Pro-abortion, not pro-choice

force-beliefs.jpgI’ve always tried to be charitable and refer to people in favor of unrestricted abortions as pro-choice.  They prefer that term and I’d rather focus on the arguments. I did this even when they continually referred to me as anti-abortion.  (“Why yes, I am anti-crushing-and-dismembering-of-innocent-human-beings!  Thanks for pointing that out.”)

But no more.  If you support Obama then you are pro-abortion.  He reversed the “Mexico City” policy such that your tax dollars now fund abortions around the world.

If you force people to pay for abortions at the point of a gun (i.e., taxes), then you are not pro-choice, you are pro-abortion.

So Obama is fulfilling his pledge to reduce abortions by increasing abortions.  Everyone got that?

And terrorists now have more rights than then unborn, both here and abroad.

0 thoughts on “Pro-abortion, not pro-choice”

  1. One reason there are abortions is that there is little if any support for the pregnant girl/woman. I maintain that if the family promised to love and support that mother and her child, she would be relieved to have the baby.
    ER,
    When my 16 year old daughter got pregnant and my wife and I told her we would do everything we could for her and her baby, she was relieved….. We love our 23 year old grandson and he is so grateful to be alive.

    Like

  2. Bill: Thank God. I would have done the same.

    MA: Shameful on one side, versus outrageous on the other — shameful for me to “allow” a woman to abort, as if I had the right and obligation to make such a decision regarding her bodyand the body inside her body, versus outrageous that Ior anyone else would dare, via the law, invade a woman’s body and strip her of that decision.

    It’s a close call. But I’ll be shameful in your eyes, and the eyes of others who ignore the woman’s God-given right to make her own moral choices regarding HER body and the body within, rather than be called outrageous for favoring law that ignores the sanctity of the life and decision-making of fully grown woman! I will not judge her.

    I’m shameful. You’re outrageous.

    Like

  3. Re, “I maintain that if the family promised to love and support that mother and her child she would be relieved to have the baby.”

    I agree. But, like so much else, people and families being selfish and unreliable, I favor the state — whether an individual state or the federal government — stepping into provide those services. Call them orphanages — whatever. Call it socialism. Call it “letting women get away with it”? Who cares? It would surely reduce abortions, if that’s what the real goal is.

    But from what I’ve seen from the pro-life side my entire adult life is more of a desire to judge, condemn and punish women who would have abortions, by criminalizing it. I think that’s wrong, and that it would not have the desired effect.

    Like

  4. Two comments:

    First: “If you force people to pay for abortions at the point of a gun (i.e., taxes), then you are not pro-choice, you are pro-abortion.” This cuts in both directions. Why should people of other religions or denominations pay higher taxes so that your church doesn’t have to?

    Second: I’d like to quote from part of the United States Code:

    (f) Prohibition on use of funds for performance or research respecting abortions or involuntary sterilization
    (1) None of the funds made available to carry out subchapter I of this chapter may be used to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.
    (2) [Like previous, but for involuntary sterilizations]
    (3) None of the funds made available to carry out subchapter I of this chapter may be used to pay for any biomedical research which relates, in whole or in part, to methods of, or the performance of, abortions or involuntary sterilization as a means of family planning.

    This law is still in effect, and as long as it is not so much as a single penny of your money is going to fund abortions on demand (USAID must have means, eg auditors, to ensure compliance with it’s conditions of funding). Revoking the policy does not unilaterally repeal any law because doing so violates separation of powers; it’s ultra vires. What did the policy do, then? It expanded the restriction on funding to include other areas related to abortion, including mentioning it, even in a negative context (emphasis added):

    “I think they are killing these women, just as if they are pointing a gun and shooting. There is no difference,” said Hilary Fyfe, chair of the Family Life Movement of Zambia. Her organization opposes abortion, but still lost approximately $30,000 in U.S. funds for telling adolescents and young adults that unsafe and potentially fatal abortions are one possible consequence of unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancies.

    Like

  5. First: “If you force people to pay for abortions at the point of a gun (i.e., taxes), then you are not pro-choice, you are pro-abortion.” This cuts in both directions. Why should people of other religions or denominations pay higher taxes so that your church doesn’t have to?

