Doublespeak: the language of deception, Part 2

By Marsha West

Abortion on demand

There is an abundance of doublespeak in the abortion debate. Note how instead of saying "women have a right to an abortion" the abortion lobby has coined this phrase: "Women have a right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy." So instead of aborting a pre-born baby (pro-aborts use the dehumanizing term fetus) a woman is simply "terminating a pregnancy."

Call me dense, but here's what I fail to understand. How is it that just being in the womb, unwanted, makes a child's life of no value?

I'm reminded of Isaiah 5:20: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."

Now mull this over in your mind. When was the last time you heard an abortion supporter say, "I'm pro-abortion"? Pro-aborts proudly proclaim they're "pro-choice," or they're for "reproductive rights." Basically what they're saying is that they believe a woman has a "right" to kill an unwanted pre-born human being. That's weird. I mean, think about it. A woman has no "right" to kill an unwanted child outside the womb.

A botched court decision

In 1973 Roe v. Wade became the law of the land. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision gave women the right to eliminate an unborn child for practically any reason. This rogue court made the decision without offering any constitutional defense of it whatsoever. David Kupelian wrote:

"[Robert] Bork offers a disturbing insight into the radical feminist-inspired pro-abortion worldview behind Roe v. Wade. 'No amount of discussion, no citation of evidence, can alter the opinions of radical feminists about abortion,' Bork states, illustrating his point with a story. 'One evening I naively remarked in a talk that those who favor the right to abort would likely change their minds if they could be convinced that a human being was being killed. I was startled at the anger that statement provoked in several women present. One of them informed me in no uncertain terms that the issue had nothing to do with the humanity of the fetus but was entirely about the woman's freedom.'

"Such a supremely selfish brand of 'freedom' is chilling enough, but Bork then explained what 'equality' meant to Roe's backers, including those on the Supreme Court. 'Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote Roe and who never offered the slightest constitutional defense of it, simply remarked that the decision was a landmark on women's march to equality,' explains Bork. 'Equality, in this view, means that if men do not bear children, women should not have to either. Abortion is seen as a way for women to escape the idea that biology is destiny, and from the tyranny of the family role.'"

(http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=39796)

Since 1973 close to 50 million American lives have been terminated — some through the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion.

Abortion is a huge part of the Democratic platform. Most Democrats, including Christian Democrats, support abortion on demand. Some "moderate" Republicans are also pro-aborts. But here's the thing. Abortion is not part of the Republican party platform. The official GOP website states:

"[W]e assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed."(http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm)

Pro-abort Republicans are RINOS — Republican in name only. They consider themselves "moderate Republicans." But some of them prefer "progressive Republicans." (Read: pragmatic.) Talk about a contradiction in terms! Progressive Republicans, a.k.a. Rockefeller Republicans or Teddy Roosevelt Republicans ("The object of government is the welfare of the people..." said Roosevelt) include Senators McCain, Lugar, Graham, Hagel, Snowe, Collins and newly elected Scott Brown. There are also a number of them in the U.S. House of Representatives. Three examples are Castle, Cao and Kirk. The list of governors includes Schwarzenegger, Crist, Rell and Douglas. I must digress from the topic of abortion to add a non-politician to the list who recently made headlines. "Miss Maverick" Meghan McCain declared on Larry King Live, "I consider myself a progressive Republican. I am liberal on social issues. And I think that the party is at a place where social issues shouldn't be the issues that define the party." Oh my! It seems Meghan's hell-bent on redefining the GOP. This begs the question: Has she suddenly become "Daddy's Little Liability"?

During Sen. McCain's 2008 presidential campaign Miss Maverick made it known that she is "pro-sex, pro-life, pro-gay marriage." As an advocate of same-sex "marriage" she believes "homophobia" should not be in the progressive Republican wing. So according to her, conservative Republicans — or anyone else — who oppose same-sex "marriage" are homophobes? (Homophobia is doublespeak for having an irrational fear of lesbians and "gays." (More on this later.) That's a weird comment for Meghan to make, especially in light of the fact that John McCain recognizes marriage as a "unique institution between a man and a woman." Well now, I guess that would make her father a homophobe.

It would also make President Obama a homophobe. During the presidential campaign Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage."

Speaking of President Obama, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) gives Obama a 100% score on his pro-abortion voting record in the Senate for 2005, 2006, and 2007. During the election Princeton professor Robert P. George called then Sen. Obama "the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States," and "the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate." Moreover, Obama is "the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress." (See President Obama's pro-abortion record here: http://lifenews.com/obamaabortionrecord.html)

Strangely, many young people value life

Here's something that may come as a surprise. The younger generation is less likely to support abortion. Two reasons come to mind for this shift. First, the ultrasound. Immature teens look at the image inside the womb of a pregnant mom and realize what they're seeing is a human being in its first stages of life. Hence more and more young people are coming to believe that it's flat-out wrong to kill a child in the womb simply because it's imperfect or unwanted! Second, most kids grow up with their parent's values and beliefs. In other words, they tend to think like their parents. The consequence or irony being that pro-lifers bring more children into this world than pro-aborts. This explains the shift to pro-life.

