Friday, January 25, 2013

Murder by any other name…

Okay, so Lysol may not come right out and say that the Germs they’re killing are “Living Things” but by the mere fact they use the word “kill” the implication is obvious. Why would you need to kill something that’s already dead, or was never living to begin with? The bacteria, germs, mold and mildew can’t even be seen by the naked eye, but we know that it is alive, and will continue to grow and spread and we need to kill it to stop it from interfering with our lives. There’s nothing wrong with NOT wanting these germs in our lives so we have no shame about wanting to kill them. We don’t even hesitate to use the word “kill” despite the potential for societal sensitivity or judgment.

Why? Because there is no moral wrong. We feel righteous in referring to the ending of the life of a germ “killing” because we all believe the germ has no rights, no value to us and deserves to die.This we can all agree on.

Why, then, if the people who lobby to protect the legalization of abortion truly feel righteous that the act of ending a pregnancy is not a moral issue, simply a medical issue, why would they go through so much effort to call it something other than what it really is? Killing.

Pro-choice? Women’s rights? Reproductive freedom? More accurately it’s pro-killing, killing rights, killing freedom. If they really believe, like Lysol, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with what they are doing, why would they work so hard to call it something other than what it is?

Could the argument be made that Lysol killing a germ on a counter-top is very different than removing something from the body? We don’t say we killed our kidney when we had it removed or that we aborted our appendix. True, but the kidney and appendix do not have the potential to grow into something that can live outside the body.

Well, perhaps it’s simply distasteful to use a term like “killing” when it comes to something inside the human body. Nope, that doesn’t fly either. I don’t think anyone would hesitate to say they killed the fungus (a living thing) under their toenail (a part of their living body) or that they killed the wart on their knee. How about cancer? Just Google “kill cancer” and you’ll get about 88,900,000 results in 0.35 seconds, most of which are foundations or medical sites.

So clearly "killing" something in or on our body that doesn’t raise any issues of distaste if it truly a widely accepted, perfectly acceptable, legitimately moral thing to do. And no argument can be made that it is a life for it is irrefutably alive, otherwise no action would need to be taken to “discontinue” its existence. In every other arena, we would refer to a few microscopic cells as alive. If any cell or organism were in a petri dish, even an atheist scientist staring down the microscope would refer to it as “alive” if it were moving. So why does the location of those cells inside a woman’s uterus make it no longer a life?

The answer is obvious, we know it’s a life – they know it’s a life. We know it’s killing, they know it’s killing. And while I would still disagree with them, I’d have more respect for them if they were honest enough to call it what it is. They are promoting the taking a life - a baby whose transfer orders from inside the womb to outside the womb are in the mail, but has not yet arrived. By using terms that imply empowerment they deliberately brainwash women (and men) into equating it to civil liberties issues like racial equality or women voting.

Their use of the word “choice” is ironic when choice is the one thing they are taking away from this woman they have brainwashed into believing it’s okay to kill her baby. That woman can’t choose to forget what she’s done as it continues to haunt her. She cannot choose to un-break her heart when she mourns each year for the child whose life she ended. She cannot choose the reaction of her future husband when she tells him that an abortion is part of her past. She cannot choose to have a healthy, low-risk pregnancy later in life (she may get lucky, but statistically the odds are against her). She cannot choose to watch her child grow up happy and healthy, or know that they are in someone else’s family. The only relationship between abortion and “choice” is that it’s the last one she’ll really have and she will be a captive of that choice for the rest of her life.

Murder by any other name is still murder. Life, regardless of size, or location is still life. If those who are pro-abortion are so secure that there’s nothing wrong with the actions they promote why don’t they call it what it is? Lysol does.

No comments: