Fretting about words may seem like the task of a university professor or philosopher whose work would be read only by some people who possess an interest in abstract notions. However, language has an important role in expressing what we believe and in helping others understand what and why we hold certain views and principles.  

The words we use are not merely sounds. They carry meaning and influence how we and those around us act in the world, having profound and long-lasting impact on our lives. The battle between good and evil, between life and death, is, to some extent, carried through words. 

Take for example two scenarios that millions, if not billions, of people encounter throughout their lives. Imagine a person who is hurt and needs help. They might be going through a hard time emotionally and mentally, or they might be physically injured, on they might find themselves in poverty.  

In the first case, think of words that express genuine kindness, gentleness, patience, and encouragement towards this person. Such language can help the sufferer heal and even recover. In the second case, imagine words that express a deep disinterest, carelessness, impatience, and discouraging. These words would undoubtedly hurt this person even more, perhaps push them towards something even more terrible than their present suffering.  

Language matters. It is important to acknowledge its power in shaping our thoughts and, ultimately, our lives. 

The invention of pro-abortion language 

Abortion is the direct and intentional killing of a human being in the womb. This dark and cruel reality that kills the child and deeply injures the mother is often, however, masked by using language that tries to portray this act as something else.  

In the mid-1970s, the term “pro-choice” was invented to present the pro-abortion arguments in a positive light. Those who adopted the term and advocated for the killing of a human being in the womb did so in the name of a terribly deformed understanding of individual freedom: one’s freedom to choose trumped another’s life.  

Such a perspective on one’s own relationship with oneself and with those around is rooted in a perverse philosophy, if we can call it as such, known as individualism. This perspective on life is built on radical egoism: I above all others. Rather than respecting one’s personhood, as well as the personhood of others, as unique persons, individualism eradicates the fact that a human being is a person, reducing her or him to the level of a faceless entity – an object. 

The language resulted from the concept of “pro-choice” was that of one’s freedom to choose, encapsulated in the popular slogan “my body, my choice”. Under this slogan, the full force of individualism can be seen. It statesthat my bodily autonomy gives me such rights that include taking the life of another, akin to the right to self-defence. 

As such, the language of abortion has resulted in the analogy that a child in the womb of a woman is an enemy that causes violence upon the mother, giving her the right to defend herself by eliminating the threat, i.e. by killing the baby. The internet is full of pro-abortion articles, videos, and podcasts, that unapologetically make this argument.  

Language now has been used to turn the victim (the child) into the victimiser, masking the act of killing a human being as a noble and necessary act to defend oneself against a violent enemy. Here the baby in the womb is placed in the same category with any invading force in human history, including the Nazis. 

However, even in cases of self-defence, even in war, there are rules of how much force one can use to defend oneself: the killing of another person is always a last resort measure because the overarching aim is not to kill but to prevent harm. Not so with abortion. Here the killing of the child is the only – primary and final – end goal. 

Over time, however, the language of abortion has changed. The biggest abortion institution in the United States, Planned Parenthood, which was setup by eugenics advocate Margaret Sanger, has gradually phased out the use of the term “pro-choice”. Other words and phrases have been invented to mask the fact that abortion is the direct and intentional killing of a human being in the womb. 

Some of these include “abortion rights”, “women’s reproductive rights”, and “the right to use contraceptives”. The key word here is “right”. It is a legal term used to mean protection of an individual against the collective represented by the government, although in recent years companies and public-private entities have also come under the remit of this term. 

The word “right” refers to a type of freedom: freedom from something (usually a type of harm) or freedom to do something (such as to express one’s opinions). Pro-abortion activists that use these terms want to stress that the woman alone has any right whatsoever. They do not acknowledge the child, for which they employ a vocabulary designed to mask the fact that a pregnant woman carries inside her a human being. 

If they did acknowledge this biological, theological, and metaphysical fact, then their linguistic tricks would fail at once. Often, in discussing “women’s rights”, the child is referred to as a parasite or, if the conversation is less radical, as foetus (which literally means child in Latin), embryo, or zygote.  

The first word in the list above is biologically incorrect and ideologically motivated. A parasitic relationship is between members of different species. Meanwhile, the last three words are all medically correct terms used in an incorrect context for an agenda of death: the limit of one’s freedom and, therefore, of one’s rights, are – in a secular world – another’s freedom and, therefore, rights.  

As such, a woman’s rights can never contradict or cancel the rights of a child. A child has a right to life as much as a woman or a man, of whatever age, has. However, language continues to be used to mask the actual act of killing a child and its victim: the human being growing in the womb. 

The continued changes to abortion language 

In recent years, the pro-abortion language has changed to the point of referring to the child in the womb of a woman as “a pregnancy” or “pregnancy tissue”, completely dehumanising the baby, stripping a human being of his or her rights altogether. 

In the past, the pro-abortion language was content to refer to the child on medical terms, at least. Nowadays, it is increasingly common to refer to the baby as a process (e.g. “pregnancy”) or a nebulous entity devoid of all personhood (e.g. “pregnancy tissue”). 

Why this change? To mask the fact of what an abortion is: the intentional and direct killing of a child in the womb of her or his mother. However, this process of dehumanisation has happened before. 

The Nazis called the Jews (and other minorities) hideous names so that their personhood might be devalued in the eyes of others in society, and their oppression and eventual mass-killing might seem, somehow, justifiable.  

These linguistic tricks – blatant lies – are however not the work of love, life, and hope but that of hatred, death, and despair. Those who have nothing to hide use, or aim to use, clear language that calls a spade a spade. Immoral acts always are seeking the cover of darkness, even if that shade is provided by words alone. 

As we stated at the beginning of this article, however, words matter. They impact our lives and the lives of those around us. When something is evil, as abortion is, we must unapologetically call it as such and, if we can, to try to unveil its attempts to mask itself as something else. 

Daily, about 200,000 children are aborted worldwide. This is the greatest genocide in history, an evil of immense proportions. Call it by its rightful name is a step towards stopping abortions and, importantly, helping to restore families.