Pro-choice? All it represents is the most inane term in American history.

As you can tell by this post and the one two previous to it, I’ve been thinking about abortion a lot lately. And as I’ve been thinking about it, several different topics have been revolving around in my mind, one of these being the confusion over terms, usually intentionally injected by the “pro-choice” forces to keep people from recognizing the truth. One of these is the term “fetus.” “Fetus” is a word often used for the express purpose of making children in the womb seem to be just another disposable organ like the appendix or tonsils.

However, the biggest deception commited by the forces of groups such as NARAL is that of styling themselves to be “pro-choice.” This assertion seems to be accurate enough on its face. “Pro-choice” groups purport to give women the right to choose whether or not they want to have their baby. What they advocate appears to be a “convenient” alternative to the hassles of raising a child. (Go to my recent post, How Abortion Kills More than Just Babies, to see the convenience myth at least partially dispelled.)

The first thing we must explore is who the choice extends to. The mother? If the ideal hypotheticals and mission statements of the “pro-choice” forces are all true, then yes. The choice does indeed extend to the mother. In a moment, we’ll look at whether the “pro-choice” forces are really for a mother’s choice or not, but I’ll be nice and assume that for a moment, their true motives match their statements. Next, does the choice extend to the father? This is a little more complex. The truth is, in a large portion of abortions, the father is not present. He is usually not married to the mother, and less usually, but still frequently, not faithful to her. However, for those fathers who are present, does the choice extend to them? Here is where the “pro-choice” groups make no pretense. They insist that it does not. According to one Marsha Garrison, a professor at Brooklyn Law School:

That embryo is in the woman’s body, it is within her and can’t be separated from her, so it’s not just her decision-making about whether to bear a child, it’s about her body.

Hmm. WaF thinks that perhaps if she was so concerned about her body, she should not have engaged in sexual activity. The fact is, if the baby is born, then the father is expected by society to participate in raising the child. Of course, there is a larger issue here, that being couples who are not committed to one another having children, but that’s for another post. But if the father is expected to share the responsibility for the child, then it makes sense that he would be allowed to be part of the choice. Are we honestly to believe that the father is supposed to be involved in every other part of the process of raising a child, except the part where it is decided whether or not to kill the child? Of course, most radical feminists are probably consistent on this point, more than they should be. One need look no further than the title of Maureen Dowd’s book, Are Men Necessary, to understand the mindset of the radical “pro-choicer.”

Two other choices must be explored here. One is the obvious, that of the child in the womb. He/she is quite obviously not consulted in the choice. The thought would be comical were it not so accurate and terrorizing. “Hello, baby. Would you like us to kill you or not?” No, there’s no choice favored there. The final is not always applicable, but is important when it is. It is that of parental consent for minors. The “pro-choice” forces are quite well-known on their stance against the choice of the parents. (If the reader has not heard of this, he or she should get out from the grip of the television and start doing some research.) In every other point of society when dealing with minors, the parents are expected to be held responsible in some form or fashion. If a juvenile gets access to a parent’s gun and uses it to kill people, the parents are going to be blamed, if not charged with a crime. If a juvenile goes missing, the parents are questioned to determine that they did not have anything to do with the disappearance and viewed with suspicion. And if a juvenile has a child, the parents of the juvenile will likely end up having to help provide for and take care of the child for some time. Yet, if a juvenile wants to have an abortion, the parents are not supposed to have the right to keep them from that?

So, if we look at everything in the alternate reality that “pro-choicers” think in and would like the rest of us to live in, they support the choice of only ONE in four groups involved in the abortion. However, the alternate reality isn’t real, which is, ironically, why we call it alternate. A little research will reveal that pro-choicers really have little regard for “women’s choice.” They have no qualms about withholding information from women on the damaging effects of abortion that I talked about in the other post. If they really were for women’s choice, doesn’t it make sense that they’d give women all the facts so that they could make an informed choice. Remember what I said at the beginning about distorting terms. Carol Everett, who worked at abortion clinics, had this to say:

Another thing that callers ask is, “Is it a baby?” And the stat answer is, “No.” Now they may call it something different –the “products of conception,” a “blood clot,”"tissue,” anything, maybe even “a fetus” but never “a baby.” And those people in there know it’s a baby.

(By the way, you can read the rest of her account here. It’s rather disturbing.)

To style a baby a “blood clot” is not just misguiding, it is a bald-faced lie. The truth is, if “pro-choice” groups are really for “choice,” they’d recognize that there is more to choice than just presenting two options. Making a choice is pointless unless you know the reasons that you make the choice that you make. If you are presenting only half of the argument, you have failed to truly represent choice.

I’m pro-choice. But the true choice is whether or not to take the “risk” of concieving a child. Once a person has made that choice, she should not be allowed to change her mind just because it isn’t convenient and kill the kid she consented to the conception of. (Don’t throw the “rape” charge at me. I’m willing to discuss it in a post in which I write about it, but I’m not talking about that here.) You cannot expect to make a first right by a second wrong. It simply doesn’t work.