Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nat Hentoff: Abortion and the English language
Jewish World Review ^ | 12/5/06 | Nat Hentoff

Posted on 12/05/2006 1:32:50 PM PST by Caleb1411

Thanks to C-SPAN, a vital public service, I was able to see and hear on Nov. 8 the two hours of oral arguments at the Supreme Court on one of the most persistently passionate controversies in the nation — partial-birth abortion; or, as its medical practitioners call it, intact dilation and extraction.

What fascinated me throughout the debate — and the reactions of the justices — was, as George Orwell put it, the way language can be, and is so often used, "as an instrument which we shape for our own purposes." Only rarely did any participant speak plainly about the procedure.

In his essay "Politics and the English Language," Orwell said, "What is above all needed (in honest speaking) is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way about."

During the two hours, I often heard references to "fetal demise." What they were actually talking about, some of us would say, is the killing of a human being.

That plain intent of abortion slipped in briefly when Solicitor General Paul Clement, speaking for the government, said the important issue is whether this form of abortion "is to be performed in utero or when the child is halfway outside the womb."(A child? Where?)

Justice John Paul Stevens quickly interrupted: "Whether the FETUS is more than halfway out," he corrected the solicitor general.

"Some of the fetuses, I understand in the procedure," Justice Stevens added, "are only 4 or 5 inches long. They're very different from fully formed babies."

Babies had again crawled into the discussion — but not for long. The abortion procedure at issue is D&X, intact dilation and extraction, which removes babies from existence. Years ago, the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was for abortion rights, nonetheless called this D&X procedure, "only minutes

(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: abortion; prolife; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-86 last
To: Raymann
The Supreme Court isn't Rush or Air America, it's about the law and the Constitution.

In this case the SCOTUS was neither, it was a bad joke. The Constitution is silent on the method of ripping unborn babies from limb to limb. On the other hand it is quite loud in procaliming a right to life in the 5th and 14th Amendments as well as in the DOI.

51 posted on 12/05/2006 5:53:56 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411

Not to change the subject, and apologies in advance, but when did they start allowing cameras into USSC arguments? Is this something CJ Roberts allowed? I can't believe I missed this - I've been hoping they'd do this for years.

Back to the topic, kind of: I hadn't realized Hentoff was a pro-lifer. Good news - I've always thought he was a great thinker, though I disagree with him on some things. I'd assumed abortion was one of those things.


52 posted on 12/05/2006 6:00:27 PM PST by ravensandricks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ravensandricks

I assumed that only oral arguments were allowed to be taped and broadcast, at least one justice, when asked when cameras would be allowed, replied "Over my dead body".

In practice, I think cameras in courtrooms are an abomination. In Britain, most (all?) trials have a gag order of some kind or manner, so they don't get such public spectacles like the OJ trial and similar evidence of a society in ruin.


53 posted on 12/05/2006 6:40:23 PM PST by Freedom4US (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Raymann

It is a concept not easily encompassed by our minds and abilities to define. The process, life-long in its duration and controlled in step by step fashion by the individual organism's own personal genetic code, I am able to conceptualize only as self-initiating and self-directing. No outside agency is operative after the initial act of fertilization.


54 posted on 12/05/2006 7:41:03 PM PST by Elsiejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Raymann
In any event there is a reason they're aren't any cameras in the court, it isn't a place for popular opinion or theatrics, it's supposed to be a place of serious discussion and for that you need to be precise in your language. Period.

I've always found that concluding "Period" especially persuasive.

55 posted on 12/05/2006 10:34:18 PM PST by A.J.Armitage (http://calvinist-libertarians.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: right-wingin_It

And the sickest part is that an actual Mother will so attest that the child/fetus living inside her should be killed.


56 posted on 12/05/2006 11:16:14 PM PST by Kryptonite (Keep Democrats Out of Power!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Yeah, well, the burden of proof is for Justice Stephens and those of his ilk to demonstrate tangibly some fundamental, ontological difference between a baby, ahem, fetus "4 or 5 inches long" and a "fully formed baby."

At what moment, exactly, does the state of the entity in question morph from non-human, non-person, non-child, to human, person, child? Until they can demonstrate that, our laws are not reflecting the natural and rational default position - that the entity is as much a person-substance at one cell as it is at one trillion cells.

Does that make sense? Anyone?

57 posted on 12/06/2006 12:28:16 AM PST by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411

Don't hide behind the term, "pro-life". I'm proud to call myself "anti-abortion". I don't let my opponents hide behind the term, "pro-choice". They are pro-abortion, pure and simple. Even if they spout the crap about, "Well, I wouldn't have an abortion, but I won't tell someone else what to do." I counter with, "Did your great-great-grandfather have a bumper sticker on his buckboard that said, "Don't like slavery? Then don't own one!"


