If anything G. K. Chesterton wrote is worth quoting once, it’s worth quoting twice. In our recent discussion about the theological and political significance of words, I quoted Chesterton as saying thus:

“If you’re not going to argue about words, what are you going to argue about? Are you
going to convey your meaning to me by moving your ears? The Church and the heresies
always used to fight about words, because they are the only thing worth fighting about.”

And as we’ve seen in the world of academia, the Left has recognized that words are the battleground of the mind and advanced into the fray with weapons swinging. Journalism is not far behind.

The Associated Press Stylebook, a preeminent reference guide for English grammar and journalistic principles and style—used by both educators and journalists—has chosen some eyebrow-raising guidelines for how reporters ought to address the topic of abortion in their reports. These guidelines show us, on a much more subtle level, how fiddling with words is fiddling with minds. Let’s look at one specific example in detail: the difference between “unborn baby” and “fetus.” (While this article won’t be using direct quotes from the AP Stylebook, the full text of the abortion topical guide can be accessed here.)

When referring to a baby before he is born, reporters are warned that terms such as “fetus” or “unborn baby” have been politicized by both sides of the issue (pro-life advocates argue that “fetus” devalues a human life, and pro-abortion-access advocates argue that “unborn child” equates abortion with murder). Therefore, the AP counsels us, we are to write with appropriate clarity and sensitivity. But the AP then provides a little more detail about what “appropriate” means.

“Fetus” is preferred in many instances (especially in scientific and medical contexts) when we are discussing a baby after 10 weeks of the mother’s pregnancy. “Embryo” is the appropriate term for a baby up to 10 weeks of the mother’s pregnancy. So when are we allowed to use “unborn baby?” Ahh, that’s a term that we to be used when “fetus” would seem too clinical for the context. E.g., “Sarah loved her unborn fetus more than anyone else in the world” sounds quite weird. So while the AP doesn’t explicitly say so, the examples they provide us seem to indicate what they think is “appropriate:” use the more clinical terms “fetus” and “embryo” in most cases, except for when they sound too clinical for the context, such as a mother loving her unborn baby. Saying “fetus” in such contexts doesn’t evoke the proper emotional reaction.

Yet that’s the whole point! The reason pro-life advocates insist on using the term “murder of an unborn baby” is precisely because saying “demise of a fetus” sounds too clinical! It doesn’t evoke the proper emotional reaction. Think of the difference between saying “the underdeveloped hominoid life form was severed with a sharp dividing instrument” and saying “the little girl was beheaded with an axe.” The more clinical our language, the less we feel natural emotional responses, which is why the abortion industry insists on “terminating pregnancies” instead of “dismembering unborn babies.”

The AP is onto the right principle: we ought to use “unborn baby” when omitting to do so wouldn’t evoke the right emotional response. However, the AP isn’t applying this principle evenly—they recognize the beauty of maternal affection but not the horror of abortion. By writing a topical guide that suggests we use “embryo” and “fetus” as our default terms when writing about abortion, they are suggesting we “clinicalize” a topic that is anything but clinical.

The AP also presents a few other eyebrow-raising guidelines, such as:

• Use “anti-abortion” instead of “pro-life,”
• Use “abortion-rights” instead of “pro-choice,” and
• Use “anti-abortion counseling center” instead of “crisis pregnancy center.”

Yet again, we have stumbled onto the vocabular battlefield and found pairs of competing words fighting over the same subject. And yet again, the difference lies not in the subject we are referring to (we’re talking about the same clinics and procedures either way); the difference lies in the connotations we pin onto it. We might be tempted to give way and just use the politically correct vocabulary, consoling ourselves in our heart of hearts that “we’re referring to the same thing either way,” but we’re not using the same connotations either way. And thus, in the end, we really aren’t meaning the same thing either way.

“Happy holidays” technically refers to the same time of year as does “Merry Christmas”—but removes Christ from the picture. “Transgender” technically refers to the same condition as the phrase “someone who is confused about their sex”—but acquiesces to the lie that sex is mutable. And “termination of a fetus” technically refers to the same procedure as “murder of an unborn baby”—but implies nothing more than a clinical separation of cells, rather than the horrific death by dismemberment or poisoning it really is. Just like “happy holidays” allows us to talk about Christmas without mentioning Christ, this connotation swap allows us to talk about murder without mentioning its horror. It further cements the idea that abortion is benign, first into our vocabularies, and then into our minds. When a whole generation can grow up talking about Christmas without thinking about Christ, or talking about abortion without thinking about murder, the vocabular battle will finally have been won.

And that world will be a scary place.

This may be more than you want to know, but you were a zygote once, a single celled human being that over time developed into who you are today. This is simply an indisputable fact.  From every perspective the process is nothing less than miraculous, and with all the potential for problems along the way it is amazing that any of us made it through the nine months in utero to birth!  But here we are, a testimony to the brilliance of our Creator, and His faithfulness.

Unfortunately, we live in perilous times. While mankind has always been selfish, cultural and religious leaders in the past challenged us to better things, exalting the virtues of self-control and personal sacrifice. The epitome of this was motherhood. You could find fault with most anything but criticizing one’s mother made you a scoundrel of the worst sort! Motherhood was sacrosanct.

How things have changed! Today, there are few human activities that are under greater assault than motherhood. The milder insults are name calling, such as “brood mare,” or “barefoot and pregnant.” The greatest attacks are by those who so torture and twist the thinking of young women that they are willing to submit to the brutal insertion of instruments of death into their wombs to dismember and destroy the harmless and innocent lives dwelling so near their hearts and rob them of that relational experience by which women have been blessed from the beginning of time.

The argument screeched at us on every hand is that a woman must be free to control her own reproduction! I don’t believe I have ever heard anyone argue otherwise. I would agree that a woman should not be forced to reproduce herself against her will.

Going back to my opening comment, you were a zygote once, and the moment you have a zygote in your uterus, except where coercion is involved, you have already chosen to reproduce yourself.  In your womb is a mini-you, or more precisely, a mini-you and your “other,” hopefully someone committed to you for life!

Setting aside the so-called hard cases (they constitute somewhere around 2 percent or less of all abortions), I address those who promote the preposterous notion that the fetus’s mere existence, in and of itself, is a bridge too far. With the proliferation of scams across the country most of us have been victims in one way or another; and it is unkind to blame the victims. And so it is with abortion. Most women who have had abortions are themselves victims, having been scammed. It is unfortunate that they find themselves in a crisis, but my anger is directed toward those who exploit their situation. Such are evil!

For you who argue that it is unacceptable that a tiny being nestled in one’s womb should inconvenience you or any young woman for nine months, let me remind you that you inconvenienced your mother and others for (I would bet) the better part of twenty years or more! Some refer to it as “paying it forward,” and reasonable people understand it: Our parents sacrificed for us, and we sacrifice for our children, etc. But you and others of your mindset are so self-absorbed you ungraciously accept the sacrifices made for you by those who preceded you and then demand, on your behalf, the sacrifice of the lives of those who follow! What pernicious ingrates you are! Like black holes of the galaxy, you form the vortex of your own universe and inhale all that is around you for your own pleasure and purposes. I can hardly imagine a greater example of arrogance and narcissism!

To you who directly exploit these women who are at a point of crisis, I speak of abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, may I remind you that you have nothing to fear from me. The same God who demands I defend life also demands that I not take matters into my own hands. He claims vengeance as His prerogative, and I suggest you fear Him! But know this: In the process you claim is a choice you denigrate and defile the most beautiful and essential of human relationships, that of mother and child!

How despicable!