Why is it so hard to say 'abortion?'

There's nothing unusual about this, but about the thousandth time this morning, in reading an editorial from the weekend in The New York Times, I marveled at how long it took to get past all the pro-choice euphemisms ("women's health," "reproductive health and freedom," "safeguard women's lives," "free speech") and get to the one operative word upon which the issue turns:

Women’s Health, Ungagged
    President Obama on Friday began dismantling his predecessor’s broad and damaging assault on women’s reproductive health and freedom. He lifted the odious gag rule that President George W. Bush imposed on international family planning groups and began trying to restore financing to the United Nations Population Fund.
    It was a reassuring message that Mr. Obama takes seriously his duty to safeguard women’s lives and basic rights, including free speech and the choice of whether to bear a child.
    The gag rule was first imposed by President Ronald Reagan. It barred any health care provider receiving American family planning assistance from counseling women on abortion, engaging in political speech on abortion or providing abortions, even with its own money...

By my count (actually, by Microsoft Word's count -- what, you think I've got time to sit and count them?), it took 113 words to get to "abortion." Which actually isn't all that bad, I guess, compared to some instances I've seen. But it strikes me as about 100 words, or two paragraphs, late, by any reasonable standard of getting to the point.

But then, I'm a word guy -- and specifically, an editorial guy -- so I probably notice stuff like that more than most people do. Also, I disagree with the NYT on the issue, so I'm that much more likely to notice how much they feel compelled to dress up the concept, with layer upon layer of rhetorical clothing, before bringing it out.

Comments

[Guero]

Mr. Warthen: Why is it so difficult for you to admit you oppose even the prescribing of contraceptive pills by these same organizations?

Your "rhetorical clothing" is such you don't wish to admit the above. Even you have the self-awareness of how radical and extreme the great majority of the American people would consider your personal religious views so you hide your views.

The NYT is honest enough to articulate their views. And you?

[bud]

Brad, abortion wasn't the only issue affected by the gag order so it's not inapprorpriate to use the term "reproductive health".

[Brad Warthen]

Actually, I haven't ever thought about "the prescribing of contraceptive pills by these same organizations," and wasn't aware I had an opinion on the subject.

But one of the great benefits of having a blog is that people will TELL you what your opinion is, which really saves a lot of wear and tear on the ol' gray matter...

And bud -- do you think we'd be talking about this, and having this tennis match with the policy, with each change of party control of the White House batting the policy back in the opposite direction -- if not for abortion?

Seems doubtful to me.

[bud]

Abortion is the big elephant in the room but perhaps it would be a smaller elephant if we didn't gag the discussion of contraceptives with the third world and in our own classrooms. In any event I stand by my comment. The NYT was merely pointing out the change in policy which included more than just abortion. The verbage was perfectly appropriate.

At the end of the day the Democrats won the election and it's perfectly legitimate for them to exercise their right to change the policy. Anything else would be a diservice to the people who elected them.

[Doug Ross]

I agree with Bud. The editorial was about the gag rule policy, not specifically about abortion. It's about the limitations on what can be said about the topic of abortion, contraception, etc.

I don't sense a "hidden" agenda in the fact that the word abortion was used in 100 words in. We all know the NYT agenda anyway, don't we? I'm sure when/if Roe v. Wade comes up again, the NYT will leave little doubt as to its position.

Guero's point is valid, also. If you were pro-choice, would the word placement concern you as much?

[Hedley]

Keep up the good work. Actually, why do people keep saying abortion as if to say that we are dealing with some kind of scientific experiment? The real truth is that abortion is the horrific murder of innocent children. We should call it what it is. It is murder.

[Palin 2012]

What strikes a really sour note with me is that promoting abortion abroad was the first order of business our new president attached himself to.

Is it a miserly warning to the rest of the world? That our dollars will not be wasted on '3rd world citizens'? It seems as if he was immediately placing a lesser value on those precious children being murdered abroad. God doesn't recognize national borders for of ANY of his children.

[Lee Muller]

Just as his critics predicted, Mr. Obama is veering hard to the left:

* First call to PLO, then Hamas.

* Order to close GITMO (in a year). No plans yet on how to handle it.

* Stopped trials of 9/11 hijackers.

* Offer negotiations to Iran on how they can have a nuclear program.

* Millions of dollars to private groups to lobby for and perform abortions in foreign countries.

* Encouraging states to come up with chaotic tangle of vehicle emissions laws, so feds can step in later and "standardize" on the silliest and most repressive.

* Encourage unions to not yield on wage hikes. Result is more closing of production and shipping facilities.

