This is a shocking bit of propaganda presented as journalism:
To defend the indefensible always means one has to resort to euphemisms, subterfuge and deception. Telling the truth about what is clearly unacceptable just will not cut it. As George Orwell put it, “political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.” And he said that the goal “is to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.”
And this is most clearly exemplified in the rhetoric of the pro-abortionists. You will just not find them speaking truth and calling a spade a spade, or a scalpel a scalpel. All the language is heavily doctored so that the exact opposite of what is really going on is spoken of.
But it is not just those who work in deadly abortion mills who thrive on lies and falsehoods – most of those working in the mainstream media do the exact same thing. They might as well look at you straight in the face and tell you that black is white and white is black. Dishonesty seems to be a hallmark of most journalists today.
Consider a piece I just came upon. It has to do with abortion legislation in Western Australia. The online newspaper article is a case study in euphemism and deception. Consider just the opening lines of this piece:
Western Australia has some of the strictest abortion laws in the country, which have forced some women to travel interstate to access care, but the state government is now finally seeking to overhaul the outdated legislation. A four-week consultation period has been opened to help modernise WA’s abortion laws, which have gone unchanged for almost 25 years, with a bill expected to go to state parliament next year.
Feedback is being sought on the need for a GP referral before 20 weeks gestation, current mandatory counselling requirements and the timing of when an abortion can be accessed. The government says abortion will be fully decriminalised, but it will remain an offence for an unqualified person to perform or assist with an abortion. Health Minister Amber-Jade Sanderson said the government wanted to hear from women and stakeholders. https://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/health/western-australia-to-overhaul-nations-most-strict-abortion-laws/news-story/01e3ba31198450a507859b5b799f2244
One can have a field day assessing the way truth is twisted, logic is mangled, and morality is inverted in this article. Let’s start with this: “strictest” abortion laws. Here the term is used in a pejorative sense. But we must get to the core reality here. What if the piece was on murder legislation, and the article was bewailing the fact that WA had the strictest murder laws in the nation.
Most folks would say that is a good thing. And given that abortion is just that – a type of murder – why should we decry strict legislation on this? The stricter the better. But this circus of words keeps getting better – or worse. So women have to go elsewhere to kill their own babies. That also sounds like a good thing to me – the harder to do this the better.
And they go to “access care”? Really? Care for whom? The baby sure is not getting any care – he or she is being cruelly butchered. And how can we call a mother seeking to do this to her own baby a type of care? There is nothing caring about it.
Moreover, we are informed that this is “outdated legislation.” How so? Is the morality of killing babies simply a function of the clock or the calendar? We once believed it was the greatest thing we could do to defend the vulnerable, but now we think that is outdated? Good grief.
The state wants to hear from “women and stakeholders”. You mean like women, men and children? We are all stakeholders here. And given that roughly half of all babies aborted in the West are male, you better believe that us males are stakeholders as well.
Plus one wonders how many pro-aborts nowadays also buy the view that any male should be able to freely identify as a female if he likes. Perhaps many (or most?) do. If so, then they would certainly have to argue that they cannot be excluded from any discussions about abortion!
And the government says it will make it an offence – not to kill an innocent baby – but to not have the killing done only by officially approved executioners. How very thoughtful. No amateur or rogue killers need apply – only the ones the state considers to be up to the task.
It is not just the abortionists and media that are covered in blood here. Heartless and callous politicians are as well. As the article goes on to state:
“Attorney-General John Quigley said criminal law had no role to play in regulating abortion services. ‘The Criminal Code currently raises the risk for medical practitioners and patients that an abortion may be considered a criminal act if certain strict legal requirements are not met,’ he said. ‘It is entirely inappropriate that such a crucial healthcare service is dealt with in this way’.”
Murder has always been considered to be a criminal act. And one need not be a religious person to understand that basic truth. The old Greek Hippocratic Oath that predates Christianity made it an absolute principle of medicine to “do no harm,” and abortion was included in its list of unacceptable practices. Even pagans knew that killing babies was wrong.
However the most outrageous and patently false euphemism of all appeared in an accompanying photo. A woman held up a sign which had these words: “Abortion access saves lives”. Good grief. Abortion TAKES lives – deliberately, intentionally, and proudly.
Of course she will say she is referring to women who have abortions. But this is patently false as well. As I carefully document in my 2015 book, The Challenge of Abortion, women were NOT dying in the tens of thousands before abortion was legalised.
I even quoted a leading abortionist who admitted to lying about how many were killed in “backyard abortions” and the like. He deliberately inflated the numbers, knowing they were false. Moreover, women are still dying from legal abortions today. So if the concern is to save the life of the mother, legalisation has done little to change things.
But the utter barbarism of speaking about “saving lives” when one really means taking lives is the epitome of diabolical deception and euphemism run amok. The simple truth is this: two living human beings enter an abortion mill, but only one of them walks out.
No one can tell the truth about abortion while seeking to defend the indefensible. We either lie about it and live in denial and fairy-tale land, or we acknowledge the reality of the situation. The only thing as evil as killing unborn babies is the way so many will lie through their teeth to try to make it sound acceptable.
Shame on the lot of them, including journalists like this who have willingly allowed themselves to peddle falsehoods and myths, and pretend they are being good journalists. Truth is the first casualty not only of war, but of the war on the unborn.
Let me finish with two quotes from two brothers – one a committed atheist and one a committed Christian:
“As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even-this was seriously maintained-a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped. Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of feather-like weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb. … The words ‘unborn child,’ even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.” Christopher Hitchens
“Abortion is the only event that modern liberals think too violent and obscene to portray on TV. This is not because they are squeamish or prudish. It is because if people knew what abortion really looked like, it would destroy their pretence that it is a civilized answer to the problem of what to do about unwanted babies.” Peter Hitchens