Monday, January 22, 2007

Pro-choice? Not anymore. Let's call it what it really is: Pro-Abortion.

I was just getting ready for bed on as the hours of the anniversary of Roe v. Wade come to an end when I decided to clear out the ole newsreader before turning out the lights (it's been a busy day, though my morning class was canceled, and so I have not had the time to sit and read the news...) when I stopped on a truly remarkable post from Sister Toldjah on abortion. It is simply too good not to read. Here are a few short excerpts but please, PLEASE, regardless of your stance on abortion, take five or so minutes to really read this:

The pain for me is that, but also the knowledge that as a young woman finding my way in life, I once advocated the ‘continued right’ for pregnant women to abort their unborn babies. There are fiercely strong elements of both guilt and shame inside me over my old beliefs about abortion, so strong that I can’t write or talk about the issue without being overcome with emotion. I simply cannot forgive myself that I, in my own small way, contributed to the culture of death at one point in my life. It is something I continue to have to work through, not just as a Christian, but as a human being, because you don’t have to be a Christian to understand that abortion is morally reprehensible.


The word “abortion” alone speaks volumes about the procedure, and you can best believe that over the years pro-abortion forces in groups such as NARAL and NOW have sought to reframe the debate by preferring to use the term “pro-choice” more and more rather than “pro-abortion” (Example 1 and Example 2). There is a reason for this, which is evident when you analyze the word “abortion” itself. The word “abort” means to “stop” or “terminate” something and in the case of “abortion” what exactly are we “stopping” or ‘terminating”? Pro-abortionists don’t want you to consider this aspect of the argument because they’d have to admit that you were “stopping” or “terminating” the very maturation of a little life - a human life - where we all began. Thus the attempt at reframing the debate by claiming they are ‘pro-choice’ (or ‘pro reproductive freedom’) rather than ‘pro-abortion.’ They want you to believe it’s not about a ‘aborting a life’ but instead ‘making a choice.’ Right.


The hypocrisy involved in pro-abortion arguments is so obvious that it amazes me that pro-abortionists can make them with a straight face, but make them they do and they’ve gotten away with it for years. For example, you frequently hear and read pro-abortionists exclaim “the government has no business in my sex life” yet these same people advocate that the government does get involved in your sex life, especially if you’re poor and don’t have the money to get an abortion. Then they’re ok with the government getting involved in your sex life - specifically involved in your choosing to terminate the result of your irresponsible sexual behavior via a state-funded abortion. Never ever let a pro-abortionist convince you that they don’t want the government involved in your sex life - they most certainly do. If they didn’t want government involved in your sex life, then they wouldn’t support continued funding for state-sponsored abortions, and they wouldn’t advocate government-approved sex education in the public school system.


Another hypocritical position pro-abortionists take is the one where they claim to promote ‘responsible sexual behavior’ which would be laughable if the issue itself wasn’t so serious. How on earth can you claim to promote ‘responsible sexual behavior’ when you encourage women to feel free to engage in sex with whoever whenever? Whether they are protected from disease and pregnancy or not, it is not - I repeat - not responsible to routinely engage in casual sex, whether you are a man or a woman. Respect for your body comes not in seeing how many people you can share it with, but saving it for the person with whom you intend to share your life. That is the real way to engage in ‘responsible sexual behavior’, not giving in to your every sexual urge with everyone you’re attracted to. Not only that, but with each new partner, you increase your chances of getting an STD, and/or either getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant, and as a result may have to rely on the government to either pay for your abortion, your child, and/or your healthcare. How is that ‘responsible’? You simply do not promote sexual responsibility by giving the green light to engage in frequent casual sex. Taking disease and pregnancy out of the equation does not make frequent casual sex any more responsible. Furthermore, pro-abortionists in feminist groups like NARAL and NOW betray their ‘responsiblity’ argument by routinely blaming the man for everything that happened. Check out some of these bumper stickers on the NOW website.


Probably the biggest logical fallacy involved in pro-abortion arguments is that the baby growing inside a woman’s body is supposedly not yet human because it couldn’t sustain life outside of the womb. I find it beyond comprehension that one pregnant woman’s 2 week old child is another woman’s 2 week old ‘blob of tissue.’ I find it even more incomprehensible that women who have had children can remain ‘pro-choice’, considering they’re not ignorant about when their son or daugther’s life started. It’s either a child or it’s not. In actuality, we really don’t get to decide: once that child is conceived that’s what it is: a child. Why there is a debate about this is beyond me, because everyone single one of us, whether on the pro-life side or pro-abortion side, started off as a ‘blob of tissue.’ Thank goodness that our mothers didn’t view at us the way pro-abortionists look at pregnancy today, eh? A question pro-abortionists are reluctant to answer is: “In retrospect, would you have been in favor of your mother aborting you or your brother or sister when you or they were just ‘blobs of tissue’ if she had wanted to?” It’s easy for them to be pro-abortion when they don’t have to consider the possibility that they or one of their beloved family members could have been aborted at their mother’s ‘choosing.’

President Reagan once famously said: “I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” Timely then, and timely now.

There is much, much more on her site. Please read it.

I started to read the David Kupelian book "The Marketing of Evil" before Christmas. I didn't finish becuase a lot of it seemed a little over the top to me. However, one thing that did stand out was the very first chapter in which he addressed the way gay right's activists used marketing ploys to frame the debate in a way that forced the opposition (traditionalists who opposed gay marriage) into a corner. They made it an issue about gay "rights" rather than gay privelages. They force fed us bad science on genetics without accepting any debate on the role of choice in the matter and so on and so forth. It occurs to me after having read Sister Toldja's post that we have been victims of the same thing with abortion: they have framed it as a matter of personal choice, a matter of privacy and a matter of individual rights not being trumped by the government. Yet, as she notes, they have left off their own call for government in sex through sex education and through access to clinics run on government funding etc. etc. She also reminds us that they have phrased their position such that we now call those who support abortoin "pro-choice" (who doens't like choice) rather than pro-abortion. Well not anymore. I will personally no longer use the term "pro-choice." Instead I will say "pro-abortion," because that's what they are. They are supporting an institution which murders millions of children each and everyday. It's disgusting.

Technorati Tags: ,

powered by performancing firefox


Post a Comment

<< Home