    Hi Rob,

    That doesn’t follow at all, and it doesn’t contradict the point of the post.

    Re. the U.S. Code — I’m pretty sure that is wrong or there is a loophole somewhere, or else all the pro-aborts will be mighty upset that Obama didn’t come through for them. This is all about them increasing abortions.

    Like

  6. ER,

    “Shameful on one side, versus outrageous on the other..”

    No sir. Both on the same side. It’s shameful to support the continued sanctioning of this practice and it’s outrageous to attempt to demonize me for seeking to protect innocent lives. There is nothing in my position that threatens the sanctity of the mother’s life. I don’t support restricting abortions if her life is endangered. The sanctity of her life isn’t threatened because I feel the life of the child she invited by her actions is more important than whatever difficulty she might endure by doing her duty to that child. The only truly righteous position is that she owes. (Actually, so does the father, but since she carries the child, she’s obligated to be even more responsible about what she does. That’s not oppressing women, that’s holding a person accountable for that person’s actions.)

    And yes, you DO indeed “allow” a woman to abort when you favor candidates because of their pro-abortion positions.

    “But from what I’ve seen from the pro-life side my entire adult life is more of a desire to judge, condemn and punish women who would have abortions, by criminalizing it. I think that’s wrong, and that it would not have the desired effect.”

    No. You CHOOSE to see things in this light, as if it doesn’t fit the situation. When a hungry person steals, that person is still a thief. When a pregnant woman aborts, she’s still killing her child when it isn’t necessary to do so. To pretend the child growing inside is somehow different than any already born, is shameful rationalizations made in order to deflect accountability and true responsibility. So it’s not about judging, condemning or the like, it’s about saving innocent lives. The judging and condemning is a description of those who use the lame rationalizations for the reasons given. Thus, they are apprpriate descriptions of those people.

    Like

  7. The location of a human being, if it is inside the body of another human being, is, in my opinion, beyond the scope of law to deal with fairly. Therefore, it should be left up to the one with the physically controling body, for lack of a better way to put it, to make the terrible decision

    Interesting theory. Let’s play with it a bit.

    Sometimes, conjoined twins (Siamese twins) will be joined in such a way that separating them will result in a better life for one, and death for the other. Should we allow this? Should the fact that one twin “controls” more than half the body be the determining factor in the life of the other?

    More than that, the “physically controlling body” has some creepy connotations. The very basis of civilisation is that physical power does not translate into social and legal power; otherwise, we would be the ruled subjects of every brute to come our way. That one person is more capable of making a decision (temporarily), or has the ability to make it for the other, does not mean that it is either moral, or should be legal. Perhaps it is the raging feminist in me, but I look askance at any theory which gives rights on the basis of physical power.

    Like

  8. It IS creepy. The whole issue is creepy. It’s beyond creepy. It’s fricking sick. I’d much rather there not be any abortions. I wish it were as easy a call — here, now, in this country, with the laws we have and the rights we have, and the technology we have — as “pro-lifers” say it is. But it’s not. The fact is, an unborn body exists INSIDE a grown body. The GROWN body belongs to a person who has rights that people want to ignore. I won’t do it. Criminalizing abortion, dismissing the very human right of bodily privacy and reproductive decision-making– not the answer, not by itsself. It is not a question of physical power. It’s a matter of the physical arrangement of two living bodies. A woman has to reach into her own body to abort, and pro-lifers would have the law reach into a woman’s body for the sake of the unborn. It’s sick, either way.

    Like

    1. A woman has to reach into her own body to abort, and pro-lifers would have the law reach into a woman’s body for the sake of the unborn.

      Perhaps I’m taking you too literally, but we aren’t reaching into the woman’s body at all. We are typically saying that it should be against the law for a doctor to perform an abortion. He would lose his license, or incur whatever penalties the legislatures deemed appropriate. That would protect countless human beings from being destroyed. It would also change the sexual habits of people in a hurry. Guys would not have the abortion option as backup birth control.

