Definitions // Ambiguity // Pro-Life
A definition is what creates the limits for which a word may be used. A linguist or an English major may find an occasional use outside of the traditional definition that they use with purpose and full understanding of the proper definition, but it is with a purpose, within the confines of a specific piece of literature. We have become lax in our understanding of words. Our diction is sloppy to say the least and our definitions are far too broad or too narrow or occasionally both too broad and too narrow for the words we are using, but we have become too ingrained in what is fast and easy that we sacrifice clarity for the sake of making a word that we already know or already exists work for a situation which the word no longer fits. Our words and definitions become muddled with hearsay and interpretation because perhaps when she said "fine", she meant F.I.N.E. (freaked out, insecure, neurotic, emotional). The possibility of one singular four letter words has broadened to a scope that renders every last bit of emphasis useless. Our time would be better spent communicating with emotionally charged gibberish than with vague words that have been stretched into futility. To begin with our language was created with gaps in clarity requiring multiple words to describe what many languages are able to convey with a singularity. Greeks have four words for love, the Spanish have two, and we have one that must encompass everything from the most platonic love of pepperoni on a pizza or a specific pairing of colors to the passionate state of two honeymooners. Already, the landslide of ambiguity had begun and the language was only in its primordial state. I could list more words that I've heard used incorrectly in the past week than I can name words created in the past three years.
Our language is in its beginnings still, it is living and fluid, yet we do not take advantage of this by utilizing the words the way they are intended nor do we create words from the roots of other languages or derivatives of words currently in existence. Instead we settle for ambiguous diction that any English professor would mark with red pen for it's lack of clarity.
One particular definition is bothering me. I've seen quite a few articles recently, given the political climate about one specific word: "Pro-Life". This word, when used improperly specifically irritates me because it holds significance for me because I've been pro-life for as long as I've known the word, because I was a fellow for Texas Right to Life's Dr. Joseph Graham Fellowship, because I have spent days in conferences, meeting, and training learning about this cause, because I sat in an empty dorm room bathroom starring at a little blue plus sign from a pregnancy test with my suitemates breakfasting not ten feet away, because I coached my mother through the DNR on my grandmother as her mind withered away with dementia, because I have served this cause for most of my life with fervor and passion towards the very simple goal of letting people live.
I've seen many define the pro-life or right-to-life movement as simply an anti-abortion campaign, which is far too narrow of a definition. On the other hand, I've seen the same critics claim the pro-life movement is not truly pro-life because they do not attempt to provide for all living creatures's needs which means that we are not supporting all life, which is far too broad of a definition. There are still others whose ambiguity in definition is narrowed to the human race, but still accuse right-to-life advocates of not being philanthropic enough towards other human needs, which still demonstrates a lack of understanding of the movement and what defines it as I will expand upon later.
Before I begin with definitions, mission statements, and rhetoric, I must make one fact painfully clear: Pro-Life is not synonymous with Anti-abortion. Anti-abortion is a word separate from pro-life not for the sake of politics and wanting to have a positive, but because the pro-life movement encompasses more than just the one issue. This is a common mistake propagated by advocates on both sides of the pro-life issue. Wikipedia, redirects pro-life searches to anti-abortion and only defines it as more when it is "disambiguation" (again, ambiguous use of words and need for proper use of definitions). It's a wide spread misconception.
Pro-life comes from the Latin root "pro" meaning "favoring; supporting" and the English word "life" meaning "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally". The Pro-life movement can also be referred to as the right-to-life movement which does provide more clarity in that it is a movement that advocate that life is an inherent right. "The mission of National Right to Life is to protect and defend the most fundamental right of humankind, the right to life of every innocent human being from the beginning of life to natural death."