* Trial balloons of open relations with communist Cuba.

* Trial balloons of legalizing marijuana, or at least stopping enforcement.

* Free medical care for illegals under SCHIP expansion by dropping proof of ID and citizenship.

* Tells GOP he doesn't need them to ram through $850 BILLION in pork spending under guise of an " urgent Stimulus Package", which only spends 25% of it this year.

[Phillip]

You might be surprised to find out, Brad, that millions of women worldwide do not consider the phrase "women's health" to be merely a rhetorical euphemism, but something to be taken seriously. As well as all the other unintended (one hopes) consequences of the misguided policies that Obama is rightly reversing.

[Guero]

Mr. Warthen is either a cafeteria-plan Roman Catholic practitioner or he is being disingenuous here.

His church's position on contraceptive prescriptions is well-defined, in addition to being radical and extreme to the great majority of the citizens of the US. I find it difficult to conceive he is not aware of the same.

[Lee Muller]

If Catholics are going to be criticized for not accepting or practicing 100% of the doctrines of the Vatican, such criticism should not come from those who practice none of the morality.

That is not a n honest criticism, but a dismissal via ad hominem , and evasion of the real issues.

[Brad Warthen]

Phillip, "women's health" means a lot of very fine things to me, too -- which is why advocates of abortion-friendly policies use it. "Freedom of speech" is also a very fine concept, but ditto. They haven't used "Mom" or "Apple Pie" yet, but let me go ahead and say I'm all for them, too, but if somebody uses them in an indirect way of advancing something I strongly disagree with, I will speak out to try to clarify the matter before us. Likewise, I'm all for the American flag, but not in favor of everything that people try to wrap in it.

[Brad Warthen]

Actually, what I just said wasn't 100 percent accurate -- I'm all for apple pie in principle, but not on a personal level, since I'm allergic to it.

As a consequence, my Mom makes something that approximates apple pie, just for me, at family gatherings -- a topping of oats and brown sugar and such over what you would think of as apple pie filling. I'm all for that. Which is another way of saying that "Mom's apple pie" can mean different things to different loyal Americans...

[Brad Warthen]

Oh, and thanks to Lee for sticking up for me there.

I'm riffing here on the "cafeteria Catholic" thing, and thinking, hey, nobody is more selective and careful in a cafeteria than I am, with all my allergies. But I'm being facetious.

In all seriousness, there are teachings that strike me as fundamental to a basic respect for life which lies at the heart of my faith. With abortion -- as with, say, euthanasia -- you're talking about life and death, no bones about it. The whole contraception thing is more subtle, more nuanced, a more "boggy, soggy, squitchy picture" indeed. I can agree with the point the Pope's making without worrying about whether some secular government program promotes the practice or not.

The problem with a lot of "pro-choice" folks is that they think it's about people imposing their specific religious beliefs on other people, and it you can't see into the issue more deeply than that, there's probably nothing I can say to move you.

But a person who believes -- because of their religious framework or any other reason -- that abortion involves killing human beings is going to react to it in the political, public, secular sphere by wanting government to prevent it, not promote it. And that is a legitimate position that respects differences of faith and belief. When it's life and death, you've entered the realm of things that the state legitimately concerns itself with. Something like contraception does NOT translate that obviously into the secular realm of legitimate state concerns.

Are you following me at all here? I mean, if the argument is "this is what Catholics believe," I don't see how that translates into a concern for the state. But when it's about killing or not killing, it certainly does. Either you see the difference or you don't.

[Guero]

Sorry, Spaceman Lee, you make less sense every day you have to try to cope with a Democratic president and Congress. I know your Faux News world-view is not reality based but try to work through some elementary logic.

Someone who professes a creed and then practices something different is, of course, a hypocrit. I suppose hyprocrisy is trumped by professing ignorance but
I find it hard to believe a professed practicing Roman Catholic credibly proffers his ignorance of a major tenet of his faith's beliefs.

I believe Mr. Warthen simply doesn't want to respond since he knows how just plain weird and extreme the great majority of the United States would view opposition to contraceptive prescriptions.

You, on the other hand, have shown your ignorance of many subjects unless NewsMax or your fellow Bilderbergphobes have given you your talking points. Keep up the entertainment, though, Spaceman.

Exit humming the Internationale...:-)

[Guero]

Thank you Mr. Warthen for confirming you oppose even contraceptive prescriptions.

The "morning-after pill" involves the prescribing of birth control pills. Does not your church see that as "murder"?
And as such, you would support legislation and other state action to stop your fellow citizens from using such contraceptives?

