Tuesday, October 19, 2010

The feminist manipulation of language to manifacture hypocrisy

Joyce Arthur decided to post on her blog, after a two year absence.

In her latest post, she attempts to "correct" a statement released by the Catholic bishops of Northern Ireland to "accurately" reflect their views (her additions in red).

However, this statement is not an accurate reflection of your own views (which I'm quite familiar with). So I have taken the liberty of helpfully rewriting it for you:

"Every human life is worthy of protection from the moment of conception to natural death, except for pregnant women. The dignity of men and fetuses is absolute and inviolable, while the dignity of women is subject to their reproductive capacity. We call on public representatives to ... promote and defend a legislative environment which respects the inherent dignity of life in all it stages, except during the child-bearing years of women."

It's a commonly used tactic of feminists to question the sincerity of their opponents based on self-serving definitions of words that the speakers are not employing. In this instance, Joyce is attempting to communicate that because bishops oppose legalizing killing unborn children, that amounts to not respecting the lives of women.

What does respect of life consist of?

It means allowing people to live. It means respecting their right to life. It means not wanting anyone to kill them. Including themselves.

Now this is all very plain.

But feminists are really fond of stretching the definition of words to fit their agenda.

See, in the feminist mindset, "right to life" isn't just about physical existence, which is what most people understand by "right to life".

It's about the qualitative meaning of the word "life". As in the phrase "get a life". Which of course no constitution guarantees (yet). But they're thinking of things like: getting a career, saving a marriage, holding off on children to do other things, etc

However, taking the pro-lifers at their word and according to the meanings they are using is not very effective for the abortion rights movement because it makes them look anti-life.
So feminists have to twist the meanings of words to make their cause look good.

They attribute to words meanings never intended by the speaker.

And in effectuating that manipulation of meaning, they can make the speaker appear as hypocritical.

But in order for a speaker to be TRULY hypocritical, he must hold double standard that he himself created.

Using the meanings HE intended.

See, the bishops meant something very specific when they said that all human life is worthy of protection. But in this case, Joyce Arhur didn't take the word "life" in its literal meaning, which is what the bishops intended.

This way, she could be said to stating their "real" views. And thereby make them look hypocritical.

But is it their real views?


Do Northern Irish Bishops want women to die? No. Do they want doctors to do everything possible for women to live? Yes.

So they're not hypocrites.

But Joyce Arthur won't admit to that.

But with any goal, not all means are morally acceptable.

You don't take an innocent human life to save another's life.

That's Ethics 101.

However, if feminists admitted that pro-lifers were truly sincere about respecting all human life, their cause would suffer a great deal. Because then they would have to admit that they were all about legalizing killing. In the minds of the people the contest would look like this:

Criminalizing the taking of human life vs. giving women the right to do whatever they want.

From a moral standpoint, it doesn't look good.

So feminist approaches to the topic very often includes manipulation of the language, questioning the sincerity of pro-lifers (based on pro-choice terms, not pro-life ones) and only caring about results, not the means.

But see, reality has its own rules. You can't ignore the moral elements of a means to a goal. Morality is nothing more than those rules of behaviour that in the long term are most advantangeous to human nature. When the morality of the means of attaining goals are ignored, the advantage of doing so only lasts for so long precisely because human beings are made a certain way, and immoral acts are ultimately harmful to humans. It's like when you take certain kinds of drugs to slim down, or keep awake or do things that your body was not meant to do. Sure you can slim down without exercise and good nutrition, or take pep pills without end, but your body will break down because of it. The psychology of man is the same way. You'll see nice results in the immediate, but in the long term, it will undermine the human person.