Working at an organization that strongly advocates on behalf of legal abortion must be trying in a lot of ways. One thing that I think a lot of people would find difficult would be language usage. When you're an abortion advocate and you're discussing abortion, words like "child," "baby," and "living" aren't the correct words to describe the unborn because then some people might get the idea that the unborn are living human beings. We all know that Planned Parenthood and company wouldn't want that.
Yet Planned Parenthood has posted part of an article on the possible dangers of anticonvulsant drugs might have on women on their web site. The article was written by Ann Scherer and originally appeared on Epilepsy USA's website.
Quotes I thought I'd never see grace Planned Parenthood's web site include:
"Potential effects on children whose mothers take anticonvulsants during pregnancy are even more troubling..."
"Now pregnant with her first child, Julie has had seizures since childhood and has taken anticonvulsants for years."
Noticeably missing from Planned Parenthood's web site version of the article is this:
During the ninth month of her pregnancy, Liz experienced a seizure, a grand mal convulsion that stopped her breathing. "I almost died, and I almost lost the baby," she recalled. (Emphasis added)
Some pro-choicers will call the unborn a "baby" if it is wanted by the mother, but a "fetus" if it is not wanted.
I'm a midwife, so I always had very warm and affectionate feelings about the word "fetus." The mother and the fetus were both my patients.
Most pro-choicers realize that a fetus is a living human being. They just don't think it's a person. Until pro-lifers realize that, arguments against the pro-choice position will get nowhere. This is a perfect example of simply not knowing the opposing position.
Jeremy,
I know individuals at Planned Parenthood recognize that the unborn are living human beings. But how often do you see them as organization admit it? Rarely.
Why is that?
It seems to me it that because a large part of their strategy regarding abortion depends on dehumanizing the unborn instead of admitting that the unborn are humans and then coming up with some argument for why it should be legal to intentionally kill these innocent human beings.
I'm also not sure if your contention that "most" pro-choicers recognize the unborn to be living human beings is completely accurate. Many do, but I'm not sure if "most" is correct. But if you have some evidence to the contrary, I'm be more than willing to look at it.
Also, doesn't the term "child" with regards to humans usually refer to "persons?"