58 posted on 12/06/2006 1:01:48 AM PST by hunter112 (Total victory at home and in the Middle East!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411

Nat Hentoff : pretty smart for an old liberal.


59 posted on 12/06/2006 1:09:28 AM PST by Cincinna (HILLARY & HER HINO " We are going to take things away from you for the Common Good ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Like Humpty-Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland -- "Words mean what I say they mean -- neither more nor less!"

Of course, the media play an enormous role in influencing usage . . .

60 posted on 12/06/2006 1:24:22 AM PST by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Raymann

We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary. --James D. Nicoll

Excellent quote. My point wasn't that we should speak only pure english, but that adding "fetus" to our vocabulary wasn't done to improve understanding but rather to obscure it.


61 posted on 12/06/2006 5:00:12 AM PST by freedomfiter2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411

Nat Hentoff is an important ally to the pro-life movement. Whereas many liberals like to scoff at pro-lifers, calling us religious zealots, Hentoff is an admitted atheist, so his objections can't be dismissed so easily. His is truly a voice in the liberal wilderness!


62 posted on 12/06/2006 6:42:59 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raymann
"Pap always said it warn't no harm to borrow things, if you was meaning to pay them back, sometime; but the widow said it warn't anything but a soft name for stealing, and no decent body would do it."

--Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, ch. XII.

If English ever has to return all the words it has "borrowed" from other languages, we're going to be in a heap of trouble.

63 posted on 12/06/2006 8:36:11 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411
I might loved to be in on that dialoge and asked the "good" lawyer in a black robe, "Well, Justice Stevens, if one can grab hold of both the legs, pull it out until just before the head is exposed, I'd say that that 'fetus' mightly resembled a newborn BABY, your honor."
64 posted on 12/06/2006 8:40:56 AM PST by zerosix (Native Sunflower (Kansan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411
Remember, that guy at the gas station isn't a pump jockey. He's a Petroleum Transport Engineer.
Which is to say, English is a wonderful language to hide things that would otherwise demean or inconvience you.
65 posted on 12/06/2006 8:45:13 AM PST by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedomfiter2

No, like I said it was done to quantify it. Under your logic we shouldn't be using words like "kid", "child" "teen", "adult" either.


66 posted on 12/06/2006 9:35:28 AM PST by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna
Nat Hentoff: pretty smart for an old liberal.

If only our political opponents were as smart.

67 posted on 12/06/2006 9:54:19 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom

Too much sense for the liberal dementia of the subpremes Stephens, Ginsberg, & Breyer. They have an agenda to uphold and prefer to ignore truth or the inalienable right to not be murdered while sequestered in the womb or a petri dish.


68 posted on 12/06/2006 7:58:19 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Raymann

I thought fetus was just latin for unborn child, as in fetus adoleo, unborn child sacrifice.


69 posted on 12/07/2006 1:31:20 PM PST by huldah1776 (Worthy is the Lamb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: huldah1776

Well history has changed the definition, it happens.


70 posted on 12/07/2006 4:56:27 PM PST by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; TenthAmendmentChampion; ...
Joseph Sobran, another great columnist, wrote an article with the same title years ago. http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/000824.shtml

These two men are great. They also both referenced George Orwell, who... "analyzed the corrupting influence of dishonest politics on the way we speak and think."

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

71 posted on 12/07/2006 5:55:17 PM PST by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...


72 posted on 12/07/2006 10:42:00 PM PST by Coleus (Woe unto him that call evil good and good evil"-- Isaiah 5:20-21)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Van Jenerette

as I examine my one week old son, it is clear he is not "fully formed" either.
His brain function will continue to develop over the years, he cannot feed himself, he does not have control of his head or limbs.
Does this make him "fair game" for the culture of death?
Maybe in time it will be legal to extinguish the life of a newborn?

Justice Stevens needs to use specific language to explain the difference in "formation" between a newborn, and a child who is moments away from birth.
He also needs to explain where he is getting this information about 4 to 5 inch babies. I think he is full of BS on that one.
Babies that small are usually aborted using different methods.


73 posted on 12/07/2006 10:56:11 PM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411; MHGinTN; huldah1776; Raymann; cpforlife.org; Coleus
"Intact dilation and extraction," causing "fetal demise."

The "final solution" in "family planning."

74 posted on 12/08/2006 1:04:21 AM PST by unspun (What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama; A2J; Agitate; AliVeritas; Alouette; Annie03; aposiopetic; attagirl; Augie76; ...

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

75 posted on 12/08/2006 7:37:32 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We need to crush the Iraq Study Group like we crushed Harriet Miers. Let fly!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Van Jenerette

Thanks for your service.


76 posted on 12/08/2006 7:41:25 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We need to crush the Iraq Study Group like we crushed Harriet Miers. Let fly!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Raymann

Courts are also a place where reality is supposed to be recognized, and the reality is that while a doctor may use fetus as a technical term for an unborn human, pro-aborts have used it for four decades as a word for a non-human target, and that's why Stevens uses it.


