Under False Colors - Examining the "Choice" in "ProChoice"
There is a polarization of people in our nation today and its dividing line is the institution called Abortion. There are those on the one side who refer to themselves as "ProLife"—they believe the fetus has a fundamental right to life. On the opposite side of the spectrum are those who believe abortion is a fundamental right of all women; they have chosen the name "ProChoice" to define their cause. Both of these two groups are minorities; most polls indicate that more than half of the American people are uncommitted to either cause. It is for that majority of our society that this tract is written.
We will deal here specifically with the ProChoice implication that theirs is the only side that offers "choice." We will look at those involved emotionally and physically with an abortion and examine the "choices" that the ProChoice movement offers them?
Contenders for the "Choice"
Looking at how the ProChoice leaders react to laws and decisions that include the father and abortion, it is evident that he is to have no say in the matter. For a father to actually decide whether or not his child is to be born, to even take a part in that decision, is a direct attack on a woman’s so-called "right of reproductive freedom;" the pivotal assumption being, of course, that the fetus is part of the woman’s body, and therefore completely at her mercy alone. A defense for this ProChoice position is often, "The ‘father’ who is a rapist or an incestuous relative ought not have any say in this matter!" No argument. But, what about the other 99% of abortions performed not because of rape and incest, but as a result of sex between consenting partners? Should a father in these cases be left out of any decision making?
Whether the father is young or old, good or bad, married or not, he is an emotionally involved person in an unplanned pregnancy. However, if he should want to keep his child but the mother should not, the ProChoice platform assures that the fetus will be killed. There is no choice for the father.
Another group of people affected by abortion are the parents of the mother and/or the father. Of the groups we are considering here, they are most often completely ignored. Does the ProChoice movement include them under their banner of "choice?"
Tens of thousands of abortions are performed each year on teenagers who are still the legal responsibility of their parents. But are they required by law to be notified or give consent to the abortion? No. They have no legal say as to whether their grandchild will be born or not. They are not even required to know that their daughter is having an abortion. Ear piercing, however, does require parental notification and permission. So, parents must give permission for their children to get an ear pierced, but they have no legal say should their daughter decide to kill their grandchild.
And, in the case of botched abortions, parents can be made to pay the medical care for their daughter’s recovery, even though they may not have even known about the abortion in the first place.
Many grandparents who desire grandchildren have lost one, two, three, or more grandsons and/or granddaughters to the abortion clinic over the years. For many grandparents, their only grandson or granddaughter ended up in some hospital, dismembered, in the bottom of a bucket labelled "product of conception." The ProChoice agenda evidently does not include grandparents as recipients of their "choice."
The Unborn Child
One will rarely, if ever, hear mention of the unborn fetus from one who is ProChoice. To many in the movement, the fetus is no more than a "mass of tissue and blood." Therefore, why should we even bring up the issue of choice for a fetus? One may as well take into consideration the feelings of an appendix as to whether it wants to stay or not. The idea is ludicrous!
Or is it? An appendix doesn’t have its own brain and nervous system—the fetus does. An appendix doesn’t have its own blood type and its own genetic information (DNA)—the fetus does. An appendix doesn’t suck its thumb or have its own bowel movements; it doesn’t have its own functional heart and liver or eye color and fingerprints—the fetus does. One who knows the facts of fetal development may ask if the assumption that the fetus is "just a mass of tissue and blood" is itself the ludicrous idea here. There is no argument that the fetus is in the woman’s body; logic fails to see how, like a heart or lung, it is part of the woman’s body considering how utterly unique and individual it is.
One might also ask a ProChoice person when exactly human life begins? What preordained time does this "product of conception" become a human life with rights of its own, and based on what criteria? If we do not know, perhaps none of us can make this heavy decision—to take another’s life. Defenseless humans outside the womb have rights and protection under the law—they have choices. Why not those inside the womb? A common cry from the ProChoice side is that the "AntiChoice element" (ProLifers) should not be allowed to impose their beliefs on innocent women. But aren’t abortionists and the women having the abortion imposing their beliefs on innocent unborn humans when they burn their skin off without their consent?
