Last week I discussed the origins of the debilitating and deceiving phrase, “pro-choice.” This “Name Game” phrase was intentionally crafted to mislead the public into believing that abortion was really about the “reproductive freedom” of women, not the taking of an unborn life.
By removing the focus of the issue from the original choice (whether or not to engage in sex), pro-abortion advocates have successfully duped Americans into believing that the “right” to have sex translates into the “right” to choose whether or not to be pregnant – completely ignoring the rights of the unborn baby. The original choice for two people results in a third person who is tragically denied any choices or rights whatsoever.
This week we’ll discuss why “pro-choice” is actually “pro-abortion,” and why “pro-abortion” is the same as “pro-death.”
Those who call themselves “pro-choice” will often defend their position by claiming they aren’t really in favor of abortion – they are just in favor of women’s reproductive rights.  They prefer that abortions wouldn’t occur, but they could not support making it illegal as it infringes on the rights of women to do what they want with their bodies.
This is an untenable position.
Scientifically we know that life begins at conception. As such, abortion is the taking of a human being’s life in all cases, every time. So to say we don’t favor abortion but still want to preserve women’s reproductive rights is a paradox, considering 50% of aborted babies are female. By denying the female embryo’s ability to grow into a woman by killing her, we quite clearly take away her reproductive rights.
The more obvious problem with this position is the elevation of so-called reproductive rights over the right to live. Pro-abortionists consider the right to terminate a pregnancy more valuable than the right of the baby to live. You cannot hold to this morally-wrecked position without coming to the conclusion that the inherent value of the mother is greater than the inherent value of the fetus.
This was driven home to me just this morning, as a pro-abortion friend on Facebook posted an article in the NY Times editorial section. You can read the full listing of comments here.
The last comment to the editor states:
“I disagree with Ross Douthat’s appraisal of adoption as an answer to unplanned pregnancies and infertility. I have worked with many pregnant teenagers and young adult women in my 25 years as a director of an adoption agency, and adoption is only a small part of the solution.
While I am obviously sympathetic to the desire of infertile couples to become parents, their needs can never supersede those of pregnant women who are not prepared to be parents.
Research has shown that abortion very rarely leads to long-term negative psychological consequences for those women who choose it (myself included).
Yes, of course there is regret and sadness for some women, but carrying a baby to term and placing him or her for adoption more often than not leads to a lifetime of pain and sadness, regardless of how right the situation may seem. It is the right choice for the very few.
Abortion and adoption are two ends of the same spectrum — women having choices about their reproductive lives. But the agony of a woman placing a child for adoption cannot be understated.”
Do you see the logic? Notice that the rights and values of the unborn children aren’t even mentioned. This author considers abortion and adoption as two equal approaches to reproductive rights (and we can argue she favors abortion), and she considers the pain of giving a child up for adoption equal to or greater than the pain of abortion.
To equate the selfless love exhibited by thousands of women who give their children up for adoption with the selfish termination of an unborn baby is basically to equate life with death. This is simple foolishness.
To be “pro-choice” and attempt to hold to the lukewarm, milk toast idea that “abortion is not favored but must be protected” is an illogical and dangerous position. It’s roughly equivalent to saying that we would prefer rape not occur, but men must express themselves sexually, so if they have to, rape is ok. We don’t want child abuse to occur, but some parents just need to have an outlet for their anger and we need to protect their right to be angry.
I often speak with pro-abortion advocates and learn they are either against the death penalty or strong proponents for animal rights. I once got into a discussion with a pro-abortion college student who complained about a gold fish being swallowed as part of a talent show skit. He didn’t want the goldfish being killed, but was ok if a human fetus was aborted.
These examples all point to an American culture that devalues human life – especially life in the womb –Â and elevates other things (sex, right to have an abortion, goldfish, etc.) above the value of a human being.
This devaluation of human life is at the heart of the “pro-choice” term, and makes it equal in practice with “pro-abortion.”
To then make the case that “pro-abortion” is “pro-death” is simple. Anyone who is in favor of an innocent life being killed and is unwilling to protect the right to life is, by definition, in favor of death. Although many areas of life are grey, life and death are not. We are either alive or dead. There is no in-between. We either allow life or we kill it. We either accept the “unwanted” pregnancy and continue to create an environment that is conducive to life, or we stab, poison, vacuum, dismember, or pharmaceutically kill the fetus.
The two key hallmarks of the pro-choice movement are distraction and deception. They distract the public away from the core element of abortion (the taking of an innocent life), and they deceive us into thinking the unborn life is somehow far less valuable than the falsely created “reproductive rights” of the mother and father.