Here's a troubling statistic. There's a higher rate of abortion among minority women. The abortion rate for black women is five times that of white women. Have black leaders like the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton, both professing Christians, passed this startling statistic onto the black community? As Christians you'd think both of these men would be working their tails off to shut down abortion mills like Planned Parenthood...because Planned Parenthood is helping to reduce the black population! (Make no mistake. PP makes big bucks doing it.) As ministers of God, Revs. Jackson and Sharpton should be pleading with African American women to stop killing their babies!

In the beginning...

In regards to the question, at what stage of development does life begin? the answer is obvious. Life begins at the moment of conception. "When does an acorn become an oak?" asked Greg Koulk on his radio broadcast. "Well, no one knows for sure...Of course we do! An acorn never becomes an oak. An acorn is an oak. Period. That's what an acorn is. It's an oak in immature form. It can become a mature oak tree. But young or old, it's an oak. This is not a matter of opinion, folks. When we get down to it, acorn doesn't describe what a thing is, in a sense; it describes the stage of development of that particular thing. It's kind of like asking what is a teenager? Well, a teenager isn't a particular thing, like there is a being called teenager. What a teenager is is a description of the stage of development of the human being. It is a human at a certain age. An acorn is an oak at a certain age. And a fetus is a human being at a certain age."

Before you haul off and send me an angry email, PLEASE watch these videos:

4-D Ultrasound http://www.prolifeamerica.com/4D-Ultrasound-pictures/

The Silent Scream http://www.silentscream.org/ (Graphic!)

Homosexuality

Lot's of doublespeak comes from radical homosexual activists. Any person that deems homosexuality unhealthy and destructive or opposes same-sex "marriage" is accused of spreading "hate." How does dictionary.com define hate? "To dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest."

In light of the fact that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that homosexual and bisexual men are 50 times more likely to contract HIV than heterosexuals and that the principal way of spreading HIV/AIDS continues to be through male homosexual activity, those who believe it's unhealthy and destructive are prudent to oppose it.

Sodomy is not only dangerous, it's a sexual perversion. The following is from Dictionary.com:

Sodomy: Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.

Perversion: A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant.

Unnatural: Contrary to the laws or course of nature.

What is natural? According to Dictionary.com:

Natural is in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional.

Many people base their opposition to homosexuality on their understanding of right moral actions, and of actions that are wrong because they view certain behavior as destructive and base. For them this is not a minor matter. Acting against one's own conscience is wrong because it goes against one's settled beliefs. Those who believe that homosexuality is extremely hazardous to an individual's health, as well as to the overall health of society, view it as wrong.

It's not just conservatives and people of faith that wish not to normalize homosexuality. Many people feel this way. It's just plain ol' common sense to oppose the things people do that have been proven to be inherently dangerous!

Health is the issue

Parents insist that they're kids eat fruit and veggies, stay away from sweets, and preach to them on the dangers of driving too fast, being overweight, smoking cigarettes, using alcohol and drugs. But they offer little or no information on the dangers of homosexual sex to their loved ones. Obese people can slim down. Smokers can quit. No one can quit HIV/AIDS! (Funny how Michelle Obama's 2010 focus will be on childhood obesity, a problem she calls an epidemic. She worries about children's well-being, and rightly so. On the other hand, Mrs. Obama fully supports homosexual causes. It seems odd that she has not outwardly shown concern for youngster's well-being when it comes to same-sex sex, which often results in a variety of diseases and afflictions that harm the body. HIV/AIDS is a death nell. Certainly eating right and keeping fit is the prudent thing to do — but healthy eating and exercise will not prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS and the large number of other diseases homosexuals suffer from. How anyone can take a position on the former without taking a similar position on the later is illogical. The absurdity takes your breath away!)

Radical homosexual activists wrote the book on doublespeak. Admittedly, gay rights groups have been brilliant when it comes to confusing the message. They've labeled their opponents "intolerant" and "hateful." You oppose same-sex sex you're "homophobic." The dictionary gives two roots for the prefix "homo." The Greek "homo" means "same," the Latin "homo" means "man." Phobia comes from the Greek "phobos," meaning "fear." Do "gays" and lesbians really believe people fear them? I doubt it.

Calling someone a "homophobe" is a political tactic used to bully people. In our PC society what people fear most is voicing how they really feel! Ironically, homosexuals have come "out of the closet" and those who disagree with a lifestyle that's full of risks have gone "in the closet."

In light of the fact that habitual homosexual acts cut years from a persons life expectancy, why are parents not making every effort to shield their children from it? But no. Instead parents allow public schools (which have become nothing more than progressive indoctrination centers) to promote the homosexual lifestyle. What's worse, Planned Parenthood is pushing for intensive sex-ed for children as young as 10! (http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/02/10/mandatory-sex-education-for-ten-year-olds-yours/?action=print)

Parents, wake up...please!

Part 1

© Marsha West