The ones out of sight are often the ones out of mind. The ones who cannot speak are at the mercy of those who can. The ones whose lives are snuffed out by abortion are the ones who have no voice, no political influence, no editorials in the newspaper. They can carry no protest signs, sponsor no speakers for their rally, nor can they be arrested and put in jail for their cause. And the ProChoice forces want to assure on top of all that, that these same ones, the unborn, whose bodies are torn to shreds and vacuumed into a bag to be incinerated with the rest of the rubbish, have absolutely no choice in this abortion controversy, either.
No one else seems to be allowed any say in this issue, so perhaps the "choice" is uniquely for the pregnant woman. But one must raise the question, "Is this choice to ‘terminate a pregnancy’ to be made in ignorance or should it be made with full knowledge of procedures and subsequent consequences?
With regard to recent Court decisions and state and federal laws one must question what sort of "choice" the ProChoice people are offering the mother. The ProChoice agenda appears to indicate that an "informed choice" is not really an option; that the less the mother knows about the abortion, the better. "It is best," apparently, that she never know that in abortions performed in the first couple months of pregnancy her unborn child will be cut apart in the womb with a scalpel-like object and then removed piece by piece—all without anesthesia for the fetus. Evidently "it is best" that she not be told if she is more than 16 weeks pregnant, her child will become immersed in a salt solution injected into the womb which will burn and poison the young fetus—again without anesthesia; the unborn child will take a couple hours to die and then the mother will have to deliver a dead baby within a day. "It is best," maybe, that the mother not know that in the last three months of pregnancy, when abortion is still a legal choice in most states, her child may be delivered C-section and then left to die from neglect. "It is best" that she not have any counseling as to the options to abortion, such as federal aide or adoption. "It is best" for the mother that she gets her abortion as soon as she finds out she’s pregnant, and not have a sort of waiting period in which she can weigh the consequences of her decision. It almost seems as if the woman is viewed as being incapable of making an educated choice.
But if one cannot make an educated choice, fully aware of one’s actions and the consequences that await, can it really be considered a "choice?"
In the ProChoice agenda, then, who has a choice?The Father? No
The Grandparents? No
The Unborn Child? No
The Mother? Yes/No** The answer here is no if "choice" means an educated, fully informed choice.
It is an interesting group which waves the flag of Individual Freedoms and Rights and which includes in its very name the word "choice" yet 1) allows the father of the child no choice as to whether his child will live or not, 2) disallows a voice to the parents of the mother and father of the unborn child, 3) will not even entertain the thought that the fetus might actually deserve a say in his or her own future, and 4) fights against efforts to inform the women about the truth of abortion.
Just exactly, where is the choice?
The Other Edge of the Sword
So where do ProLifers stand with all this? ProLife people fight for the mother to know the facts and details of abortion; they believe that the grandparents have a right to know about their adolescent teens; they want the father to have a voice concerning his own child, seeing him as equally responsible in the decision making (and in the subsequent support of both mother and child); they believe the fetus is a valuable human being who deserves a chance at life, a say in his or her own future. (They believe a child will actually choose a life of poverty over death by dismemberment.) Moreover, they see the other "choices," such as motherhood or adoption, as viable options, although not always as easy options.
There is no question or argument that the unwanted, unplanned pregnancy is a difficult time. There is no argument that there is much emotional and spiritual support required by the woman at desperate times like these. But the way to handle this is not to eliminate "the problem"—the unborn child—but to find a solution.
The ProLife people are the ones finding alternatives to abortion, despite how the media are portraying them. The ProLife people are the ones offering education about abortion procedures and the physical and psychological consequences that follow. The ProLife people are the ones running Crisis Pregnancy Centers for unwed mothers, supporting them, providing for their needs. The ProLife people are the ones involved in providing adoption alternatives, trying to clear paths through the red tape strangling that system. The ProLife groups are providing counseling for those suffering through the post-abortion trauma. And the ProLife people are fighting to see that all unborn humans get a chance to make their own choices.
Your Important Choice
Emerson wrote, "God offers to every mind its choice between truth and repose." The easy way out here is to choose repose, to look the other way, to allow abortion-on-demand to continue because it is a convenient way out of an uncomfortable situation. To follow the truth, however, takes effort—it always does. If you have not chosen to commit yourself to either side, will you please consider supporting the side which chooses to defend the defenseless? Please make an effort today in saving unborn children and victimized mothers. You still have a choice in the issue of abortion...
Please choose Life.