In my opinion, the author is way, way over-thinking most of these terms.

I think of a "stimulating" conversation as being one that was challenging and interesting. How am I denying what the Bible says by saying "stimulating"? I am not thinking about eroding human dignity, I am not intending to erode it.

"Reproduction" doesn't make me think of manufacturing. It makes me think of sex. Remember the song from Grease 2?

I also find it interesting that the author basically says "procreation" denies the very idea of rights in the area of sex. Is the pro-life movement now going to start advocating for the abolition of all birth control, not just abortion? My late father's mother nearly died giving birth to him. That's why he was an only child. So my grandparents had no right to use birth control afterward? Do Christian couples have no right to family planning? If doctors tell a Christian woman she will die if she gives birth, does she not have the right to a therapeutic abortion to save her own life?

"Socialization" means "learning to get along with others in society." Society means everyone, not just a kid's schoolmates. And how "learning to get along with others" somehow contradicts family structure is beyond me, unless you think every single child should be homeschooled.

Seeking "chemistry" with a prospective spouse no more denies the soul than calling sexual attraction "that old black magic" implies a belief in witchcraft. It's a metaphor, for crying out loud!

"Economic stability" and "career advancement" do not have to imply worshiping Mammon. Maybe people just want to provide for their families? How awful!

"Remains" is obviously a euphemism for "body." Everyone knows funerals are an emotional time, so delicacy in language is part of trying to help people through a rough time. What's wrong with that?

I do agree that those advocating abortion-on-demand have used language to help their side in debate. It's harder to justify "aborting a baby" than "terminating a pregnancy."

For most of the terms cited in this article, I think the author is taking how they strike her and projecting those meanings onto anyone who uses them. We should put the best construction on things, after all. It's silly to try to police people's language choices like this.

I also find it interesting that the previous article on this webpage discussed so-called "woke" ideology. Isn't one of the objections people have to others being "woke" or "politically correct" is the policing of language? Putting the worst construction on everything?