On abortion, dehumanizing language is wrong approach
T HOSE who oppose abortion have long noted, and rightfully so, that supporters of abortion rights resort to euphemisms to dehumanize children in the womb. Now it seems some on the anti-abortion side of this debate have adopted a similar tactic, which is a mistake for their cause.
Freshman Rep. Justin Humphrey, R-Lane, has filed legislation to change state law to declare, “No abortion shall be performed in this state without the written informed consent of the father of the baby.”
In an interview with The Intercept, an online news outlet, Humphrey defended the bill by saying, “I understand that they (women) feel like that is their body. I feel like it is a separate — what I call them is, is you’re a ‘host.’ And you know when you enter into a relationship you’re going to be that host and so, you know, if you pre-know that then take all precautions and don’t get pregnant.”
Those who advocate for abortion rights have long used similar language to strip an unborn child of its humanity. It’s not a baby, it’s a fetus, or a blastocyst, or a “clump of cells.”
Now Humphrey appears to have adopted the same tactic. We’re not talking about a woman, or a “motherto-be” (the latter being a phrase one would typically hear used by those opposed to abortion). Instead, she’s merely a “host.”
The percentage of people who describe themselves as pro-life has generally trended up during the past 20-plus years, and majorities today support greater restrictions on abortion. Those gains have not been generated by dehumanizing the individuals involved. Just the opposite.
Go to a crisis pregnancy center, and you won’t hear talk of “hosts” or “clumps of cells.” Instead, you’ll find people who provide compassionate assistance to women facing tough circumstances. Those who declare themselves pro-life have persuaded others by stressing the humanity of involved and by demonstrating that abortion isn’t a mere clinical procedure, but a tragedy.
For any portion of the movement to now abandon that successful, charitable approach and substitute the failed tactics of those on the other side would forfeit much of the goodwill generated over several decades.
Just because abortion-rights supporters are being hypocritical in denouncing others for using the same type of dehumanizing language their side has long employed doesn’t mean anti-abortion forces should embrace such language.
Beyond Humphrey’s choice of words, those who oppose abortion should also think carefully about the substance of his legislation. One can partially understand the logic behind it. Yet those who support changing the law to give fathers the right to prevent an abortion would rightly object if the law granted biological fathers the power to object to a woman carrying a baby to term instead of aborting it. Sadly, in cases where abortion is considered, there may be more of the latter group than the former.
Ultimately, the gains made by abortion opponents have come not through legislative mandates, but through moral persuasion. And the goal of changing hearts and minds on abortion is incompatible with stripping the women involved of our shared humanity.