Do you ever wonder why your choice of words is so important? It’s no secret that the battle between pro-lifers and pro-aborts have hinged on how words are used: e.g. am I pro-life or anti-choice; is it a baby or a mass of cells; etc. But sometimes, the carelessness of pro-lifers can leave an opening for the pro-aborts to challenge something good.
Many states already have laws that require women to have ultrasounds performed prior to getting an abortion in order to verify that the women are actually pregnant. These laws were passed because many abortionists performed D&Cs on women who were not pregnant in order to collect money for the abortion (see Carol Everett’s book Blood Money for more information).
But Oklahoma’s new ultrasound law states that women are to obtain “an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly….” Because of the stated allowance of the use of a vaginal transducer, the pro-aborts have been given an opportunity to claim that the law violates women by forcing “rape by implementation.”
Jill Stanek makes a good argument (click here for her article) that the instruments used in an abortion is more like rape than an ultrasound probe. However, my question is this: why even give the pro-aborts this opportunity to strike down a good law? It is estimated that 80-90 percent of abortion-minded women who see ultrasounds of their babies decide not to get the abortion.
Watch your words because words can win or lose a battle.