What's in a Word?

Those of you who have known me for a while, either personally or through my writing, know my love of words. Equipped from childhood with a vocabulary sufficient to keep me in trouble, my logic, sarcasm, analogies and puns have moved me from the frying pan into the fire on more occasions than one.

And, while making plays on words delight me, I detest when people involved in policy attempt to change the meanings of words to suit their situation. Case in point: A news item on talk radio this morning was discussing the City of Austin's move to implement a "no kill" policy for their animal shelter. They wanted to specify that the policy to euthanize animals would continue in the case of vicious or ill animals. Just to clarify their position, "euthanizing" animals is not the same as "killing" animals.

Perhaps the limited amount of time dedicated to the news story detracted from my full understanding of the point. Yes, I know that there is a difference between killing healthy animals and killing ones who are ill or vicious. But, the point is, they are still being killed. And, the dog that is killed is just as dead as the dog that is euthanized.

Why does it matter what you call things? It matters because when the debate turns from euthanizing or killing dogs turns to the debate of euthanizing or killing people, you really don't want to be confused about the definition or the outcome.

"How did she get to that point on this issue?" you ask.

Well, the city that wants not to kill animals is the only one in the state that uses tax payer dollars to fund abortions - the killing of unborn babies. They call it a woman's choice. Just as the animal that is euthanized or killed is just as dead, the baby that is prematurely evicted from the womb is just as dead if it is called a choice or an abortion.

The war of words is one of the most important ones we play in the policy and political arena. And the one who controls the definitions of words is the one most likely to win the argument. But, you have no animals and are past childbearing age, so what's it to you how life and death terms are defined.

It's simple. As we move further and further into the national health care debate, there is the real possibility that medical decisions are going to be made based on financial, not health grounds. What health care is cost effective for an elderly person? Since euthanasia is not killing (in their minds) would it be more humane than causing someone to suffer from the aches and pains that accompany old age? It would certainly be less expensive and would allow the precious resources to be used for younger patients.

When you are old, advanced in years, don't you hope the policy makers are not confused by definitions?

There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death. Proverbs 14:12