by Deacon Keith Fournier –
To the consternation of those who oppose the Right to Life the Republican Party passed a Pro-Life Plank in Tampa, Florida on Tuesday, August 21, 2012. The platform will come before the delegates next Monday for a vote. The platform committee is chaired by the Pro-Life Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell.
The language of the Republican Platform is refreshingly clear: “Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”
Sadly, the opponents of the fundamental Human Right to Life of our youngest neighbors in the first home of the human race control much of the media. So, this heroic action by the Republican Platform Committee is reported in much of the Press as a “rejection of abortion rights”.
In addition, the members of the platform committee who voted to defend the Natural Law Right to life of these children are labeled by “reporters” such as CNN’s Ashley Bansfield as members of the “very far-right wing of the party.” Since when is the defense of fundamental human rights a matter of being “very far right wing”?
Then there is the despicable effort to link those who defend the child in the womb as our neighbor with the controversial Missouri Senatorial candidate Todd Akin whose insensitive, inaccurate, insane and errant comment concerning rape victims is not even worth repeating in this article. Such a guilt by association ploy by opponents of the Right to Life, foisted by some in the media, is as reprehensible as Akins comment.
The Republican Platform committee did the correct thing. They should be applauded. Sadly, the platform committee of the Democratic Party rejected meager efforts by Pro-Life members to even make room in their platform for those who disagree with their rejection of the Right to Life in their meeting earlier this month in Detroit.
The members of the media I refer to do not report with verbal integrity. They are more like ministers of propaganda than reporters. They use deadly loaded language. They promote the lie that there can ever be a “right” to kill children in the womb when they use language such as “abortion rights”. Such loaded language is an example of Orwellian “New Speak”. It obscures the insidious nature of an evil which is rotting our culture from the inside out.
In his 1946 essay entitled “Politics and the English Language” George Orwell wrote that “One ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end.” That is why I again write to expose this loaded language.
I heard CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interview Reince Priebus, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, on Tuesday evening. Throughout the interview Blitzer used that phrase now touted regularly by these ministers of propaganda disguised as reporters – “abortion rights”.
The phrase is now routinely used by the main stream media. They also call those who want to defend babies against pre-emptive lethal strikes against them opponents of “abortion rights.” The claim of a “right” to abort an innocent child is heinous enough when it is described as a woman´s “Right to Choose.”
People can and do make immoral and intrinsically evil choices such as taking innocent human life. The current state of the positive law in the United States – since the horrendous Supreme Court decisions in Roe and Doe – is that there is one group of human persons who can be killed by “choice”, our youngest neighbors.
That “choice” now wrongly is protected by the Police Power of the State. Rather than being outlawed like all other intentional killings, abortion has been given a status as some sort of “super right” in the United States. The media is now routinely using deadly loaded language to hide the evil. Their sophistry must be exposed and opposed.
The current approach of abortion on demand is no different than if the U.S. Supreme Court had somehow found a “right” to kill three week old babies after their birth in that “penumbra” pit from which the “Justices” pulled this “abortion right” from in the Roe and Doe opinions. There is no moral difference between killing a baby in the womb and killing a baby outside of the womb.
Imagine if the proponents of slavery called it a “slavery right” just because the Supreme Court said it was legal. Well they did just that in the now dreaded Dred Scott decision! We look back on that case in horror, as we should. The Supreme Court cannot make a wrong a right with the stroke of a judicial quill or a keyboard!
Abortion is feticide; its true horror is concealed by deadly loaded language intended to make it sound acceptable. Its advocates deploy “rights language” to try to make it sound noble. They repeat the phrase “abortion rights”, “abortion rights”, “abortion rights”.. ad nauseam. Their collaborators in the media use this deadly loaded language without even thinking about what they are saying, or writing.
The notion that one method of intentionally killing an entire class of human persons should be called a “right” is despicable. Abortion is a lethal action which always takes an innocent human life. The phrase “abortion rights” is an example of the “decay of language” of which George Orwell wrote.
