Stephen Fry once spoke quite passionately about the power of language and how it influences our behaviour, thoughts, and ultimately deeds. He was talking about the Holocaust and the systematic dehumanisation of those who were not Arian.

He mentions that language can lead you to view someone as non-human, and once you no longer see someone as human, you can then easily kill them, without feeling any guilt. This, he says, is why we have to be careful and alert when it comes to the language we use. Language is powerful.

The Holocaust was not a new phenomenon. Words like ‘inferior’, ‘primitive’ and ‘undeveloped’, for example, were used to describe people of different so-called ‘races’ many years before. These words made it easier to then exert power over people who are no different from you and me. Such words are known to have what is called an ‘inferiorising effect’, making it easier to oppress those who are being subjected to such definitions.

Phrenology and physiognomy were also invented, creating visible pseudo-scientific proof of these inherent differences. The size and shape of your nose, the form of your skull and even the position of your eyes and ears became significant. Endowing such areas with significance creates a fear within people who will struggle with all their might to make sure they do not display such characteristics.

Take for example your weight in relation to our ideas of beauty, or your accent in relation to social class.

Most of us are aware of the dangers of language these days, but many are not so aware once the topic of abortion comes up

To be clear, whenever words like ‘ inferior’, ‘primitive’ and ‘undeveloped’ are in use, one can say that there is inferiorisation happening. Engaging with such a discourse is dangerous mainly because of the intentions behind it. Most of us are aware of the dangers of language these days, but many are not so aware once the topic of abortion comes up.

In order to agree with abortion, you first have to agree with the inferior status of the unborn. Therein lies the rub. Asking someone to consider what they love so much to be inferior is an emotional and upsetting request.

Advocates for abortion will deploy words like ‘primitive’ and ‘undeveloped’ without considering the impact those words may have on their judgment of a situation. As is widely believed by the liberal left, such words will eventually lead to you viewing your target as not human, but they only acknowledge this fact when talking against racism. They do not recognise it in their own arguments in favour of abortion.

Moreover, even within the liberal left ranks there is disagreement as to when and where the ‘line’ should be drawn. As racists debate how light your skin can be before you are considered ‘white’, pro-abortion and pro-choice advocates discuss at what point an unborn child becomes ‘human’.

Phrenology and physiognomy are resurrected and size and shapes of skulls are discussed, or whether or not one can discern the human shape, or what the web-like feet and hands might mean.

While they all agree with each other that it is not black and white, and more of a phasing into ‘personhood’, they engage in the discriminatory practice of deciding what part of the grey is black and which part of the grey is white.

They do not recognise the very privileged position they are in, and what it is they are doing. The liberal left may do well to consider the possibility that the only reason why they are in favour of abortion might be because of the language they use in their arguments.

That being said, it is foolish to ignore the problems that abortion seeks to solve. You cannot just ignore the reality that some women find themselves in. Nor can anyone ignore the financial struggle some families find themselves in when they realise another baby is on the way.

This, however, is where I believe government and the community should step in. Does our state do enough to make women feel safe and supported? I don’t think so, and I also don’t think we talk about that aspect of the situation enough.

What about the language used by the anti-abortion camp, a group that is often seen as its own worst enemy? They often deploy religious arguments and expressions. They talk about a gift of life, but a gift from whom?

And how is that word helpful in creating a logical argument? Mystical words and phrases do little to strengthen their position, and less still to win over those who prefer level headed reason.

Using God just adds insult to injury, as you suddenly cross a very easily defined line in democratic debate. It is often as if panic grips anti-abortion advocates, and they are left unable to articulate the real reasons for their objections. This might be because abortion invites us to question some very difficult, and fundamental aspects about life and discuss human status; an emotionally charged topic with serious consequences.

We’ve been hearing a lot about the morning-after pill lately, and abortion is slowly making its way into media. Politicians will soon be discussing it in Parliament, and people will be making their minds up about it as time passes. There is nothing wrong with being more alert when it comes to the language we use and questioning its power over our reason.

Edward Caruana Galizia is an actor and studied psycho-social studies at Birkbeck University of London.