Drawing lines is very tricky. I'm not talking about fine art or even sketching, although Planned Parenthood is a sketchy bunch. Given that recent polls show an all time low number of Americans favoring abortion — even former President Jimmy Carter has come out for limiting abortion to the rarest of circumstances (see LifeSiteNews.com) — the abortion-on-demand group is looking to do what the Left does best. Namely, redefining the language. It appears that Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood's CEO, suddenly thinks the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are no longer fair and useful to the debate on the issue (see Nancy Flanders at LiveAction.org). The irony is rich here, considering it is the abortion-on-demand crowd that coined "pro-choice" as a euphemism to redefine and camouflage their abortion-on-demand aims. In fact, when they talk about "choice" or "the right to choose" they always conveniently leave off the word "abortion," as in they support a "woman's right to choose." But, choose what? Where to send your children to school? (Not hardly.) What you can eat? (They're coming for your meat and sodas.)
No, in the Left's lexicon, it's supposed to be understood, not overtly stated, because even it recognizes the horror of the word "abortion" and our natural, instinctive recoil from the practice of killing our own, just as people naturally and instinctively understand the true meaning of "marriage."
So, we have a case where Planned Parenthood is falling back on two tactics the Left employs to confuse, distract and muddle issues into a harmless irrelevancy to show conservatives "out of the mainstream:" Redefining the language (albeit a redefinition of a redefinition) and attempting desperation tactics. While it wants to drop "labels" such as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" be sure it won't stop vilifying conservatives as "anti-choice" and "waging a war on women." (Oh, yeah, that didn't work out too well for them, did it?)
But it isn't working, especially with Planned Parenthood defending the unconscionable — sex-selection abortions, also known as gendercide, which brings me back to drawing lines. As the abortion industry first attempted to make "quality of life" issues a legitimate reason for abortion (the baby has a deformity or birth defect) pro-lifers asked where would the other side draw the line? "Suppose it was you?" pro-lifers countered. "How would you feel if you were the baby killed because you have a condition? Does that make the life any less human? Suppose a cure is developed? How will you feel then?"
I specifically remember a debate where the pro-lifer asked the opponent, "What's next? Abortion because you'd rather have a boy instead of a girl or vice versa?" The question was scoffed at because it was "hypothetical" and "not serious" (another Leftist tactic: marginalize and demonize and disingenuously change the subject especially when they know the point rings true) because who would ever want to do that? But it's happening, as we've seen in recent days. The abortion line has been redrawn to include the "choice" of which sex should be born. For the crime of being a girl, babies are being aborted. In America. Too bad these thousands of unborn girls who have been killed didn't have a choice.
Yet, liberals in the House of Representatives held together to kill a bill yesterday that would've prevented sex-selection gendercide. (The vote needed a super majority because it was fast-tracked. It may still come back on the regular calendar where it will need only a simple majority.)
Now, the the Left has another ethical question it must decide how to dodge, and one coming from within its own ranks. Suppose one can determine the sexual orientation of an unborn child? Would abortion be okay on those grounds? (See Brian Kirwin at BearingDrift.com.) Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood stumbles along. It's failing in language. Now, it's failing at art.