happen to be unborn children.

      • peach

         Unborn sounds like a pretty big stipulator. It’s not correct to say it’s legal to kill to children because, as you pointed out, the definition of children includes infants, babies and young people, and it’s definitely not legal to kill them.

        • SuperLogic

          AND the definition of child ALSO includes an unborn baby, so you are contradicting yourself!

          • peach

             Go kill a four year old and let me how that works out for you. When the cops come to arrest you, give them some of that super logic of yours and I’m sure they’ll let you walk.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            So legal differences demonstrate moral differences? I’m glad you don’t teach the history of slavery…….

          • peach

            We were talking about legal differences. Go back up to the top of this thread where I said it wasn’t LEGAL to kill children. I’m glad you don’t teach reading comprehension.

          • First Citizen

            So you are saying that because it is legal to only kill some children it is not legal to kill children? In the 1800 it was legal to own only some people did that mean slavery was not legal? No, it was only legal to own someone who had dark skin. If the unborn is a child murder is legal. We must answer the question ‘what is the unborn.’ The best book on that topic that I have found is Defending Life by Francis Beckwith.

            For Life
            Visit my blog at aconstitutionalconservative.blogspot.com

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Oh, I understood your argument just fine.

          • SuperLogic

             That was his point, as mine.  That legal doesn’t make it moral.   How can it be moral to abort a child in Canada, and immoral to abort a child elsewhere in the world?   Does location change morality??   What determines morality?

          • SuperLogic

             You just supported my argument.  It ISN’T legal to kill a four year old, so why should it be legal to kill an unborn baby?!?    My logic is just fine, yours leaves A LOT to be desired.  You are contradicting yourself.    Does the law define morality??    If a law changes, does that mean the action suddenly is moral??   If we legalized murder, would that make it ok??   Even if everyone in Germany agreed with killing the Jews, would that have made it right??  YOUR logic is severely flawed!

        • MoonChild02

          Saying that it’s not legal to kill children would imply that it’s not legal to kill any who are defined as such. However, since the definition of “children” includes those who are unborn, yes, it is legal to kill children, provided that said children fit the definition of “unborn”. Rebecca didn’t say it’s legal to kill all children. She just said, “Killing children became legal”, which implies that it is legal to kill some of those who fit the definition of children.

          In the article, Rebecca points out that Roe v. Wade “ruled that it was legal to kill an unborn child”. Therefore, when she says “killing children became legal”, what she means truly means is that killing unborn children became legal. What she was trying to point out in the article is that Roe made it legal to kill children, provided you do so before they are born.

          What is meant by this is that we don’t see a difference between those inside the womb and those outside the womb, as they’re all children, and killing a child, any child, is horrible.  If one who is unborn is defined as a child, and it’s wrong to kill children, then it should be wrong to kill one who is unborn, because s/he is also a child.

          In fact, the whole situation of legal abortion has lead to what is known as a “slippery slope”, in which it has now been stated by medical ethicists that it is not unethical to kill a newborn, because the only difference between an unborn child and a newborn is that one is inside of the woman, and the other is outside.
          http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full
          http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100140331/after-birth-abortion-is-logically-sound-thats-why-it-will-boost-the-pro-life-movement/

    • turtlechick

      It’s unfortunately legal in all 50 states to kill children.  They call it abortion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/john.pongratz John Quentin Pongratz

    I love how PP doesn’t mention that “Roe” has come out against abortion since that infamous decision.

  • G.Stark

    Guest
    Brilliant article. Well written. Thank you, Rebecca.

  • http://twitter.com/lucylefever Lucy LeFever

    Great, well-written article! : )