Pulse
Featured Image

And you thought safe spaces couldn't get any worse. From Think Progress:

An extension released this week will change every mention of “pro-life” to “anti-choice” once it's added to a Chrome browser. “Tired of seeing the fraught term 'pro-life' used ubiquitously and incorrectly, we conceived of this extension to shift the language of the discussion towards a more accurate framework,” explains an online description of the “Choice Language” tool.

The extension was created by an activist who wishes to remain anonymous; she partnered with the National Institute for Reproductive Health Action Fund [NIRHA] to release it to the public this week.

While the tactical considerations of this decision are obvious – NIRHA's president told Think Progress that “the language in this discussion really matters,” a stance we at LifeSiteNews take seriously enough to always use accurate terms like “pro-life” and “pro-abortion” – there are several other things to consider.

First, the absurd. Apparently, some abortion advocates can't stand to see words and phrases they don't agree with. (Does this mean they are “triggered” or merely small-minded and immature?)

Second, the hypocritical. The app's description says, “A conversation built on pro-choice versus anti-choice language is a more accurate one, and is one that does not vilify those who identify as anti-choice any further than their own actions would suggest.”

Got that? We can only support the mother's choice, not the father's! Or the unborn child's! Or the choice of the brothers and sisters of the unborn child!

Third, the disturbing and scientifically inaccurate. According to the app's description:

Those who stand against a woman's right to decide what is best for her own body prop themselves up as righteous saviors using a problematic framework of rhetoric and religion. The term 'pro-life' is inaccurate in this argument – although it is a powerful tool in the fight against women's health rights – as it serves to demonize individuals who are pro-choice by suggesting that in their support of a woman's right to choose what is best for her own life, they also advocate for death in some way.

Got that? Babies growing and kicking in a mothers' wombs aren't alive. Despite, you know, science. And common sense.

Fourth, as pointed out by Hot Air's Jazz Shaw, lawyers might want to step in here:

Google is offering a product which you can install on your browser which will edit not only the raw text, but the tone and inflection of anyone writing about the subject at hand. Can anyone explain how this is allowable? Once the altered text shows up in one liberal blogger's window it can be copied and pasted into other sites (within the limits of fair use laws) as if that was how the material was originally published.

… In fact, we should probably contact a few lawyers about this because editing the work of others without their express consent or any claim of ownership of the original material sounds as if it should certainly be illegal, doesn't it?

Jazz also caught the potential of changing how a written piece is perceived in terms of overall thematic and factual accuracy:

It's also an open door to completely ruin the original material in some cases. Imagine if this column were run through that filter. (If any Chrome users have this tool, let me know.) The last sentence of the first paragraph would read, the term anti-choice will be helpfully replaced with, “anti-choice.”

Unlike Jazz, I am not sure Google deserves the blame for this; the company has a huge number of extensions, and this is merely one that abortion backers desire.

The abortion industry, however, deserves all the ridicule we can muster.