The colonist may have broken away from Mother England. The Yankee media may at times take potshots at the Royal Family. Heaven knows, centuries have passed since Americans have actually spoken “English” but this…
This is simply too much for some loyalists who love the language of Shakespeare and Chaucer. Who love how Great Britain has, and they advocate always will, spell the words of its language.
But they may labour in vain.
It seems Microsoft, the Internet, Disney, rap, McDonald’s and other American influences are colouring the way words – English words! – are being written worldwide.
As students of American history know, the Revolution wasn’t limited to overthrowing no taxation without representation. It included dumping unwanted letters as well as unwelcome tea.
The simpletons in the 13 colonies – the 13 states – began penning English words in a simpler way. An American way. Noah Webster may not have signed the Declaration of Independence but he later made sure American spelling, pronunciation and grammar weren’t the King’s English.
Last February the British government’s Qualifications and Curriculum Authority outlined spelling reforms (Americanization!) but it was only in the past few weeks that the news sank in. That was when some teachers and parents complained to the media.
The Times of London is coming down on the side of tolerance, opposing “the uncompromising tyranny of British English spelling” which “possesses no divine right.”
Then again The Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, an Aussie with a Yank passport.
It’s hard not to sympathize with those moms and dads. Imagine if American first-graders were suddenly being told “k-a-t” was A-OK. Preferred, in fact.
Reform backers include members of the Royal Society of Chemistry. They argue that “an internationally agreed nomenclature is essential for science.” That, they contend, “ensures that scientists can communicate with each other clearly.”
Among the examples mentioned were the words sulfur and fetus.
Or sulphur and foetus.
Fetus. Foetus.
When I hit that word in the news report, my train of thought jumped the track. Suddenly Britain’s vaguely interesting problem drove home the Church’s own challenge. It’s battle over words, including fetus.
The spelling doesn’t matter. The pronunciation doesn’t matter.
The definition does. The working definition. The commonly-accepted and commonly-understood definition.
If, in the public’s vocabulary, a fetus is tissue then… Then removing that tissue is a personal and private decision. A medical procedure that could be described as relatively safe and simple.
If, however, it is a still-developing human being then… Then ending that human being’s life is ending a human being’s life.
Yes, it will take laws to protect that tender, fragile life. But, as backers of abortion rights are quick to point out, if such laws are passed some women will opt for “back-alley” abortions.
The laws – mere words – will not change the reality, they argue. Abortion was a part of the national landscape before Roe v. Wade. It will be in the future even if that landmark decision is overturned.
They have a point. They aren’t correct that their argument proves abortion is morally acceptable just because it is accepted by some. Rather, laws alone control some actions, some times. But the mind and the heart can remain untouched.
And if that mind thinks “tissue,” if that heart doesn’t acknowledge “human being,” then the struggle will continue.
A comparison: Smoking in the United States is down dramatically. In 1965, 42 percent smoked. Today it’s 25. That shift isn’t due to tougher laws alone. It has dropped because people have come to understand what smoking really is and what it really does.
That understanding – that commonly accepted definition — has made it easier for stricter anti-smoking laws to be passed. If those laws were suddenly declared unconstitutional, would that change how people now think?
It doesn’t seem likely. Certainly not overnight. Not without a mammoth and continued PR blitz from the tobacco industry.
A barrage not unlike the one that continues to come from the abortion lobby.
In both cases, it isn’t just moral truth that needs to be obscured. It’s mounting scientific evidence that has to be buried.
Laws or no laws, we need to work toward the day when the central question about a fetus – or foetus – is no longer “what is that?” but “who is that?”
________________________________________________________________________
Bill Dodds’ latest books are Your One-Stop Guide to How Saints Are Made and Your One-Stop Guide to the Mass (Servant Publications); and 1440 Reasons to Quit Smoking: One for Every Minute of the Day and What You Don't Know About Retirement: A Funny Retirement Quiz (Meadowbrook Press). His website is http://www.BillDodds.com. You can email him at BillDodds@BillDodds.com.
