Friday, September 24, 2010

40 Days, and the pro-choice lie

Do you still think abortion is all about choice? Take a look at this:
The Rockford pro-life community is up in arms after police chased away an ultrasound vehicle from the local abortion facility - even though pro-lifers say they worked for weeks with city police to ensure permission for the life-saving equipment to park near the incoming mothers seeking abortions.

Rockford pro-life veteran Kevin Rilott posted a video of Rockford police telling pro-lifers that the city legal department might issue a warrant against them if the motor home, owned by Image Clear Ultrasound, was not moved away from the Northern Illinois Women's Center (NIWC). The video ends with a shot of abortion clinic owner Wayne Webster smiling as he chats with the officers inside a police car. [...]

Rilott says that city officials later told him and the ultrasound owners that the vehicle violated a statute against unlicensed charitable solicitation. But Rilott pointed to a city ordinance defining charitable solicitation as "conduct whereby a person solicits ... any article representing monetary value, sells, or offers to sell, a product ... that the proceeds from the solicitation or sale are for a charitable purpose."

"As you can read for yourself, this shows beyond a doubt that the totally free ultrasounds that were being offered to poor women have nothing to do with someone soliciting business for profit," wrote Rilott in a post on the Pro Life Corner blog. "Pro-lifers were offering a completely free service to help poor mothers and children."

The pro-life legal group Thomas More Society, which has engaged an ongoing lawsuit against NIWC and the city of Rockford, said that the ultrasound issue would be added to their suit.
Read the whole thing here.

If abortion were really about "choice," then pro-abortion groups should put no barriers at all in the way of free ultrasounds, informed consent laws which require that information about fetal development, and other measures designed to help women see what it is they're really choosing when they choose to kill their unborn children via abortion. That pro-aborts remain vigorously against the right of women to know, fully and completely, what it is they are carrying inside them, to see their children's stage of development, heartbeat, and movement, and to be aware to the fullest degree just what the "choice" of abortion actually means to the unborn child speaks volumes. In the mind of pro-aborts, women must remain ignorant in order to have "freedom of choice." But choices made in ignorance of their scope and consequence cannot be said to be "choices" at all.

2 comments:

MightyMighty said...

This is SO true: "But choices made in ignorance of their scope and consequence cannot be said to be "choices" at all."

In what other area, besides perhaps c-sections, do people so vigorously fight to keep women in the dark?

My sister said this about c-sections, and I think it applies here as well: "Can you imagine a world where 1/3 of men getting their prostate examined were given unnecessary abdominal surgery?"

Similarly, can you imagine a scenario where people running a medical facility for men's health would be opposed to men knowing what was being done to them?

I can't help but to think that this is driven not only by demonic hatred of the unborn and profit-mongering, but sexism as well.

EM, I'm very excited for your 40 days posts. I try to keep abreast of pro-life news and relevant statistics, and I like finding more of that at one of my favorite blogs.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

As you know, I'm pro choice, and I consider Roe v. Wade a conservative application of well established legal principles.

However, I have little patience for clinics that have chosen to specialize in abortion trying to keep alternative viewpoints away from prospective patients. Some years back, there were attempts by organizations like Operation Rescue to intimidate and physically coerce women approaching such clinics. Now, it seems that clinic operators think any attempt to OFFER an alternative to women is proscribed by the same legislation which curtailed the earlier coercive measures.

I don't buy that. As long as a woman is free to walk down a public sidewalk into the clinic she chose to go to, OR to step off that same public sidewalk into a trailer offering free ultrasound, the police have no business interfering. As long as the woman is free to walk out of the trailer, and EITHER choose to go home, or into the clinic, its all her free choice.

Would that reduce the number of abortions? Quite possibly. You are correct that if this is about "choice," then nobody has any reason to object if a woman "chooses" to carry her pregnancy to term. To me, Roe was about restraining the coercive application of the police powers of the state. It was not a judgement as to whether abortion is a wise, appropriate, or moral choice for a woman to make.