Potential Human Beings? O'Reilly Slams Abortion Euphemisms, then Uses One
There are no 'potential human beings' only human beings with potential
The supporters of legal abortion depend on verbal shenanigans to persuade and give contrived 'moral' cover to the evil act of killing the child in the womb. Among their favorite euphemisms are "terminating a pregnancy," "choice," and "reproductive rights." Those who saw The O'Reilly Factor on October 7th got a double helping of this dehumanizing rhetoric, and sadly some of it came from Bill O'Reilly himself.
There are no 'potential' human beings. Only human beings, with the potential to grow and change and come closer every day to being the person God created them to be.
Words twisted out of their proper meaning into a refashioned one have perhaps the greatest potential of all - the potential to convince untold numbers of well-meaning yet vacillating people to accept a lie they would otherwise reject.
Nowhere in our society is this played out more clearly than in the abortion battle. The supporters of legal abortion depend on verbal shenanigans to persuade and give moral cover to the evil act of killing the child in the womb. Among the abortion peddlers' favorite euphemisms are "terminating a pregnancy," "choice," and "reproductive rights." These deceitfully constructed terms are preferred over the word abortion itself because they brainwash people into forgetting all about the baby.
Everyone who saw The O'Reilly Factor on October 7th got a double helping of this dehumanizing rhetoric, and sadly some of it came from Bill O'Reilly himself. In a segment with Alan Colmes and Monica Crowley about "nanny state" government intrusion, Colmes argued that Republicans are the worst offenders because they want to prevent homosexuals from marrying and take away "reproductive rights" from women.
O'Reilly started out strong by saying that abortion is about life and death, not "reproductive rights." Colmes countered, "It's giving women the right to do with their bodies as they choose." Then, to my dismay, O'Reilly offered up the latest euphemism du jour: "That sounds good," he said to Colmes, "but what happens to the potential human being in the process?"
The discussion concluded with O'Reilly asking Colmes whether the government should protect the lives of potential human beings, and Colmes replied, "No, because you cannot tell when it's a potential human being, you cannot answer when that becomes a human being."
There it is: potential human being.
Not 30 minutes later in his Culture Warriors segment, while discussing that horrible woman in England who said she'd be the first to put a pillow over the face of a suffering child, O'Reilly told Margaret Hoover that abortion sloganeering has desensitized people to the seriousness of abortion through the use of euphemisms like "reproductive rights." When Hoover objected to him conflating "reproductive rights" with a woman suffocating a child to death, O'Reilly sternly told her, "Whether you believe in abortion or not, it is a very serious issue. And to cloud it under the euphemism 'reproductive rights' is insulting - insulting - to the potential human beings who lose their lives."
Bill, you may have meant well, but Pot, meet Kettle. By calling your preborn neighbors only "potential" human beings, you are guilty of the very same sloganeering and deceptive euphemisms you properly denounced on your program.
There are no "potential" human beings. Only human beings, with the potential to grow and change and come closer every day to being the person God created them to be.
The pro-abortion strategy now is to insist that we cannot know exactly when life begins and therefore, whatever classification you put on the occupant of the womb (zygote, embryo, fetus, baby), it is only a "potential" human being, not an actual one. As such, it's not a matter of life and death, but solely a matter of a woman's personal choice and "rights." Therefore, no need to question the ethics or legality of abortion or consider the life being killed, since what is being destroyed was only "potential."
Now genetically and scientifically, the matter is settled. Immediately upon conception there exists a new and unique member of the species Homo sapiens. Is there any time from conception to birth when the child is a cat or a whale or a potato?
So now come the ambiguous, subjective definitions of what makes us human and when we become fully human and when a human deserves the right to his/her own life. Some will contend that intelligence is required, or independence, or utility.
The pro-abortion advocates insist that a human being is only an actual human being deserving of life if and when the mother decides so. If she wants the child, the child is a human being. If she doesn't want the child, it is at best a "potential" human being, but more likely just an insentient parasite. For the abortion propagandists, humanity is irrelevant.
I expect the abortion peddlers to perpetuate this false and dehumanizing notion that the child in the womb is merely a "potential" ...
Rate This Article
Leave a Comment
More U.S. News
- Violent Tsarnev friend killed by FBI after blaming Tamerlan for unsolved murders
- Eric Garcetti becomes Los Angeles' first Jewish mayor
- 12,000 homes damaged or destroyed in Moore, daunting road to recovery underway
- US Supreme Court Accepts Religion Case: Will Legislative Prayer Survive Religious Censorship?
- In the Wake of the Moore Tornado: What Can we Learn from the Disaster?
- Priests for Life: Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act Most Significant Legislative Step Forward
- Homeless man whose face was eaten away in cannibal attack recovering
- Court sides with Obama, Osama death photos can remain secret - for your own good
- Largest Burmese Python caught in Miami-Dade County
- Fr. Paul Schenck: Finding Living Faith on Catechetical Sunday
- The Movie Yellow: Incest as 'Normal' and Cassavates's Slides Into the World of Woes
- The Chicago School Teachers Strike Reveals the Need For School Choice
- The Sexual Barbarians and the Dissolution of Culture
- The Happy Priest Challenges Us to Ask: Who is Jesus to Me?
- Michael Coren on Canadian Public Schools: Teachers, leave those kids alone
- We Cannot Ignore Our Consciences: Cardinal Dolan On Religious Liberty
- In the Face of Danger, Successor of Peter Travels to Lebanon as a Messenger of Peace
- Reflections on the Dignity and Vocation of Women: Who or What?