Friday, January 21, 2011

I choose life. Pro-"choice" people choose dead babies.

I'm late to this effort, but would encourage other pro-life bloggers who read my blog to go and sign up in Jill Stanek's comments section, if you'd like.

One of the strangest uses of the "choice" euphemism for the brutal slaughter of pre-born human beings came about during a state's "Choose Life" license plate debate. A pro-abortion group proposed a second plate be made available, with the phrase "Choose Choice" on it--not realizing that this ridiculous phrase betrays all too clearly that people who are "pro-choice" value the legalized killing of unborn human beings, but are too squeamish to say so. After all, though, what sort of plate could the pro-abortion group propose? "Choose Abortion?" "Choose Death?" Choose a Dead and Dismembered Baby?" (Yes, I know that last is too long, but it accurately describes the situation.)

As is scintillatingly obvious to anybody with intact brain cells, being "pro-choice" means that you believe that women have the right to choose to pay someone to kill their babies for them in utero, so they won't have to give birth and then further choose either to be mothers or to give their babies up for adoption. I guess "Choosy Moms Choose Dead Babies" isn't that great of a slogan either, but that's what "choice" means: the choice to kill what is alive, growing, and human--the flesh and blood of the person arranging for the prenatal hit.

Women these days have lots of choices. They can choose not to have sex if they're not prepared to have a child. They can choose to respect themselves enough not to participate in the "hookup" culture. They can choose to see sex as a sacred gift and a responsibility instead of an entertainment choice or a way to make sure the guy keeps calling. And if they make bad choices in these areas, they can choose to make an infertile couple's dream come true by generously continuing to be pregnant for nine short months (eight, really, by the time most women figure out that they are expecting) so that the other couple can finally have a child. They can even accept the role of single motherhood that their life choices have led them to--and can do a terrific job, with the support of society, churches, family and friends.

With all of those choices--good, happy choices--they can make, why do we insist that "choice" means "pay someone to kill your baby?"

Well, pro-choice readers? Why does "choice" have to mean over fifty million dead American babies?


Louis Figueroa said...

Excellent post filled with point blank truth.

Let us hope and pray that many will depart from the erroneous beliefs of the culture of death and respect and protect the gift of life, especially the most vulnerable and innocent.

Magister Christianus said...

(begin sarcasm alert) Oh, Red, there you go again, confusing things. Don't you realize that words have no meanings, but only culturally agreed upon, and therefore completely arbitrary, significations? Pro-choice simply means being in favor of a woperson's right to be fetus-free. Of course, you are probably one of those people who think that marriage has an unchangeable definition, too, not realizing with the rest of us who are enlightened that marriage can mean anything, including being married to oneself, what you and your kind used to call being single. Oh, Red, Red, Red, you probably even think that Playboy is porn simply because it portrays nude and objectified women. (end sarcasm alert)

I just posted about some of this at You are, as always, right on the money. I have no stomach for not calling something what it actually is. That is why I like the bumper stickers that say, "An abortion doesn't make you un-pregnant. It makes you the mother of a dead baby."

LarryD said...

Well, pro-choice readers? Why does "choice" have to mean over fifty million dead American babies?

Sadly, that number is a drop in the bucket compared to worldwide abortions. Pro-choicers want dead babies everywhere, not just America.

Anonymous said...

sheesh, I don't want dead babies. I define choice as, the government has no right to legislate this. I do think that there should be viability standards, and I wish there wasn't one more abortion in the whole world...which translates into I wish there was no more poverty, no more drug abuse, no more abusive men, no more abusive parents. It's hard for me to say that a 12 year old girl raped by her father must carry that child to term. It's hard for me to say that I would rather have a baby born to a drug addict mother who enjoys putting out cigarettes on her kids. Ignorance, sloth, poverty are generally at the root of abortions. I wish it would all go away...but I don't want to live in a police state.

The Cottage Child said...

Anonymous W, I would submit that all the things you wish would end won't, don't stand a chance of it, until abortion does. They all have to do with how we value each other, and until we recognize the unique individual from conception, with his own dna and spirit, everyone is ultimately expendable according to random opinion.

If they -the impoverished, the rape victim, the drug addict - can't manage to keep themselves alive, safe, fed, clothed, are they viable? If they aren't human TO ME, subjectively, then I suppose they aren't, really. It's that very dehumanization that is the root of the problem, and allows for the tolerance of the ills we all lament, including your "police state". It isn't reasonable to believe that continuing abortion on demand will contribute to alleviating those.

The Cottage Child said...

"With all of those choices--good, happy choices--they can make, why do we insist that "choice" means "pay someone to kill your baby?""

Or the increasingly popular "demand that someone else pay someone to kill your baby..."

L. said...

"Pro-abort here." I guess sarcasm can only be used by commenters who are pro-life, and those of us who aren't have to be serious and earnest?

I will say you're promoting a very common pro-life lie here: That we pro-choicers want ALL babies dead. People have said to me, in all seriousness, "Oh, you're a pro-abort? Then you must LOVE what they're doing in China, and forcing women to have lots of abortions after only one child. That must be your paradise over there." And when they overheard me congratulating someone on her new baby, they said, "Oh, I'm sure you wish she had abortion instead."

