When we try to deceive ourselves.
Convoluted language is never in the service of clarity. In the case of "pro-choice" reporting of a subject touching on the abortion debate, the avoidance of clarity is usually intentional. But they've been at it for so long, that it seems to have caused a deficiency of clarity in the way pro-abortion advocates and reporters actually think.
This otherwise informative article by Niraj Chokshi in the National Journal is a typical example.
Why Might the Cleveland Kidnapper Get Charged With Murder?
The article sheds valuable light on how it is that prosecutors in Cleveland may charge Ariel Castro with murder under current Ohio law for causing the miscarriages of his captives. The law was carefully written to permit the prosecution of those who cause the death of a child in the womb through violence or during the commission of another crime. It thereby cuts out space for those who cause the death of a child in the womb, with the mother's consent, for money.
But the author can't get past the sub-title without running into linguistic trouble: "The gruesome case of Ariel Castro raises questions about the rights of fetuses but don't look for this to change the law."
"...rights of fetuses..."
Actually, the article doesn't really address whether children in the womb have rights. When it veers from the question of how the law has been written to enable the prosecution of violence against children in the womb, regardless of their moral status, that's were it gets confused. And here, before the by-line, it wades into that dark water.
And immediately dives into the deep end: "The government is wading into the murky waters of what constitutes a human life."
1. The laws have been on the books in Ohio for a couple years at least. So to say the government "is wading in" indicates that the author is a bit late to the party. "what constitutes a human life." Actually that is pretty darn clear. Biologically, there is no argument that the fetus is a human life. She is alive and she is human. Questions of personhood and ...
Never mind. Terry Mattingly and the smart people at Get Religion have done a far better job than I would have. Read his article.
Convoluted language is never in the service of clarity. In the case of "pro-choice" reporting of a subject touching on the abortion debate, the avoidance of clarity is usually intentional. But they've been at it for so long, that it seems to have caused a deficiency of clarity in the way pro-abortion advocates and reporters actually think.
This otherwise informative article by Niraj Chokshi in the National Journal is a typical example.
Why Might the Cleveland Kidnapper Get Charged With Murder?
The article sheds valuable light on how it is that prosecutors in Cleveland may charge Ariel Castro with murder under current Ohio law for causing the miscarriages of his captives. The law was carefully written to permit the prosecution of those who cause the death of a child in the womb through violence or during the commission of another crime. It thereby cuts out space for those who cause the death of a child in the womb, with the mother's consent, for money.
But the author can't get past the sub-title without running into linguistic trouble: "The gruesome case of Ariel Castro raises questions about the rights of fetuses but don't look for this to change the law."
"...rights of fetuses..."
Actually, the article doesn't really address whether children in the womb have rights. When it veers from the question of how the law has been written to enable the prosecution of violence against children in the womb, regardless of their moral status, that's were it gets confused. And here, before the by-line, it wades into that dark water.
And immediately dives into the deep end: "The government is wading into the murky waters of what constitutes a human life."
1. The laws have been on the books in Ohio for a couple years at least. So to say the government "is wading in" indicates that the author is a bit late to the party. "what constitutes a human life." Actually that is pretty darn clear. Biologically, there is no argument that the fetus is a human life. She is alive and she is human. Questions of personhood and ...
Never mind. Terry Mattingly and the smart people at Get Religion have done a far better job than I would have. Read his article.
No comments:
Post a Comment