There are many other human rights and human needs, but nothing is as fundamental as life and this movement protects and defends it in every stage. The right-to-life movement defends those who cannot advocate for themselves to allow them to have the one thing necessary to any other human experience: life. A lot of the articles I've seen that call the Right-to-Life movement hypocritical do not understand it's goals and it's limitations. Yet, some critic the movement because it isn't doing enough or critic pro-life advocates for not feeding the hungry and providing for the poor or being philanthropic in ways outside the scope of the movement. This accusation is inherently untrue of individuals and unfair for the movement.
On the individual scale, this is untrue because a right-to-life advocate is protecting and defending life, which is done on an individual scale and a national scale through changing the politics and the hearts of the nation. This is done by caring for individuals and their needs on both a corporate level and an individual level, but typically does not expand to a legal level because the legal obligation of providing for the needy causes it to no longer be philanthropic, but obligatory and take the love out of a loving act. We see this care in the creation of maternity homes and pregnancy centers along with care networks to assist people who are at risk for losing their life.
On the broader scale of the entire movement, it is an unfair expectation because every movement has it's limits. By definition, the movement only advocates for innocent humans because advocating for convicted criminals and the death penalty is divisive beyond the scope of the movement.In order for a movement to be successful, it must have a very small scope. All the effort must be magnified towards a common goal. If the movement become diluted it is unsuccessful because the advocates begin to disagree, the more goals that are added and the efforts of each advocate is diluted because there are too many fronts to fight on causing each one to be easily over powered. This is why advocate of one movement may be a part of more than one or help in more than one way.
Being pro-life is simply defending and protecting the right to live. Any other need or want of a human being is second to and completely dependent on this specific right. Without the right to life, there is no point in caring for the poor or feeding the hungry, or sheltering the homeless because without life even those meager living conditions are impossible. Living conditions, quality of life, and lifestyle are all noble causes for which to advocate, but the point becomes moot if people do not have the inherent right to live. Each of the causes beyond the right-to-life is dependent on living humans to even be an issue. Before we start advocating for better living conditions, let's allow for humans to live in the conditions they were created in (the womb) from the moment they are conceived (fertilization). Before we start arguing about quality of life, let's allow for humans to live their full natural life and not stop their hearts and play God (euthanasia). Before advocating for the right to practice a specific lifestyles, let's allow for humans to have legal equal opportunities to live regardless of genetics.
Every other cause is dependent on this one cause. If we cannot even win this battle of protecting human life, then all of the other battles are for nothing. This is the most basic, fundamental right that we fight for other creatures to have, but our own species does not defend. The life of endangered animals are more protected than human life in the womb. The life of rare plants are more protected than the life of a patient who lives in a state where euthanasia is legal. What use is it in ensuring the people are living well if we cannot even ensure that people are allowed to live?
Our language is in its beginnings still, it is living and fluid, yet we do not take advantage of this by utilizing the words the way they are intended nor do we create words from the roots of other languages or derivatives of words currently in existence. Instead we settle for ambiguous diction that any English professor would mark with red pen for it's lack of clarity.
One particular definition is bothering me. I've seen quite a few articles recently, given the political climate about one specific word: "Pro-Life". This word, when used improperly specifically irritates me because it holds significance for me because I've been pro-life for as long as I've known the word, because I was a fellow for Texas Right to Life's Dr. Joseph Graham Fellowship, because I have spent days in conferences, meeting, and training learning about this cause, because I sat in an empty dorm room bathroom starring at a little blue plus sign from a pregnancy test with my suitemates breakfasting not ten feet away, because I coached my mother through the DNR on my grandmother as her mind withered away with dementia, because I have served this cause for most of my life with fervor and passion towards the very simple goal of letting people live.
I've seen many define the pro-life or right-to-life movement as simply an anti-abortion campaign, which is far too narrow of a definition. On the other hand, I've seen the same critics claim the pro-life movement is not truly pro-life because they do not attempt to provide for all living creatures's needs which means that we are not supporting all life, which is far too broad of a definition. There are still others whose ambiguity in definition is narrowed to the human race, but still accuse right-to-life advocates of not being philanthropic enough towards other human needs, which still demonstrates a lack of understanding of the movement and what defines it as I will expand upon later.
