.png){kind=tracking}
Euphemism, Part 1
‘Reproductive rights’ et. al.
I come to an interest in euphemism honestly. I was a journalist, writer, and editor for half a century. Euphemisms have their uses, of course, like softening the blow of bad news—telling someone that a friend has “passed” or “passed away.” But many euphemisms are wicked, hiding brutal facts we don’t want to face: e.g. when “collateral damage” is used to blur the fact that innocent people were killed in a military strike.
I don’t know that I can prove this, but it seems that today we’ve fallen in love with too many euphemisms, many of which don’t merely soften the tragedies of human existence, but actually hide what’s actually going on. Talking about those euphemisms—that’s what interests me in this series. So we begin with perhaps my greatest pet peeve (a euphemism, I admit[!], for something that deeply saddens me).
Nearly every term commonly used to denote destroying a human being in the womb obscures that reality. The focus shifts our attention away from what’s happening in the womb to things abstract—family planning, pro-choice, and reproductive rights come to mind.
To their political credit, such terms traffic in ideas that everyone supports. Even the ardent pro-lifer believes in the value of planning wisely for a family, of having freedom of choice in doing that, and protecting rights in general.
The same can be said, of course, about the term pro-life, for who would claim to be pro-death? As a pro-lifer myself, I understand the need for terms that sit well with the larger public and capture the essence of the movement.
But what is clarified and what is obscured by our terms? Family planning puts the emphasis on the couple doing the planning. Pro-choice zero’s in on the individual woman’s decision. Reproductive rights shifts our attention to a legal and moral issue, human rights. To be fair, these are umbrella terms that capture many concerns, but one essential element of each is something awful to contemplate.
Which is why we don’t hear people clearly say that family planning includes, among other things, ending the life of a girl growing in the womb if she doesn’t fit in with the family’s plans. Nor do people plainly say they want, among other freedoms, the freedom to kill a developing boy when he is not yet an infant. And no one actually says that, among other rights, they affirm the right to destroy human life in the womb.
Some will rightly point out that I’m assuming the humanity, the personhood of the being growing inside a woman’s body, and that it is only a human person who deserves rights. Yes, but is it a biological fact that as soon as an embryo forms, we are dealing with a member of the species Homo sapiens and no other other species, one who can only grow into a full human being.
So, yes, there are arguments about when this being becomes a human person, and thus deserving legal and moral protections. Some claim, like the Roman Catholic Church among others, that personhood begins at conception. Others point to the moment of birth. And there are cases made for various points between—and, rarely, some not until months after birth! Though I follow the Catholic view, I grant that in a pluralistic, democratic society comprised of people subscribing to various philosophies and religions, this is a difficult question to settle once and for all in the public square.
What is not difficult to discern, if we are bravely willing to move beyond mere euphemism, is that the being inside the mother is human, and that what we’re finally talking about is destroying the life of a developing human being.
At least once in a while in the many debates surrounding this issue, can we call a thing what it is?
Grace and peace,
Mark
%20covenantchurchsd%20-%20YouTube.png)
%20-%20YouTube.png)