[Is it too soon for a new president?]

Guero, are you putting Brad on trial here? For his beliefs? That is worse than putting someone on trial for speaking their mind. You are prosecuting Brad for a thought crime?!?

There are other blogs where people will froth at the mouth with you about such things...but I don't think you will work up much of a lather about it here.

What a glorious day -- Brad and Lee on the same side. Wow.

[Capital A]

I doubt that Guero (very Beckian, by the way) is putting anyone on trial. Maybe he's trying to figure out that part of the Holy Bible that had any explicit comment on abortion? Can't find it in mine -- was it aborted or a part of the hundreds of lost texts?

Or is it to soon for logical thought and reason as opposed to supporting an institution that imprisoned Galileo for presenting the Copernican (eventually our) truth...and also boarded up limbo?

[Herb Brasher]

Here are a couple of articles that show both the problem and the hope against hope that I still have, in spite of the political wriggling:

http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/

"Pro-lifers in Obamaland": http://www.newsweek.com/id/181786

[bud]

But a person who believes -- because of their religious framework or any other reason -- that abortion involves killing human beings is going to react to it in the political, public, secular sphere by wanting government to prevent it, not promote it.
-Brad

Once it's established that killing is ok under some circumstances then this argument is essentially untenable. For example, any person who accepts the legitimacy of killing in Iraq has no standing to make this argument. People such as the Amish, who steadfastly believe killing is wrong under all circumstances are the only ones with the moral authority to make this claim.

[Rich]

Absent religious belief, there probably would be no question concerning contraception and abortion. Women would have a right to these things simply because no one else would have the right to deny them.

Religion has no place in public policy debates. Dr. King used religion to support his views concerning human rights, but that's because there was a happy confluence between religious and secular belief.

That would be the only time such a thing would be acceptable. Otherwise, to deny a woman her right to contraception or to free choice concerning abortion amounts to state-sanctioned imposition of metaphysical beliefs on people who do not accept them.

The founders were wise to separate religion from the state (remember the first amendment? No establishment of religion. Or Art. 6, Sec. 3, no religious test for office, and the fact that God is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution??).

The only valid secular basis for morality and positive enactments of law would be utilitarian. The majority have a right to protect themselves against the depredations of the minority.

I.e., your rights end where my nose begins.

[bud]

Otherwise, to deny a woman her right to contraception or to free choice concerning abortion amounts to state-sanctioned imposition of metaphysical beliefs on people who do not accept them.
-Rich

Rich, Brad openly supports many 'state-sanctioned impositions' so this will carry no weight with him. He's using the term communitarian, usually with some type of "democratically elected" sweetener, which somehow makes it ok to justify that world-view. Any argument that tries to bring up the dangers inherent in state-sanctioned impositions will be met with a resounding rebuff in the name of communitarianism. Abortion in particular is treated as an area completely off-limits to granting women the final decision. Somehow it is far better for the government to make these important personal decisions.

[Lee Muller]

Actually, Rich, only my right to swing my fist ends at your nose.

But I don't see anyone trying to infringe on your rights. I see you and your ilk trying to restrict our freedom, liberty and pursuit of happiness with your efforts to make us support you financially in a lifestyle which you are either unable or unwilling to earn on your own.

The socialist mentality is the greatest threat to the liberty of industrialized people, because it retards progress by consuming wealth that would be used by the smarter people who actually produce wealth, to improve living conditions for everyone.

[Herb Brasher]

Wow, does Rich have a one-track mind and agenda, or what?

Brad, sometime we gotta spend some time taking apart Rich's presuppositions and exposing his world view for what it is: a religion based on faith that he wants to impose on all the rest of us. Not that he will necessarily learn from it, but the myth of the neutral world view has got to be deconstructed for the sake of others who read this blog. He has some valid points about imposing morality upon others, but cannot see that he is intent on imposing his morality on the rest of us.

And it is a morality constructed of very shaky moral relativism. It hangs entirely upon what the definition of utilitarian is, and of course it is going to be his definition. No one else need apply for input.

Does anyone else see the totalitarianism behind Rich's doctrines? He is willing to admit "a happy confluence" with religion when it shares his views. When it doesn't, it is cold-blooded elimination. He is the Decider.

Shudder.

P.S. This has nothing to do with Lee's point, I think, which is entirely in defense of individualism and me-first thinking.

[Herb Brasher]

Well, of course Lee's point has something to do with it, for individual liberty is a significant part of the stream that feeds the democratic process. Lee just wants to cut off the stream of corporate responsibility, which would in effect dam up the river entirely.