      I don’t see how one could qualify that as “sick,” let alone make a moral equivalency of abortion and anti-abortion.

      Like

  9. Obviously, I was speaking figuratively. Literally, a physician now reaches into a woman’s body to perform an abortion. Pro-life people want the law to figuratively reach into a woman’s body to stop the physician’s literal hand.

    I never said there was moral equivalency, Neil. I do say that the issue is much more complex that it is made out to be, when it comes to liberty, human rights and the law.

    I oppose simply making abortion illegal. Let’s come up with a solution that provides support for unwanted babies that is so easy to access that it makes abortion inexcusable and acts as a balance to the denial of the human right to privacy that makiing abortion illegal would involve. I’ll go for something like that.

    Like

    1. I’m the first to agree that the issue is psychologically complex. I emphasize that in the beginning of pro-life reasoning training. The situations the women are in are varied and complex and we can’t gloss over that. That is why Crisis Pregnancy Centers are so effective at helping meet those needs.

      But the issue is not morally complex. Destroying innocent human beings is always immoral (unless to save the life of the mother) and should be illegal.

      Telling doctors that they’ll lose their license, go to jail, etc. does not violate anyone’s privacy. The whole privacy thing is a fiction on multiple levels. If you kill a toddler in your home you can’t use privacy as a defense. The location of the victim is irrelevant. It begs the question and ignores the privacy of the unborn human being.

      You speak of making abortion inexcusable, but I submit that it is inexcusable now.

      Like

  10. ER,
    The issue is complex because there are so many reasons a person does not want to have a child. Inconvenience, money, lack of support, education, selfishness, etc. But the fact that a human is killed is uncomplicated. When abortion was illegal there were very few abortions. When it became legal, abortions increased a thousandfold. It is used as birth control. When it was illegal there were also fewer unwanted pregnancies because people were somehow more careful or waited until marriage.

    Like

  11. But it’s not. The fact is, an unborn body exists INSIDE a grown body. The GROWN body belongs to a person who has rights that people want to ignore. I won’t do it.

    But you are forgetting that (except in cases of rape) the woman PUT the child there. It’s a little rich to complain about bodily integrity after having deliberately eroded one’s claim to the same.

    Don’t want to be pregnant? Don’t get pregnant. Maybe, 100 years ago, your argument would have some validity; after all, women couldn’t really not be pregnant if they didn’t want to (and childbirth was a lot more difficult). Now, when a month of birth control can be purchased for $10 at Walgreens, and condoms are given out for free (combined effect of consistent and correct use: 1 in 10,000 chance of getting knocked up every year), we can pretty safely say that any woman who gets pregnant after volitional sex took that risk, knowing exactly what that risk was.

    I’m not “punishing” her with a baby for having sex – I’m just saying that it’s pretty freakin easy to NOT get pregnant. You don’t even need to go into abstinence (with its 100% guarantee that no fetuses will take up residence in one’s body).

    Bottom line: in this day and age, women get pregnant because they (and their boyfriends) aren’t serious about NOT getting pregnant. That makes it a little rich to say that she then has some absolute right to not be pregnant, when she could have prevented the pregnancy herself.

    Like

    1. Good points, Marshall and Theobromophile. The pro-aborts typically take a “How the heck did that baby get in there?” approach, as if it was an un-planned in vitro fertilization.

      Virtually all pro-abortion arguments commit the logical fallacy of begging the question twice before getting started: Ignoring the humanity of the unborn as well as how she got there to begin with.

      Like

  12. “reproductive decision-making”

    Hmm. Obviously that has already occurred, or the woman (let’s say “couple”) wouldn’t be pregnant. Reproduction has already taken place.

    Like

  13. Only abstinence is 100% effective as a contraceptive. That is why those who use other contraception use abortion as their backup.

    Like

  14. Actually, Neil, the approach that the pro-aborts take is at the heart of the violinist argument (i.e. some violinist gets strapped to your body in the middle of the night).

    Of course, we’re the ones who ignore science…. :p

    Like

  15. Re, “That makes it a little rich to say that she then has some absolute right to not be pregnant, when she
    could have prevented the pregnancy herself.”

