Rhetoric, of course, extends beyond the labelling of those in favour of and opposed to abortion. Within the abortion debate, the way in which the unborn are labelled and described plays a much more important role than the labels “pro-abortion” and “anti-choice”. In the lefthand corner of the ring stand “pre-born” and “unborn child”. In the righthand corner, “fertilized egg” and “clump of cells”. These four terms can be observed within the wrestling ring that is public discourse, battling it out. Again, the importance of the use of such terms in the abortion debate cannot be denied. While “pre-born” and “unborn child” give life and humanity to the foetus, “fertilized egg” and “clump of cells” objectify it. In the first case, “fertilized egg” suggests a lack of change after conception; because it is still an “egg”, though fertilized, it belongs to the woman and, therefore, may be removed without remorse. In the second example, the foetus is exactly what it is described as and therefore possesses no life.

What is the point of this analysis, then? Yes, labels are placed in the abortion debate to support the argument of either side of the issue. Yes, a rhetorical battle ensues, even as you read this article. So what? Well, the terms describing the unborn are far more important to the debate than the terms describing the opposition. While the latter targets the opposition, labelling them as fundamentally opposed to either the right to life or the right to choose, the former has the power to directly affect a woman’s decision to abort or keep her child, and this makes all the difference.

So, is there any connection between the two labelling systems? Does the labelling of the opposition connect in some way to the labelling of the unborn? Do they support each other, the one building upon the other? While the rhetoric of those opposed to abortion is consistent (“anti-life” and “unborn child” both work to focus the issue on the life and humanity of the unborn), the rhetoric of those in favour is not. The term “anti-choice” focusses the debate on the right of women to choose but “fertilized egg” and “clump of cells” primarily work to demonstrate the absence of life in the unborn. The woman’s right to choose is dependant upon this demonstration and follows secondarily in the argument. Both sides, then, focus the more important defining of terms upon the humanity, or lack thereof, of the unborn. Therefore, through the analysis of the rhetorics of the abortion debate and the unanimous acknowledgement, through these rhetorics, of the importance of the identification of the unborn as either human or not human, it follows that the resting point of the debate is not upon the right of a woman to choose but, rather, upon the right of the unborn to live. In other words, both pro-life and pro-choice rhetoric demonstrates that the humanity of the unborn must be established before the question of a woman’s right to choose is answered.

For those fighting for the right to life, the question of the humanity of the unborn must be kept in mind when engaging the public sphere. While one can easily get caught up in terminology, the central point must always be that the unborn are human beings deserving of life. Focussing our speech upon the humanity of the unborn is far more powerful than pro-choice rhetoric and it will be this tool, along with love and compassion, which will win the battle. While labelling may sway some, proclaiming the humanity inherent in the unborn will change hearts and minds. Though this article is an analysis of words, the heart of the matter is about much more. In a culture which denies the humanity of the unborn, in a country which permits abortion until the moment of birth, who will protect those who cannot protect themselves? In Canada, approximately 100,000 lives are cut short every year as a result of abortion. Will you be a voice for the voiceless?

Stephanie Gray

On Friday, March 11, 2011, Brock Students For Life will be hosting Stephanie Gray from the Canadian Centre For Bio-Ethical Reform to do a public presentation entitled “Echoes of the Holocaust.”

While no two atrocities are identical, comparisons—that identify
similarities—can often be made. When a reporter who covered the crisis in
Bosnia in the 1990’s asked Walter Reich, director of the Holocaust
Memorial Museum, if the phrase “echoes of the holocaust” was appropriate
to describe what was going on, Reich replied, “Yes, very loud echoes.” Do
we continue to experience “echoes of the holocaust” today? Is the claim
that abortion is comparable to the holocaust accurate or appalling?

This talk is geared to help audiences understand the historical roots of
genocide and why abortion fits into the same pattern. This includes
looking at how different societies systematically dehumanized people and
eliminated them in the belief that they were achieving a social good. The
topic will also cover how the same bad thinking informs the abortion
debate today. By critically examining arguments for legal abortion, the
audience will be exposed to solid reasoning why the pre-born must be
protected just like born people.

The talk will take place at Brock University from 6:00pm – 8:00pm in
Academic South Room 203. “Echoes of the Holocaust” is a free event
open to the public though donations will be kindly accepted.