So if you want to define "pro-choice" as being in favor of as many dead babies as possible, go right ahead. But as I said on a previous post, if that we true, people like me would be out there keeping the numbers up, having as many abortions as possible, encouraging every woman we met to abort every single pregnancy.

As for prevention, as for how to make abortion "rare," I do agree here and say the current attitude probably contributes to high numbers of abortions. I don't believe in discouraging abstinence, and it's important to support people who choose it. However, I don't believe in supporting it by shaming those who don't -- it's easy to see where that leads. Somehow, a spontaneous sexual encounter seems more human, more forgivable, than the premeditated act of using contraception. The mere availability of contraception means nothing, if people aren't going to actually use it properly.

So "why do we insist that 'choice' means 'pay someone to kill your baby?'"

Funny, I don't hear anyone insisting that except for people who claim to be pro-life.

L. said...

Oh, and Magister Christianus? I imagine you were trying to be sarcastic in your first paragraph, but your description actually fits me to a "T" -- until the last line, when I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say about porn. Maybe you should leave porn out of the abortion discussion? Just a thought.

Charlotte said...

For a good time on the abortion issue, read my latest blog entry. God help us!

Charlotte said...

Porn has EVERYTHING to do with abortion.

Again, L, you are *clueless* about Catholic teaching, history, tradition, and thought. It makes you look goofy when you say the things you do. If you said what you do ALONG WITH an rationale that argues against Catholic thought, I'd respect what you have to say, but until're just trying to be the one garnering all the attention in the conversation for the sake of attention.

Red, don't ban her. I'm starting to be purely entertained at this point.

Charlotte said...

Um, the one asking for other people to pay for all the abortions happens to be the President of the United States.....He didn't come right out and say it, but it's on paper. A paper he signed.

L. said...

Porn has everything to do with abortion? Please explain.

And actually, I'm not "*clueless* about Catholic teaching, history, tradition, and thought" -- I have to understand the teachings with which I am disagreeing, before I can fully say I disagree with them.

Glad I'm providing you with entertainment value, though. Guess I'm good for something here.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Sigh... those poor things, indulging in reflex before they think about what is the most accurate and effective response.

I've always said that it is a wonderful thing to CHOOSE life.

People wanting to put "Choose Life" on a license plate are exercising freedom of speech. There is no need to respond to it at all.

If people who want to be clear that the constitutional right to CHOOSE to carry a pregnancy to term, no matter what anyone else recommends, is based on a firm constitutional foundation, they should be more original in coming up with their OWN slogan, not a half-baked reaction to someone else's free speech.

How about "It's your choice"?

Or, "That's my choice"?

Choice means the individual concerned decides, not The State. What choice she makes is nobody's business, including NARAL's.

The Sicilian said...

Siarlys, I went to the link you provided. That is probably the best writing on abortion that I have read. As one who is on the more conservative end of pro-choice, I thank you.

James Kabala said...

I wonder if a post like this is effective. Don't get me wrong - pro-choicers DESERVE to have invective hurled at them - indeed, they deserve invective far harsher than this post. But does it actually work to convert anyone? It seems instead to cause the likes of L. to dig in deeper. (Of course, more nicey-nice rhetoric often doesn't seem to work either - maybe some people just have hardened hearts.)

James Kabala said...

Just to clarify what I mean: I have no problem with rhetoric describing in gruesome detail the horror of abortion. What I think is potentially counterproductive is condemnatory rhetoric directed at pro-choice people (again, even though they deserve it in the abstract). This is especially true with younger generations - the 1960s feminists turned their back on a previously pro-life culture, but those born after 1973 were often raised by their parents to believe "abortion rights" were a good thing, and while they deserve condemnation they also need prayer - many are misguided rather than evil at heart.

Red Cardigan said...

James, I think there's a place for strong words on the subject. The euphemism "choice" literally means "I think that women should have the right to choose to pay someone to kill their children in utero: to cut off their daughter's or son's tiny arms and legs, sever his or her head, and use a suction tube to remove his or her body parts before throwing his or her remains into the trash. I think that unborn children are medical waste and have no rights other than to be treated as such--until that magic moment when they fully emerge from the birth canal and draw a breath, at which point they miraculously and spontaneously become valued members of the human family."

"Choice" is a very ugly word, in that context; but they never finish the sentence. "Right to choose..." what, exactly? Dead babies. That's the choice.

We need to be willing to confront that particular choice now and again by tearing down the sanitized language.

L. said...

Siarlys, I agree with The Sicilian -- that is among the best writing on abortion that I have read, on either side of the debate.

And as for the necessity of strong words and invective, heck, that's what blogs are for, I guess, though it is true that I tend to hurl it right back, whenever it's hurled directly at me.

But in real life, I've heard that the abortion sidewalk counselors who take a calm, rational approach save more babies than the ones who wave their bloody fetus signs and scream, "murderer!" at whoever is walking into the clinic doors.

c matt said...

Whatever else L has said on the issue, I do not recall her ever being clueless about the Church's teaching on abortion. She flat out disagrees with it, but she has never presented her position as being a "Catholic" one as far as I can recall.

