Semantic Gymnastics and Language Manipulation

Do you ever think about how your are being twisted and turned by experts in language manipulation, semantic gymnastics, and propaganda? I first encountered the term, "semantic gymnastics," in a 1970 editorial in a medical journal, California Medicine. It was titled A New Ethic for Medicine And Society. The unidentified author wrote:

The process of eroding the old ethic and substituting the new has already begun. It may be seen most clearly in changing attitudes toward human abortion. In defiance of the long held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition or status, abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right and even necessary. It is worth noting that this shift in public attitude has affected the churches, the laws and public policy rather than the reverse. Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything bu't taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.

Since that was written over fifty years ago, we have seen language used to eviscerate the truth. We've seen the murder of the unborn called "reproductive health" when it has nothing to do with health and everything to do with eliminating reproduction. We've seen murder of the sick and elderly defined as "compassion in dying." Mutilating children is described as "gender affirming." George Orwell saw all this coming when he wrote 1984 in 1949. Could he have, in his wildest dreams, guessed how expansive the evil would become?

Roe essentially legislated abortion during all nine months of pregnancy with honey-toned rhetoric about privacy and rights. Seven men imposed abortion on the country through the courts. Roe is often misrepresented as banning abortion after viability. That is a lie. The ruling allowed exceptions after viability for the "life or health" of the mother which opened the door to abortion on demand through all nine months. The companion case, Doe vs. Bolton, defined "life or health" to include not only the woman's medical condition, but her social situation, her family situation, and her age. Roe and Doe between them allowed abortion in the first two trimesters for no reason, and in the last trimester for any reason. And today, not even birth protects children as Virginia Governor Ralph Northam expressed in 2019, saying parents after birth could decide whether to let the baby die, obviously by neglect.

Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, one that was agenda and emotion-driven with almost no constitutional legitimacy. That reality was described by John Hart Ely, a professor at Yale University, in his 1975 article about the decision titled The Wages of Crying Wolf: a Comment on Roe v. Wade. It was a compelling piece. Ely made a number of points including this clear statement about abortion:

Whether anti-abortion legislation cramps the life style of an unwilling mother more significantly than anti-homosexuality legislation cramps the life style of a homosexual is a close question. But even granting that it does, the other side of the balance looks very different. For there is more than simple societal revulsion to support legislation restricting abortion: Abortion ends (or if it makes a difference, prevents) the life of a human being other than the one making the choice.

Isn't it interesting how Ely connected homosexuality to abortion? In the early days, I wondered why the homosexuals showed up at rescues, until I realized that it made perfect sense. "My Body; My Choice!" It was all about bodily autonomy. I can do anything with my body I want to: abort the baby in my body, commit sodomy, kill myself, fornicate, cheat on my spouse, etc. As Ely, who was not pro life, pointed out, there is another life involved in the abortion decision. 

The question begs to be asked. "So if one may be autonomous to the point of taking a life, why object to murder, rape, robbery, assault, etc.?" If one is completely autonomous, then rights reside in power. If I'm big enough, strong enough, rich enough, etc., why can't I do anything I want with my body including denying the right to bodily autonomy to those who are weaker?

Food for thought, eh?

The Roe court -- Where are they now?

Ely talked about the court imposing its value decisions, crying wolf a number of times, and having little legal precedent. He described Roe as a "bad decision" that was not based on constitutional law. He ended his commentary writing:

Identification and definition of the-values with which the Constitution is concerned will often fall short of indicating with anything resembling clarity the deference to be given those values when they conflict with others society finds important. (Though even here the process is sometimes more helpful than the commentators would allow.) Nor is it often likely to generate, fullblown, the "neutral" principle that will avoid embarrassment in future cases. But though the identification of a constitutional connection is only the beginning of analysis, it is a necessary beginning. The point that often gets lost in the commentary, and obviously got lost in Roe, is that before the Court can get to the "balancing" stage, before it can worry about the next case and the case after that (or even about its institutional position) it is under an obligation to trace its premises to the charter from which it derives its authority. A neutral and durable principle may be a thing of beauty and a joy forever. But if it lacks connection with any value the Constitution marks as special, it is not a constitutional principle and the Court has no business imposing it. I hope that will seem obvious to the point of banality. Yet those of us to whom it does seem obvious have seldom troubled to say so.'  And because we have not, we must share in the blame for this decision.

Language is essential to communication. But when the words become means to obliterate the truth, communication fails. The euphemisms of the modern world, particularly as used by the drive-by media, can be weapons to destroy meaning. Today, many "fact-checkers" replace truth with the lie. Think of the Trump/Harris debate when many of the facts (truth) presented by Trump were questioned by the biased moderators while Harris' lies about abortion, the border, and other issues were allowed to stand. Semantic gymnastics ruled!

I'm not a fan of Thomas Payne, but he was a powerful wordsmith. In his pamphlet, The American Crisis, he penned these oft quoted words;

"These are the times that try men’s souls; the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph."

We in the Church Militant have a huge job before us, facing not only the conflict in the culture but in Holy Mother Church herself. May we never "shrink from the service" of God and work to bring about the reign of Jesus Christ in the hearts of all men.

May Jesus Christ be praised.