The latest word game played by “pro-choice” activists

Oh yes. I really did just accuse “pro-choicers” of playing word games – quite commonly, in fact. I’ve already written about how the use of the term “pro-choice” is a word game in and of itself.

I’ve also explained how calling yourself “personally pro-life” doesn’t count. That boils down to just another word game, when you really take time to evaluate the facts.

We won’t even get into the example of Planned Parenthood clinics that tell women something like, “We don’t have any type of procedure where a woman would receive an injury.” Hmm…and that coming from clinics where women have been rushed away in ambulances or even killed. I don’t think I’ll call that a word game. I’ll call that what it is – downright lies.

So let’s get back to the word games.

How about the slogans so often thrown around by NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and company? Slogans like “reproductive justice” and “the war on women.” Let’s be honest: killing an innocent child for reasons of convenience and preference is the opposite of justice. Killing millions of unborn women every year through abortion is the real – and the largest – war on women that exists in our world today.

You’re probably plenty aware of how often the liberal, typically pro-abortion media refers to celebrities’ pregnant bellies as “baby bumps.” Not, of course, “fetus bumps.” No, no – that term (as well as “zygote” and the scientifically inaccurate “fertilized egg”) are reserved for discussions of pro-life legislators and pro-life ideas being voted on by the population. When it’s a political issue – anything that could actually serve to limit abortion – the media tells us we’re just dealing with impersonal “fetuses.” But when a celebrity many gush over is expecting, well, then it’s a baby, folks.

Oh, the word games.

Princess Kate (Photo credit: Tom Soper Photography on Flickr)

Now, the newest word game in this never-ending string of word games has emerged. Kate Middleton is expecting. But what, pray tell, is she expecting? A fetus? A zygote? A fertilized egg? A potential life? Nope. According to Jezebel (your source for nearly all things vehemently pro-abortion), Princess Kate is expecting a baby.

To be entirely fair, the author of Jezebel‘s article does use the word “fetus” twice to describe babies. Neither time is the author discussing Kate’s baby – just babies in general. Apparently general, common babies are “fetuses,” but Kate’s baby is, well, a baby. Odd how that can happen.

“Baby” is used seven times in the article to describe unborn babies, and even “person” is used once.

Riddle me this: how can abortion supporters so easily call a wanted, anticipated, and famous baby a baby but discuss aborted or almost aborted babies as the property of the mother, a parasite, a fertilized egg, fetus, collection of cells, potential life, or other such dehumanizing term? What gives?

Could it possibly be that, deep down, each of us inherently knows that an unborn child is indeed a child? We know the truth. We know that the unborn cry out to be defended, protected, and allowed to live. We all know that abortion is tragedy – not because it’s one in a line of difficult decisions, but because it ends the life of a new, unique, living individual.

If Kate Middleton were to have an abortion, would her baby suddenly transform into a non-baby on Jezebel and in the news at large? I doubt it. Folks, once a baby, always a baby. And a baby’s a baby no matter how small, to paraphrase Dr. Seuss. From the moment of fertilization, a baby exists, and that baby – no matter what happens to him or her – is a human being deserving of life.

And that’s true whether we’re talking about Princess Kate’s baby or your baby.

To Top

Send this to friend