Manipulation of Language

One of the issues that pro-life advocates need to be aware of is the manipulation of language by the media and by pro-abortion organizations and activists.

George Orwell in his famous novel 1984 wrote about a fictional language he called 'newspeak' supposedly designed to standardize thought to reflect an ideology that makes "all other modes of thought impossible". He may have been wrong about the date but it is abundantly clear that elements of newspeak have invaded our lexicon.

A widespread example of this strategy is political correctness, even that term has been shortened to become the letters PC.

What's the difference between ‘positive discrimination’ and ‘sexual discrimination’ ? The former is policy and the latter illegal. However, they both mean the same thing – favouring one sex over another! Have you noticed we don’t have firemen anymore, ? We have firefighters. Have you ever noticed that the non-gender specific word Homemaker has superseded the term Housewife ? We hear of ‘deadbeat’ dads – but not moms ? We also hear of ‘single’ rather than ‘unmarried’ mothers ? We have ‘family courts’ and not ‘divorce courts’

I came across a letter in the Irish examiner which expresses the issue clearly I am reprinting it below

One of the first strategies for success at any given subject is the manipulation of language. First of all, the issue is obscured, and then the other side uses your phraseology.

The pro-‘choice’ side is to be congratulated in winning this first phase of the battle. Take the word ‘abortion’.

The impression can be given that the whole procedure is innocuous, somewhat akin to the pulling of a tooth, giving immediate relief. The advocator will thus be seen as a ‘compassionate’ person, not a person bound by inflexible dogma. (Oddly, the responsibility of the man is never mentioned).

By using the word ‘abortion’, the pro-life side is actually helping the pro-‘choice’ side in covering up what, in reality, is the deliberate taking of a human (unborn) life. It is this reality that needs to be made plain, not obscured. Similarly, with the phrase, “repeal of the 8th amendment”.

Pro-lifers will be well aware of what is involved, and the consequences. Not necessarily so, in the case of others. These may be indifferent, or may be quite happy with the vagueness involved. They will be entitled to ask, “The 8th amendment of what?” Time for plain speaking.

Donal O’Driscoll

Dargle Road

Blackrock

Co Dublin