Huffery-snuffery Heathen Chinese.

I have come to the conclusion that there is a language barrier present between pro-life and pro-choice people.  I think that this is intentional: when someone says that abortion is killing babies - which when you come right down to it, that's what it actually is - someone else is very quick to respond that abortion is, in fact, only killing fetuses.  Why?  Because if abortion kills fetuses rather than babies it's okay.  It's a form of denial that a lot of people (including myself) sort of cling to; if you use a different word, somehow the act has become less brutal.

I'm not going to bother explaining exactly how an abortion works.  Mainly because I don't particularly feel like upsetting myself right this second.  Lets just say that it makes calling our society "civilized" a stretch.

To say that you are pro-choice because a woman shouldn't have to experience the "negative" consequences of her actions (barring incest and rape, as those are not the fault of the woman) is to say that murder is an acceptable response to the normal product of sex.
Maybe that was harsh, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it.

Here is where the language barrier springs up again: sex.
Society has taken sex and removed children from it.  What was largely stressed during sex ed when I was in school was to wear protection to avoid sexually transmitted infections.  There wasn't much about children or abstinence.  Sure, it was mentioned, but with the assumption that we were going to engage in sexual activity anyway so we should be taught how to do it safely.  There's nothing wrong with that because people do need that information, however, I think it would benefit everyone involved if it was stressed that the main byproduct of being sexually active is the chance of creating life.
We have created a dichotomy where there should be unison.

So when you say to someone who is pro-choice that instead of abortion being legal people should be more responsible with their bodies the point is missed.  Not only is it not very fun to be more responsible with your body, it's somehow become an attack on women's rights.  Because we have stripped the meaning from sex.  Now, I'm not saying that sex is limited to the production of children.  Far from it; sex is a wonderful bonding experience, not to mention it's lots of fun.  What I am saying is the idea of sexual responsibility is lost because we've removed part of the meaning of sex.

I suppose another thing this issue broaches is our society's view (fear) of childbirth and being pregnant in general.  Maybe not society as a whole but media for sure, which I think says something about society.
If birth was not demonized the way mainstream media tends to demonize it, maybe being pregnant wouldn't seem so terrible as to warrant killing the growing baby.  But it's not viewed as killing the growing baby because most women are not informed about exactly how a baby grows.  Abortion terminology is very clinical and removed; I would argue intentionally.  We don't want to know the truth.

~~~

Here's a point to ponder, though: if the pro-choice slogan is, "my body, my choice" are all pro-choice people then against circumcision or piercing a baby girl's ears?
If the answer to that question is "no," I wonder if they're aware of exactly how much doublethink is happening in their mind.

Image found here.

A Note on Language.

My midwife said something that struck me at one of our visits.  She said that she felt bad whenever someone called a baby a "good" baby because the use of the word "good" to describe an easy baby implied that all other babies were bad babies.
She has a point, and now, whenever someone asks me if our little one is a "good" baby I tell them that he is an easy baby.  Because now I feel sad for the more difficult babies that are being labeled as "bad" by default.  I know that this isn't what people are saying when they ask if he's a "good" baby, but I can't get it out of my head.

This line of thought was provocative; I started thinking about the words we use and how it affects our perception of people, places, and objects.  To use another baby example, hubby referred to the little one as pathetic one night while we were driving home and he was crying in his car-seat.  I got defensive because I associate "pathetic" with negative connotations.  Hubby was using the word for it's actual definition, and he had to explain that to me.
But, how many times have you heard someone use the word "pathetic" to paint another person or thing in a bad light?  How many times have you used it in that way?

Another thing this makes me think about is the way words can lose their meaning a little over time and use.  The word "awesome" has been sort of dulled over the years for me because of how frequently it's used.  Awesome is supposed to mean that something leaves you in awe, like mouth gaping, speechless, awe.  I hardly ever hear it used this way and so it has sort of lost the potency of its meaning.

And then I start thinking about my own language.  I can sometimes have strange diction, or sentence structure when I'm speaking (or writing for that matter).  This leads to bad impressions, or that face-tingling embarrassed me that can't do anything but say the wrong thing - occasionally it leads to hilarity and good times.  For this reason, I don't mix well with people who offend easily.  I generally spend most of my time with them backtracking, trying - in vain - to explain what it was I meant to say when I said whatever asinine thing that actually came out of my mouth.

So the station at which my train of thought arrives is this: my language use is something that I should pay more attention to, but I like the weird things that I say sometimes.  Even if they get me into trouble, which they do. 
I guess it makes for good stories later?