    Only if you appoint yourself to make the decision for her. A woman’s right to control access to her body, for reproductive purposes, or to terminate, for good or for ill in anyone else’s eyes, should be absolute. I don’t even know why the husband should have a right to interfere. (Again, up to the point where the states’ interest outweighs the woman’s rights.) Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not saying abortion is without moral or spiritual consequence. I am saying that it requires personal bodily invasion of a sort to use the law to control a pregnant woman’s decision-making, and I’m saying that no one has the right or obligation to make such a decision for her.

    Like

    1. As usual, that ignores that the unborn is a human being. Why doesn’t she get to decide? How about 10+ years of appeals like convicted murderers get?

      The “personal bodily invasion” line may draw cheers from pro-aborts but it is a metaphor, and a bad one at that. Telling doctors not to destroy innocent human life or face consequences is not invading a woman’s body, except in the imaginations of those rationalizing the destruction of innocent human life.

      Like

  16. I guess we’re done. I’ve said my piece, expressed willingness to seek common ground, I’ve been neither dismissive of your views nor shrill in trying to express my own. I see no need, because nothing worthwhile could come from it, for either of us to resort to hyperbole, whether with words or photography.

    Like

    1. I have appreciated your tone, but I don’t see how images of the act in question qualify as hyperbole. Was there something exaggerated about them? What could be more relevant to the discussion?

      And I thought the “personal bodily invasion” line was hyperbole on your part.

      I do appreciate you conceding that abortion is a bad thing, but I wonder how well you communicate that to the pro-aborts and the “common ground” efforts you use to discourage women from making this life destroying mistake.

      Like

  17. ER,

    You are stating, without backing yourself up, as fact a lot of things that are not fact. For example, that a woman has an absolute right to throw a developing human out of her body, or even that unwanted pregnancy is, objectively, a form of bodily invasion. (Subjectively, it may be, but objectively, she and her lover put the child there.)

    You’re still not addressing the basic issue: these babies aren’t being put there by the stork. I’m not anti-choice; I just believe that volitional sex is the point at which a woman has chosen to risk pregnancy. This is not an irrational position; in the law, as in morality, we assign responsibility for the logical outcome of an action at the point when one chooses it.

    You seem to be saying that, although a woman created a child inside of her body, she can end that child’s life because she doesn’t particularly want it there. That’s a lot like saying that you can forcibly drag someone aboard your private jet, then jettison them at 20,000 feet because they are trespassing on your jet. It’s not an invasion of your body, jet, home, or what-have-you, when you did the inviting.

    Furthermore, while I’ve never been pregnant, I can pretty safely say that the harm from pregnancy isn’t that bad. We are not talking about rape, or losing limbs, or anything like that. Remember, 93% of abortions are preformed on healthy mothers with healthy babies. Even 80% of late-term abortions (nearing the point of viability) are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies. I find it incredibly misogynistic to say that there’s much of a bodily integrity issue, as women’s bodies – unlike those of men – are designed to… drumroll…. carry babies.

    Given the advances in medicine today, there are few risks to pregnancy (and, again, we’re talking about abortion-on-demand, not for life/health reasons), and the “bodily integrity” issue amounts to temporary discomfort. How on earth can you say a temporary problem justifies a permanent deprivation of the rights of another? Again, I think that the pro-choice movement is misogynistic, and this is part of it: the implication is that women are so weak that, even in 2009, they can’t carry babies.

    Moreover, you assume (erroneously) that abortion is a reflection of a bodily integrity issue. Statistically, this is wrong. 64% of women are coerced into abortions by their boyfriends, families, or bosses. Many women say that they would consider having the child if they had familial and social support, rather than being told to “just get rid of it.”

    Like

  18. wow you got a lot of people talking here. i just came across your blog, because i am wanting to see what other Christians are speaking up about abortion. if anyone is interested, i just wrote an article entitled “Racism and Abortion: Is There Common Ground?” on my blog. I tried to explore this from a biblical stand point. I hope it might convict Christians to become proactively against abortion.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s