Can Mitt Romney Pro-Life Supporters Stop Using the Term Pro-choice?

In a number of different forums, I have been pointing out how Mitt Romney has chosen to endorse at least two governor candidates who support the murder of unborn children: Meg Whitman of California, and Bob Ehrlich of Maryland. I, of course, meet with resistance from Romney supporters. Some of them make pragmatic arguments about the absurdity of expecting someone who is pro-life to win in liberal states and occasionally they even add Massachusetts to the mix. They marshal arguments about electability and “single-issue voters”, thus vehemently denying Romney is unprincipled on this issue.

One thing they don’t do is call abortion “murder”. In their defense of Meg Whitman (who supports a California policy of taxpayer funded child murder), what she actually believes is never discussed. One “pro-life” Romney supporter instead railed against extremists who wave signs showing aborted fetuses. I don’t really mind the word fetus, if it used consistently. I will sometimes anger a pregnant woman who has decided to keep her own baby while she advocates the right of other mothers to kill her offspring. How do I do that? By simply asking “How is your fetus doing?”. When I asked the Romney supporter if his wife had ever had a fetus, I was met with dead silence.

Of course, this is not limited to just Romney supporters. Why are so many of us who see ourselves as pro-life afraid to speak plainly about the slaughter of our neighbors? Why don’t we use the terms “child murder” or “infant-killing” or “massacre”. We are afraid, that is why. Just like the blood-thirsty advocates of murder themselves, we prefer the term “pro-choice”.

I understand that for many politicians “decorum” or other such things lead thems to taper down their language. But God forbid that we use terms like “pro-choice” to defend or endorse the very advocacy of bloodshed we claim to oppose.