Nat Hentoff: Abortion and the English language

Jewish World Review ^ | 12/5/06 | Nat Hentoff

[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

[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

[RobbyS]

He has grown old, and old people are inclined to tell us what they really believe.

[webheart]

I'm sorry, what is "btt"?

It's hard to say these days. I think it means Bump To The Top, others think it means Back To The Top, but I don't think we will ever know, until the Supreme Court renders a decision.

[RobbyS]

So what is the difference between an embryo and a fetus? The old Thorndike-Barnhart dictionary said that an embryo was an undeveloped animal before its organs had developed enough to allow it to live independently. In the case of human beings, that would be about 26 weeks or, since the definition is vague, till birth. Fetus is defined as the animal embryo in its last stages of development. Obviously the abortion debate has led judges to impose own meanings which have little to do with science.

[Van Jenerette]

I remember their life began in the womb...Just be a pregnant woman, you know, and if you don't you are deluding yourself!

How true...

[dforest]

I knew every time. I could feel them move really early. And now they are smart, grown up, great guys!

Merry Christmas!

[Freedom4US]

"Define the meaning of the words and you define the argument. Define the argument and you have won the argument."

I like words too,language, and thought especially. I suppose most everyone at a forum like FR do as well. But back to your point - you'll hear pundits and commentators say something like "Oh, those darn liberals won't win in any sort of honest debate, because the facts are against them, etc.,"

Well, they're right, but that's beside the point.

Leftists (calling them "Liberal" is, or should be, insulting to everyone) have no interest in facts precisely because in any sort of honest debate, they are quite aware they will lose. Facts are an impediment, so the first mistake is thinking that participants in a given debate are looking for the truth, and the unstated but implied agreement that once the facts are laid bare, somehow, a mutually agreeable conclusion will be found.

The problem is, leftists are quite aware of where the facts lead, so therefore all energies are directed elsewhere, anywhere, to either fabricate "facts" which support their assertion, coupled with and most especially to ignore or stifle honest debate. That's the real tragedy of what's happend to the Democratic party. Everytime I turn around, something else gets foisted upon the American people, with nary a vote by anyone. Once in a while a clinker will get through on a referendum, but rest assured an unaccountable judge will tamp down any semblence of real democracy should it become necessary.

Given that hard-core leftists largely control major swaths of academia, the media, the judiciary &c &c, this puts the vast majority of Americans at an intellectual disadvantage - even though they *are* the majority, it doesn't appear that way - and in this way pop culture molds perceptions and opinions.

The trick is to maintain the fiction that debate is wanted or necessary to obtain "consensus" or give the illusion of public input and desires, simultaneously suggesting that the majority beliefs and traditions are extremist, exclusionary, racist, etc., etc.; I talk to a number of longtime democrats, who are in aggregate quite conservative, though they would balk at this suggestion, not only because they have been conditioned to believe otherwise, but because oftentimes their attention span is such that even if I could explain certain concepts - they are still fundamentally unable to think outside themselves, for themselves, ironically because they only think about themselves, much less think critically - they live in a "soft cage" of, get this - bloody *words*.

[right-wingin_It]

All I'm saying, is that in a courtroom, you be precise in your language...

A child/fetus in the womb can be precisely a child, or precisely a fetus to two different persons. There are no court rules that discussion must be limited to scientific terminology alone.

Not at all. I use those terms often--AS A SCIENTIST. But that doesn't mean a pregnant woman can't use the word "baby" to describe what's in her own womb--AS A MOTHER. Both terms are true, in their unique context. A party to the suit can call it whatever they want.

[jwalsh07]

I watched it as well Nat and my reaction was the same as yours. Sad and amusing at the same time. A through the looking glass SCOTUS moment.

[right-wingin_It]

All I'm saying, is that in a courtroom, you be precise in your language...

A child/fetus in the womb can be precisely a child, or precisely a fetus to two different persons. There are no court rules that discussion must be limited to scientific terminology alone.

If you're concerned that words like "fetus" and "embryo" demean human life...well just don't ever apply to med school...

Not at all. I use those terms often--AS A SCIENTIST. But that doesn't mean a pregnant woman can't use the word "baby" to describe what's in her own womb--AS A MOTHER. Both terms are true, in their unique context. A party to the suit can call it whatever they want.

[jwalsh07]

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.

[ravensandricks]

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.

[Freedom4US]

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.

[Elsiejay]

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.

[A.J.Armitage]

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.

[Kryptonite]

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

[Lexinom]

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?

[hunter112]

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!"

[Cincinna]

Nat Hentoff : pretty smart for an old liberal.

[maryz]

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 . . .