As to the issue, yes, people simply ignore the implied object of choice. You simply cannot be pro-choice without supporting each of the options which that choice entails. To say you are simply against government interference on the issue is a cop-out - in many other areas, you seem to have no problem with the government interfering in individual choices, such as whether I should support, out of my own private funds, charitable programs to those less fortunate - eg, welfare. Many who decry government being involved in the choice whether to kill your offspring have no qualms about the government being involved in how to spend your money. How about some consistancy?

c matt said...

So "why do we insist that 'choice' means 'pay someone to kill your baby?'"

We insist choice means you support the option of paying someone to kill your baby because that is what it means. After all, that is one of the options you insist must be available for choosing, just as "pro slavery" meant (means) you believe one of the available options must be to own slaves, whether or not you would personally own one.

L. said...

"You simply cannot be pro-choice without supporting each of the options which that choice entails." ---> Actually, this isn't quite true.

I do favor keeping abortion legal, but that doesn't mean I believe every pregnant woman should have an abortion. Sure, there are pro-choice people who define "choice" as, "whatever the woman wants, no questions asked," but I've always taken the view that encouraging/discouraging certain choices in certain situations is warranted. I ardently oppose criminalization, but as to whether a particular abortion should take place, I have always taken a case-by-case approach. And it's far, FAR better to discourage unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

The slavery comparison is apt, and when I heard it for the first time, I understood why pro-life people would never be content if abortion were made "rare." But "rare" is good enough for me.

And no, C Matt, I have never said, and would never say, that supporting abortion in any way is in line with Church teaching.

James Kabala said...

Fair enough. I guess maybe what I really object to about these posts is how depressed they make me! If I really thought about what so many of my neighbors and acquaintances and sometimes even friends support, I might have a nervous breakdown. To try to put it out of my mind and say "They are misguided, not evil" is the easy way out, but I guess you are right that we have to face the truth rather than illusions.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Kabala, I can't say that Erin's strong choice of words wins me over, but winning me over would be a rather high bar, just as me convincing Erin to be pro choice would be a rather high bar.

Erin speaks sincerely. I consider that if I cannot read her words, however strong, consider them at face value, and affirm my own convictions, then I should change my point of view. I'm not afraid of the challenge.

She does make me think carefully about the subject. I do not believe that a baby exists within the womb prior to week 20 or so. I have found the material here, and at related sites, quite convincing that "quickening" as it was understood in 1973 is outdated and imprecise. Therefore, I don't worry about state legislatures pushing the line back to 20 weeks - after which, entirely consistent with Roe v. Wade, abortion may be prohibited by law, unless the mother's life or health are endangered. I'm also quite convinced that the latter standards have been abused -- which does not mean I favor repealing them. They should be meaningfully applied and properly enforced.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

I hate to comment twice, but cmatt deserves a separate response. I can be pro-choice without supporting each choice that entails. I support legal sale and consumption of alcohol, I do not drink, I often discourage others from drinking, I support strict drunk driving laws. I know that Prohibition, however well-intentioned, was a disaster. There is such a thing as knowing the limits of government intervention.

Spending money is a rather different matter than extending the police power of the State inside a woman's body, either to abort or to proscribe abortion. Commerce is classically a matter for government policy and regulation, one singled out in the constitution as a legitimate exercise of government authority. We can still disagree as to what government policy should be in that area, but it is a legitimate area for government to act.

Finally, your characterizations assume that everyone who is pro-choice also favors high welfare payments. As a critic of the "seamless garment" philosophy, you ought to know better. Human beings are ornery unique individuals who come in all kinds of combinations of political views. Erin is consistent about torture and the death penalty, but not all pro-life people share all her convictions. Don't forget there are those who oppose welfare spending, as you appear to do, who want all welfare mothers sterilized.

MightyMighty said...

If a couple had a baby, and realized they couldn't take care of her and decided to put her up for adoption, that would be legal. Now, if it took 9 months to place her with another family, nobody would argue that the couple had a right to kill, abuse, or abandon her, since "they didn't want her anyway."

Prohibiting abortion is not "reaching into the bodies of women" or any such nonsense. It is expecting people to bear the appropriate level of responsibility for their own children, whether it is in the womb, or after birth. Nobody has the right to kill another human being, even if that human being was conceived through incestuous rape, alien abduction, or accidentally falling on a vial of sperm.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Mighty, assuming arguendo, as judges and lawyer say, that what is growing inside the womb IS another human being, you are absolutely correct. Justice Blackmun said as much, quite explicitly, in the text of Roe v. Wade. The fundamental question of the entire debate comes down to "Is it another human being?" Everything else is a tangent. So far, I don't believe that a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, or the early stages of fetal development, are a human being. I do believe that a baby one week short of live birth, two weeks, three weeks, and I have no problem taking it back to twenty weeks, is a baby.

How can we draw the line? Sufficient neurological development to be aware of itself, and ability to live on its own, without extensive technology, outside the womb. I know that doesn't satisfy you, that's why there is a debate. But the whole debate turns on that point, and no other.