Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Words still have meaning ...despite what some will tell you

Walking out of a meeting tonight, the conversation turned toward the meaning of marriage and why some people oppose extending the term to include people of the same sex. I gave them a simple answer. the word marriage is defined as "a compact entered into by an man and a woman to live together as husband and wife." The word marriage has a specific meaning. To call it anything else other than what it is, is to change the meaning of the word. If words do not have meaning, then we cannot communicate rationally.

We have seen the same "debate" in the abortion issue. I remember in law school citing the legal cases from the past 300 years that defined the "fetus" as an unborn child. I pointed out he legal term "infant in ventre sa mere" (L.Fr.in his mother's womb) as referring to the unborn child in the womb. I explained that courts of law had defined this term to refer to a child in the womb, who was a person in the law for all purposes that would benefit the child. I argued that life was the first and primary right that the child had.

The reaction was always the same. "You cannot argue that," they would cry, "That's your opinion." when I would pull out the medical texts to support the scientific evidence, they would have none of it. When I cited the case law, they would ignore the argument and begin the standard ad hominum attack.

Has anything changed?

Are people who have seen the incredible technology of ultrasound suppose to ignore that reality just to hold on to their superstitions.for that is what the pro-abortion mentality is - mindless prattle. And when supposedly intelligent people spout off this idiocy, it is an insult to them and to us. If one is in favor of abortion, admit that kills a baby and in order to support abortion, babies have to die. That is at least intellectually honest. But to defend abortion without acknowledging the death of a child is like describing water without saying it is wet.

President Obama and his cabinet are all pro-abortion. They support a woman's power to kill her child in the womb. Our former governor Janet Napolitano was so in favor of abortion that she allowed a 14 year old ward of the court to be flown to Kansas so that an abortion of 27 weeks could be performed. She and her kind wanted a dead baby. The abortionist was George Tiller, the infamous killer of children who is on trail for performing illegal abortions. His close friend and supporter, Kathleen Sebelius, the newest candidate for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Here is someone who will not protect innocent little babies. Do you really think she is going to protect fragile old people who are using up too many resources.

What will happen is that the words will change and the meanings will change and what means "help" will mean "death."

George Orwell remarked that "If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." He also said that "Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

The left has mad abortion "sound"as if it is a good when it means the death of a child.

So it is we must remain vigilant in our defense of language and the true meanings of words. For if we cannot define our terms we cannot educate as to the truth.

1 Comments:

At 10:58 PM, Anonymous John K. walker said...

As to your irrefutable statement that "If one is in favor of abortion, admit that it kills a baby and in order to support abortion, babies have to die. That is at least intellectually honest. But to defend abortion without acknowledging the death of a child is like describing water without saying it is wet."; in the 1995 (early in the Clinton administration, of course) feminist icon Naomi Wolf (later to be a key advisor to the Gore presidential campaign) did just that, conceding in an article in the New Republic (available at http://www.priestsforlife.org/prochoice/ourbodiesoursouls.htm) all of the scientific facts and even most of their moral implications, but still concluding that for the alledgedly more important convenience of the mother (in part, she was referring to her own use of a morning-after pill) "this (child) must die."

Unsurprisingly, her McCarthy-ish colleagues on the radical left immediately pounced on this heresy (though without providing any cogent counter argument, as usual), and Wolf herself never brought it up again (to my knowledge), undoubtedly to maintain her (obviously superficial) position of "influence."

Soon, there was also this excellent pro-life feminist response:

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/consistent/naomi_wolf.html

 

Post a Comment

<< Home