Posted by
Tracey O'Donnell on Friday, October 19, 2007 9:13:49 AM
Expanding on the football metaphor columnist Frank Pastore
A Question of Strategy for Pro-Lifers used last week to discuss the abortion wars, the pro-life side is never going to win the season if we’re going to play every game on the other guys’ turf.
If the other side is ahead in this game, it is largely because it has defined the terms of play. When we allow abortion advocates to frame the debate by casting themselves as defenders of freedom – hence their preferred term “pro-choice”, we give them home field advantage. If they are “for” good things like choice and freedom, we must be “against” these good things. The crowd is primed to boo us, and we lose the coin toss every time.
If we would all come out of the first defensive huddle having pledged never again to repeat the misleading and nonsensical term “pro-choice,” we’d be well on our way to regaining possession of the ball.
An offensive strategy would call things as they are, would accept no euphemisms, would challenge anyone who said she supported “a woman’s right to choose” to define exactly what she might choose. “To choose
what?” would be our favorite question. People are eager to proclaim themselves advocates of choice, but bristle when pressed for details.
In the opponent’s playbook are any number of terms and phrases designed to mislead. Applying adjectives to the word abortion clouds the issue. “Medical” abortions fix the attention on the woman rather than on the child. The mother simply undergoes a medical procedure. What the term actually denotes is that the death of the fetus is intentional (as opposed to spontaneous). “Therapeutic” abortions sound medically necessary, but really just mean the death of the fetus desired by the mother for some reason other than mere whim. The term “selective reduction” denotes care (selecting), and correcting excess (what must be reduced was excessive), when it means choosing which unwanted humans to kill while sparing others. To avoid the term abortion altogether they refer to the “interruption” or “termination” of pregnancies. Interruption is a bogus concept, as there is no resuming a life snuffed out. At least termination is more honest, though the focus on the word “pregnancy” deflects attention from the human person who is terminated.
But no matter how they phrase it, people who say they support “choice” support the choice of when and how to kill innocent human beings. We should insist that they recognize this. At the very least, we should require them to finish their sentences (Right to choose what?).
If we legitimately call efforts to protect human life from aggression at any stage the “pro-life” movement, why don’t we refer to efforts to foster lethal aggression as the “pro-death” movement? Well, because its members may be wrongheaded, but they are not stupid.
They know that those “pro-bashing-in-the-skull-of-defenseless-babies” t-shirts and bumper-stickers would be a bit harder to sell than their innocuous “pro-choice” and “protect women’s health” propaganda.
What can we call this group instead? At the very least the "pro-abortion" movement. I would turn one of their own euphemisms against them and call them the “terminators,” but I fear they might actually like the tough Hollywood ring it has to it.
Let’s insist on home field advantage. We must assure a win.
A Question of Strategy for Pro-Lifers