Originally Posted by Ustwo

Its sort of amusing how the choice of words can couch a debate.

Tecoyah went with the most bland and non-descriptive way of describing an abortion. He used "the right to choose", as if you were talking about a hair style or car insurance. Now I do not think, (and Politicophile pointed out very clearly why) Roberts will overturn it. Nor do I personally think he wants to get involved with it at all and I responded in kind but with almost as harsh a language as Tecoyah's was bland. The only way I could go harsher would be to say 'murder their children'.

What I think is so facinating though, is that those who support abortion are unable to use the language in a descriptive manner. Abortion is plain and simple the right of a woman to kill her unborn child, period. Using terms like choice is just trying to soften and obfuscate what is really happening. I almost have to wonder if such language will backfire. While I find many uses of abortion disgusting and selfish, I do see a place for it, and there would be circumstances where I would even advocate it. Using non-descriptive language only makes the supporters sound unsure, and trying to hide something. It makes attacking them easier and since I do believe that if abortion ever came to a straight vote it would loose, the right to 'choose' may well be lost in some future, not because of Roberts, but because it is the will of the American people. If that time comes I do hope that sanity will prevail and there will be a good outline of instances where abortions should be allowed to take place. There is no place for that debate here, but a blanket prohibition would be bad as well.