Sunday, December 05, 2004

futile euphemism

FUTILE EUPHEMISM

To say what is not really meant, to mention something when the exact opposite is intended, to use terms in order to convey what it does not mean—this is not the way of rational, honest and truthful people. The conclusion is rather obvious, i.e., to say something while meaning its opposite is deceitful, suspicious and censurable even.

That is why it is said and rightfully so, that the newly invented phrase “Reproductive Right” is a big euphemism, a tricky slogan. The truth wherefore is that to its promoters and champions, “Reproductive Right” means precisely the contrary, viz., “De-Reproductive Right” or “Anti-Productive Right” which in effect actually means contraceptive right which impliedly includes the “Abortive Right”—as if there is such a thing—as well. In other words, women are told that theirs is the right to conjugal act but theirs is also the right to stop the natural effect thereof which is procreation.

In other words, the now often invoked phrase “Reproductive Right” is really an anti-natalist posture. The sponsors and agents of this contra-population move which has foreign funding and official support, are avid promoters certainly not of celibacy but advocates of sexual relations in or out of marriage but thereafter doing anything and attending to everything to prevent the birth of children by all means and at all costs.

Those who claim that “Reproductive Right” is sadly misinterpreted as above pointed out, better go back to the drawing board and think again in order to come out with a better phrase, a truthful expression, an honest slogan. If the newly chosen language does not sell, at least it says what it means, at least it is honest and guileless.

If the promotion of contraception, abortion, population control and similar anti-natalist terms and expressions were covered-up with ambivalent wordings, this does not help their subscribers and crusaders. Any anti-procreative plan, program and projects deserved to be called as they really are. It is a big disservice to anti-natalist agenda for their authors and agents to hide their reality with euphemistic terms. Let people debate on the merit or demerit of the issue as this really is.

17 April 2003