Bizarre word games

Murder is a terribly strong word. So violent, so final, so…..shudderingly horrible. No one is allowed to murder another person.

But these days, the culture of death has re-named ‘the taking of human life’ from its earliest stages to its last breath, and re-written laws to allow people to determine when that last gasp comes. Pope John Paul II made that phrase well-known, culture of death. It begins with abortion and extends from there.

The abortion industry has profited for over three decades by semantic engineering - distorting words and rearranging them to say something different. Something acceptable to a culture that had, until then, lived by Judeo-Christian ethics. They re-defined human life and dressed up the taking of it – an awkward phrase for murder – so it remains acceptable and even gets shielded as a ‘right.’ The right to take life.

Jumping tracks here……when a woman is pregnant, from the moment of conception - whatever the abortion movement wants to call what she’s carrying - the science of embryology is undeniable that it is of the species homo sapiens. So from that first moment, it is a human life in varying stages of development, just like a 30-something year old abortion activist is in a different biological stage from a 50 or 60-something abortion activist. Human development is always happening, but it is always happening to the human person.

So now to the point. I’ve been following the Rosa Acuna case for a couple of years as it’s gone through it various court phases of ruling and appeal and higher-court argument, etc. This ruling in New Jersey is just….incoherent.

Last week the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that patients are not entitled to truthful answers when they ask doctors direct questions about medical procedures.

When Rosa Acuna learned she was six weeks to eight weeks pregnant, she asked if she was carrying a baby at that stage. Her doctor replied that her fetus was “not a living human being,” but rather “just tissue at this time.” As a result, Rosa agreed to an abortion.

She suffered emotional distress upon discovering later that the abortion had indeed killed an existing human being. While expressing sympathy for Rosa’s “deep pain,” the court dismissed her claim against the doctor.

The court conceded that doctors must disclose all information that a reasonably prudent patient would find material before deciding to undergo a medical procedure. What could be more material than the one direct question the patient finds important enough to ask?

But according to the court, Rosa’s doctor did not have to answer truthfully because “there is no consensus in the medical community” that embryos are living human beings at six weeks to eight weeks of age.

This assertion is simply false.

And just bizarre.

Read the whole article. It’s by a pro-life attorney familiar with the law, reason, coherence, and how out of order it can get in New Jersey.

So what is really going on in last week’s New Jersey decision? The tragic truth is that, once again, the ideology of abortion has trumped all other considerations, including biological fact and a patient’s right to informed consent. The well-known “abortion distortion factor” exalts abortion above all other rights and nullifies any fact or law that gets in the way of unlimited abortions.

But in its misguided desperation to circle the wagons around the so-called right to choose abortion, the state Supreme Court has deprived women of their right to know what they are choosing — even if they specifically ask.

Does the insanity get any clearer than that?