Before I begin with definitions, mission statements, and rhetoric, I must make one fact painfully clear: Pro-Life is not synonymous with Anti-abortion. Anti-abortion is a word separate from pro-life not for the sake of politics and wanting to have a positive, but because the pro-life movement encompasses more than just the one issue. This is a common mistake propagated by advocates on both sides of the pro-life issue. Wikipedia, redirects pro-life searches to anti-abortion and only defines it as more when it is "disambiguation" (again, ambiguous use of words and need for proper use of definitions). It's a wide spread misconception.
Pro-life comes from the Latin root "pro" meaning "favoring; supporting" and the English word "life" meaning "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally". The Pro-life movement can also be referred to as the right-to-life movement which does provide more clarity in that it is a movement that advocate that life is an inherent right. "The mission of National Right to Life is to protect and defend the most fundamental right of humankind, the right to life of every innocent human being from the beginning of life to natural death."
There are many other human rights and human needs, but nothing is as fundamental as life and this movement protects and defends it in every stage. The right-to-life movement defends those who cannot advocate for themselves to allow them to have the one thing necessary to any other human experience: life. A lot of the articles I've seen that call the Right-to-Life movement hypocritical do not understand it's goals and it's limitations. Yet, some critic the movement because it isn't doing enough or critic pro-life advocates for not feeding the hungry and providing for the poor or being philanthropic in ways outside the scope of the movement. This accusation is inherently untrue of individuals and unfair for the movement.
On the individual scale, this is untrue because a right-to-life advocate is protecting and defending life, which is done on an individual scale and a national scale through changing the politics and the hearts of the nation. This is done by caring for individuals and their needs on both a corporate level and an individual level, but typically does not expand to a legal level because the legal obligation of providing for the needy causes it to no longer be philanthropic, but obligatory and take the love out of a loving act. We see this care in the creation of maternity homes and pregnancy centers along with care networks to assist people who are at risk for losing their life.
On the broader scale of the entire movement, it is an unfair expectation because every movement has it's limits. By definition, the movement only advocates for innocent humans because advocating for convicted criminals and the death penalty is divisive beyond the scope of the movement.In order for a movement to be successful, it must have a very small scope. All the effort must be magnified towards a common goal. If the movement become diluted it is unsuccessful because the advocates begin to disagree, the more goals that are added and the efforts of each advocate is diluted because there are too many fronts to fight on causing each one to be easily over powered. This is why advocate of one movement may be a part of more than one or help in more than one way.
Being pro-life is simply defending and protecting the right to live. Any other need or want of a human being is second to and completely dependent on this specific right. Without the right to life, there is no point in caring for the poor or feeding the hungry, or sheltering the homeless because without life even those meager living conditions are impossible. Living conditions, quality of life, and lifestyle are all noble causes for which to advocate, but the point becomes moot if people do not have the inherent right to live. Each of the causes beyond the right-to-life is dependent on living humans to even be an issue. Before we start advocating for better living conditions, let's allow for humans to live in the conditions they were created in (the womb) from the moment they are conceived (fertilization). Before we start arguing about quality of life, let's allow for humans to live their full natural life and not stop their hearts and play God (euthanasia). Before advocating for the right to practice a specific lifestyles, let's allow for humans to have legal equal opportunities to live regardless of genetics.
Every other cause is dependent on this one cause. If we cannot even win this battle of protecting human life, then all of the other battles are for nothing. This is the most basic, fundamental right that we fight for other creatures to have, but our own species does not defend. The life of endangered animals are more protected than human life in the womb. The life of rare plants are more protected than the life of a patient who lives in a state where euthanasia is legal. What use is it in ensuring the people are living well if we cannot even ensure that people are allowed to live?
Comments
Post a Comment