Actions do not have “rights”. Only human persons can have “rights.” The shorthand phrase “abortion rights” is a linguistic tool used by journalists who have become, knowingly or unwittingly, tools of the proponents of the abortion deception.
There is no “abortion right.” The true Right is the one being denied in every procured abortion, the Right to Life. That preeminent Right to Life is revealed in the Natural Moral Law and confirmed by Medical Science. Children in the womb are our first neighbors. It is always wrong to kill our neighbors. We all know it. We simply pretend otherwise and use deadly loaded language to cover over the evil act.
Let´s look at some hard cold truth again. We surgically operate on our first neighbors in the womb. We then put them back in their home and allow them to continue to grow so they can be healthier upon their birth. We know they are members of our human family. Our 4D sonogram technology has made it possible to take baby´s first picture and send it as a birth announcement or place it on a Face Book or My Space page or send it through our Social Networks.
We rightly marvel at the image of those little babies at the early stages of what is a lifetime of development for every human being. However, we then use that same technology to direct the weapons of warfare which will dismember them in the womb and kill them. We do not want to see those pictures.
When one of these little ones dies due to a “miscarriage” we all empathize and say that the grieving woman “lost her baby.” However when one of those little ones dies due to surgical dismemberment, the effects of ingested chemical weapons, burning by saline or death by suction we call that loss of the baby the exercise of a “right”?
We all know the truth. Every intentional killing of a defenseless innocent human person is wrong! There is supposed to be a moral foundation for our positive law. We forget that at our great National peril. George Orwell´s words were prophetic, “The present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end.”
The following quote is also attributed to George Orwell, “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” It is time to tell the truth. Let´s bring some improvement to our discourse by starting at the verbal end. The phrase “Abortion Rights” must be rejected. There are no “Abortion Rights” Only Human Rights. The Right to Life is the first of those rights.
We applaud the Republican Platform Committee for its integrity and courage.
HT: Catholic Online
Yes, I do care to comment.
While I agree wholeheartedly with your article, Deacon Fournier, and I wouldn’t want to detract from your main point, I am disappointed in your politically expedient repudiation of Todd Akin’s comments.
Not Akin himself. I don’t know enough about him to repudiate or embrace him; he is not the point. His comment, however, elucidates the point.
The facts are:
1) As any couple struggling with infertility will tell you, stress and trauma can delay ovulation and thereby prevent conception from occurring. Mr. Akin used the wrong words to try to articulate this reality.
2) Only 5% of rapes result in pregnancy, and abortions after rape only account for 1% of abortion performed.
It’s too bad so many Republicans have thought so little about abortion and rape and conception that they cannot properly articulate the arguments that apply to these issues.
It’s also too bad that when someone makes a verbal misstep like this, Republicans scramble to throw them under the bus, so greedy are they for acceptance by the media. It’s absolutely embarrassing.
What is worse is that in this scramble, the good point Mr. Akin made was completely lost. Republicans and pro-lifers — including you, Deacon Fournier — should tirelessly defend unborn children conceived in rape, which is what Mr. Akin was doing in an arguably clumsy way.
NO CHILD SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH FOR THE CRIME OF HIS OR HER FATHER.
CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE KILLED BECAUSE THEY ARE INCONVENIENT, REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THEY WERE CONCEIVED.
It would have been better, Deacon Fournier, for you to have made that point in your essay than to have further excoriated Mr. Akin. This was not a service for anyone.
I do hasten to remind you that I wholeheartedly appreciate everything else you wrote.
Would not morning-after pills make pregnancies from rape even less common now than they were before?
The “morning after pill” has the three “modes of action”:
1. The normal menstrual cycle is altered, or “messed with” — as with stress or trauma — so that ovulation is delayed; or
2. Ovulation is inhibited or prevented — meaning the egg is prevented chemically from being released from the ovary; or
3. It also has the property of altering the lining of the uterus in such a way that a fertilized ovum is prevented from “settling in”, if you will. In other words, it doesn’t always prevent conception from occurring; sometimes it just inhibits implantation.
I, for one, am not in favour of “messing with” things, especially if there is the possibility of a chemical abortion, which is sometimes the result.