How the Pro-Abortion Movement Uses Words to Deceive

Pro-abortion advocates cheer in front of the U.S. Supreme Court after the court, in a 5-3 ruling, struck down a Texas abortion access law.

By Michael Brown Published on November 13, 2017

We have always known that pro-abortion rhetoric is built on misleading slogans and deceptive terms. But I was reminded today of just how deceptive much of the terminology is when I read a 2016 interview with actor Kelsey Grammer.

Before getting to Grammer’s comments, the first and foremost example of abortion deception is the “pro-choice” moniker, since the pro-abortionists are anything but pro-choice.

Of course, they want to be able choose to abort their babies. But they certainly don’t want pregnant women to be exposed to the other choices they have, including giving their babies up for adoption or choosing to keep their children. When you walk into an abortion mill, choice is a one-way street.

Sterilized Terminology

Then there are the sterilized terms for the brutal work of abortion, like POC, standing for “products of conception.” This is the term used for aborted baby parts, including eyes and hands and feet. They can be found carefully stored in bottles and other containers before being disposed of by the abortion providers. (For a gut-wrenching description, go here.)

Unfortunately, the power of a catchy slogan or a medical term is that it often takes the place of critical thinking. It’s much easier to repeat a sound bite than to think through an issue. And when it comes to an emotionally-charged issue like abortion, sound bites rule the day.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

As for Grammer’s interview, somehow I missed it when it came out last year, but he took issue with the term “reproductive rights.”

In an interview with the UK publication The Times, the Emmy-winning actor slammed the phrase, saying,“It gets a bit dishonest to call something reproductive rights when you clearly have a choice well before a baby is conceived.”

Exactly. If the woman doesn’t want to reproduce, she doesn’t have to have unprotected sex.

“Reproductive Rights”

But that’s only the beginning of the deception.

What could be more dishonest and misleading than the term “reproductive rights” when it comes to pro-abortion activism?

First, having an abortion has nothing to do with either reproduction or rights. Any woman can have as many babies as she wants to have (or, is able to have). No one in the pro-life movement is stopping her. To the contrary, to the extent that deciding to have children is a right, all pro-lifers encourage that right. Go ahead and reproduce!

Perhaps telling the truth about abortion would destroy the industry rather than support it.

Second, pro-abortionists could not have picked a more deceptive term than “reproductive rights,” since we are talking about ending a pregnancy rather than producing a baby. It would be more accurate to call this “fetus-killing rights” or “terminating pregnancy rights” rather than “reproductive rights.”

Perhaps these are not so catchy? Perhaps telling the truth about abortion would destroy the industry rather than support it?

Exposing the Lies

But truth doesn’t stop headlines from blaring nonsense like this, from March 20, 2017 on The Hill: “Defunding Planned Parenthood is a violation of women’s reproductive rights.”

And how, exactly, is that? Which “reproductive right” will be violated if the government doesn’t help Planned Parenthood perform more abortions?

The bad news is that millions of people continue to believe lies. The good news is that people like Grammer, who used to be “pro-choice,” have been converted.

Let’s keep exposing the lies. The more lies exposed, the more lives saved.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Patmos

    Instead of “reproductive rights” they should call it “compassionate eugenics”. Maybe that way they can restore the bad name given to eugenics.

    • Andrew Mason

      How is it compassionate? I recently saw an article where Black mothers are being told that it is safer for them to abort than carry to term. Isn’t that genocide?

      • Ken Abbott

        Shhh. It’s just responsible cultivation of the garden of human genetics to pull up and throw away the “human weeds.”

      • Patmos

        You know, it crossed my mind when I was writing it that someone would think I was being serious.

        • Andrew Mason

          Oops, sorry. Does reflect the confusion engendered by pro-abortionists creativity with the English language though.

  • ImaginaryDomain

    Michael, what’s the opposite of pro-life? Pro-death! This is the term I use to describe these so-called “pro-choicers”.

  • David MacKenzie

    Could anything be worse than the term, “intrauterine cranial decompression”? As regards the “fog factor”, It ranks right up there with “negative patient outcome”.

  • Trilemma

    Planned Parenthood stopped using the “pro-choice” moniker years ago.

    Calling a fertilized egg a baby is also deceptive.

    If the woman doesn’t want to reproduce, she doesn’t have to have unprotected sex.

    Half of abortion patients were using a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant.

  • Torcer

    Like most of the left, the abortion industry has to live by deception.

  • Dena

    They want the right to Kill Babies plain and simple. I think the word “fetus” is deceiving. It makes the baby sound less human.

    I bet there would be an uproar on the left if someone started aborting puppies. There would be marches and protests— until they start calling the puppies fetuses, then it wouldn’t be a big deal.

  • GPS Daddy

    How do we define what a human is? Lets look at some very clear facts:

    1. The physical world is real.
    2. The spiritual world is real.
    3. Life is designed therefore there is a Designer behind life.
    4. Human sexuality is designed to bring a human life into being.
    5. Historically, when a woman discovered she is pregnant whats inside of her was considered a baby.
    6. Humans did NOT design the processes that brings forth a human life.
    7. Just because we now know much more about the birth process does not mean that we (humans) can now define what that means. To do so puts us in the place of the one who designed it.

    Since the birth process that starts with sex is designed to bring forth a human baby then at no point once the process has started can we humans decide that we do not have a baby.

Inspiration
Liberty McArtor
More from The Stream
Connect with Us