77 posted on 12/08/2006 7:46:05 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We need to crush the Iraq Study Group like we crushed Harriet Miers. Let fly!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Caleb1411; 2nd amendment mama; A2J; Agitate; AliVeritas; Alouette; Annie03; aposiopetic; ...
Here's an excerpt from a column about Altio, which includes comment on a similar situation the last time they considered a major abortion case:

In the case of abortion, the Court could very easily decide that states have some of the same power to regulate it that they have over other medical procedures. It would be possible for a state to require parental notification and informed consent. Bans could be passed on partial-birth abortion and on taking other people’s daughters across state lines to obtain abortions. The states could even require the same safety protocols that other surgical clinics must follow. But the scariest part for the abortion industry isn’t necessarily the extra regulations, but the fact that the judicial firewall would come down, and they would have to argue their case in the public square instead of depending on the “super-duper precedent” of Roe. There is nothing they fear more than having to explain themselves, and the Court could preserve Roe and still require them to do so.

That may explain why oral arguments went the way they did in the recent case regarding parental notification in New Hampshire. It was Justice O’Connor’s last abortion case, and Chief Justice Roberts’ first. One striking feature was a long discussion of the exact mechanics of contacting a judge if a pregnant teen needed an emergency abortion and her parents were unavailable or she did not want them notified. How long might it take, the justices and lawyers wondered, to get that vital permission and save her life, health or fertility? Of course, no one would ask that question about an appendectomy; the doctor would simply do the procedure. That would be the reasonable answer in the case of a true emergency abortion as well, but the Justices weren’t discussing reason. They were discussing possible outs that would allow them to preserve the Roe firewall.

For four decades, American liberalism has depended largely on federal courts coming down from the mountain with stone tablets to impose their vision. Now that era may be ending, not with stone tablets imposed from the Right, but with the people making the decisions and writing the tablets.

No wonder they feel like their world’s coming to an end.


78 posted on 12/08/2006 8:09:28 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We need to crush the Iraq Study Group like we crushed Harriet Miers. Let fly!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
I've always found that concluding "Period" especially persuasive.

LOL!

79 posted on 12/08/2006 8:11:57 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We need to crush the Iraq Study Group like we crushed Harriet Miers. Let fly!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom
At what moment, exactly, does the state of the entity in question morph from non-human, non-person, non-child, to human, person, child?

In a letter to the editor, a local cheerleader for abortion wrote that only the pregnant woman can choose whether "to birth the life inside her." Her mistake--in a followup letter I asked, "Is that human life, or do you figure it’s a fish, or a monkey?"

I got phone calls for days about that letter, every one of them enthusistically positive. Heh-heh!

80 posted on 12/08/2006 8:17:25 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We need to crush the Iraq Study Group like we crushed Harriet Miers. Let fly!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: hunter112
"Did your great-great-grandfather have a bumper sticker on his buckboard that said, "Don't like slavery? Then don't own one!"

Nice! I'm going to steal that!

81 posted on 12/08/2006 8:19:23 AM PST by Mr. Silverback (We need to crush the Iraq Study Group like we crushed Harriet Miers. Let fly!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: 2banana; Caleb1411
Another one: "The corruption of man is followed by corruption of language." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson.

These observations may help explain the word twisting by people who are up to no good, abortionists, euthanazis and American reporters among them.

82 posted on 12/08/2006 8:56:21 AM PST by T'wit (Using the right word instead of the almost-right word is like getting laid instead of laid off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cincinna

Hentoff is great, except when he's about to put Hitlery up for canonization for voting against the Military Commissions Act, and other such blind spots. His soul will be saved but the republic may be lost.


83 posted on 12/08/2006 9:51:01 AM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: ravensandricks
>> Back to the topic, kind of: I hadn't realized Hentoff was a pro-lifer.

Hentoff wrote a memorable and hard-hitting series of columns defending Terri Schiavo. It did not endear him to his own Village Voice readers, but he was resolute. In fact, he was one of the earlier voices to speak up for Terri. He covered the story for several years. As he put it in one column, he is an atheist, so in his view, life is all we have. The right to life is fundamental.

84 posted on 12/08/2006 12:42:10 PM PST by T'wit (Using the right word instead of the almost-right word is like getting laid instead of laid off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Nice! I'm going to steal that!

You may have it on a silver platter with my compliments! I also use: "Well, I wouldn't beat my wife, but I'm not going to interefere with someone else's family matters. That's exactly the reasoning used just a couple of generations ago, when women were considered a husband's property, just like an unborn baby is considered a woman's property today."

85 posted on 12/08/2006 4:39:54 PM PST by hunter112 (Total victory at home and in the Middle East!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I am a conservative about the meaning of words.
Republic and democracy...know what I mean?
86 posted on 12/09/2006 4:53:33 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-86 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson