May 7, 2026.
The abortion case of Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court all the way back in 1973.
Normally, the Court’s guidance would give some real direction to the argument and progress
would insue in dealing with the issue so that all could move on to other matters of the day. But
that is not the case when it comes to abortion. Since the decision, there has been name calling,
violence, and even murder. The abortion issue has divided the country into two quite divergent
camps, each of which has provided itself with a self-serving moniker that puts it into a light,
more favorable than is truly descriptive of its actual views. The mislabeling of the sides of this
argument only exacerbates the confusion, animosity and the resulting stalemate.
Those opposed to abortion affectionately refer to themselves as “pro-life”. Doesn’t this title
sound noble? But the problem is that these are often the same people that are in favor of the
death penalty and are the first to sound the war cries when our country is threatened. So killing
seems appropriate, at least sometimes. The questions really become, when and under what
circumstances. Maybe a more accurate term for these people is “anti-abortion”. This more
accurate label forces this group to become more articulate in defending its position, and in the
end, may well compell a more reasoned approach to the issue. They can no longer simply reduce
their position to “the sanctity of human life”.
The proponents of abortion are hiding behind an even more misleading label, that of “pro-
choice”. Calling themselves “pro-choice”, they proudly proclaim their intellectual superiority
and progessive sense of the protecion of individual privacy rights, including a “woman’s right to
choose”. But hold on just a minute. Are they really saying that women are too ignorant to know
that when a man and a woman choose to have sex, there is a possibility, (even where
contraception is used) that a pregnancy may result? And that therefore a woman needs the right
to choose to abort where the unbelievable consequence of their choice to have sex, resulted in
pregnancy? Obviously not. At least, I hope not. But that’s what the term “pro-choice” means.
What actually is going on is that a man and a woman already made a choice to have sex. This
crowd just wants to be relieved of the consequences of the first choice by being given a second
choice to end the responsibility of the consequences of the first choice. Better labels for this side
of the argument are possibly “anti-responsibility”, “cosequence-avoiders”, or maybe just “pro-
abortion”.
Now that the parties are properly identified, maybe we can get on with the task of honestly
addressing the issues. The first and maybe the easiest of the disputed areas of concern involve
rape, incest, and the life of the woman involved. The first two circumstances speak to instances
where the woman did not have a choice at inception. Shouldn’t a woman have a choice of some
kind. In these specific areas, a woman should at least be given a first choice. The anti-abortion
crowd allows for the killing of people in some instances. It seems appropriate that these
circumstances warrant consideration.
Other issues remain, but at least the politically correct labels have been removed and the real
issues are uncovered. Let the debate now move forward in a more honest path so that we can
actually find a resolution to the abortion question that has so stubbornly divided us for so long.
Discussion Starter Suggestions:
1. Other instances of obfuscating clear language:
- A. Bum >Vagrant >Homeless >Undomiciled.
- B. Illegal alien >Illegal immigrant >Undocumented immigrant >Undocumanted American >Asylum seeker.
- C. Shell shock >Battle fatigue >Operational exhaustion >PTSD
- D. Global cooling >Acid rain >Ozone layer >Global warming >Climate change
- E. Homosexual >Gay >Gay & Lesbian >LGB >LGBTQ+
- F. Steal> shoplift >microlooting
2. Are these shifts in descriptive language intentional?
3. Do these changes help are hurt our ability to exchange ideas?