Archive for September 19th, 2012

The propaganda about abortion and ‘pro-choice’ (so-called) is that the Supreme Court decision gave “women” a choice: to  either keep or legally not to keep a child in the womb till birth.  Before Roe vs. Wade, the propagandists said that women had “no choice” in an “unwanted pregnancy”:  you had to have the child or risk an illegal procedure or a medically risky abortion from someone not trained. Abortion proponents consider this a bad choice.

First: Roe vs. Wade made abortion only the woman’s choice.  The father literally has no legal choice in this decision.  Therefore, Roe vs. Wade disenfranchised half of the population in this important life and death choice. Men were given no choice; therefore, legalized abortion is not purely about “choice”.    Further, this lack of choice by men gave men a legalized ‘free ride’.  In Roe vs. Wade, men were de facto and de jure now out of the picture in an important decision.  Secondarily and intimate to the legal  lack of a man’s choice in this decision,   Roe vs. Wade legislated sexism.

Second:   The first choice in an ‘unwanted pregnancy’ occurs well before the decision to birth or abort.  It is also the woman’s choice to decide that her child is and will be unwanted.  Given that infertile couples will spend an enormous amount of heartache, time and money in fertility and/or adoption procedures, so to have a child because they want a child, the decision that a child is judged unwanted by a mother is in fact patently false.  We think it a sin to throw away stuff that can be recycled.  Aborting a child prevents that child from being ‘recycled’, given a home to a father and mother wanting that child, thereby voiding the choice (or at least limiting choice) of those wanting a child but who cannot conceive. I know that it is a crass and harsh statement to write about “recycling” a child.   It is.  Since we consider it wrong to throw away a tin can, which can be recycled, then why not a life?  Again, Roe vs. Wade helps prevent infertile couples from other mothers and fathers who want their child to have a home.  Thus, it limits choice for both mothers and fathers who know they cannot raise a child and infertile couples who could adopt that child.

Third: Even the humane proponents of abortion consider legal abortion a bad one. This is clear in the Democratic Party’s abortion saying, “safe, legal and rare”.  Abortion is not rare.  Before ’73, abortion was also considered a bad choice. Therefore, in one sense, government legislated  a bad choice, but government is to protect “good choices”:  “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.   Law is not to legislate bad choices, but a way for people to make good choices.  Thus, the “free choice” for an abortion is by legal fiat at the very least a sullied one.

Fourth:  A pregnant woman who decides her child is unwanted and therefore must be aborted has obviously decided, “Well, there is no choice here.”  If that is the case, the 1.2  million people who so ‘choose’ are not really ‘choosing’ because they see no alternative. The law has allowed for a deadly “I have no choice”.  There is a choice:  life.  Now, illegal abortion is also about the woman, and the man’s lack of choice:  they must have the child, but this lack of choice means life.  No abortion means life and  living is the possibility of choosing life repeatedly;  but once the child is dead, then  choices in living are dead.  Legal abortion actually takes away choice. It is not ‘pro-choice’. Therefore, illegal abortion is pro-choice because it is pro-life.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: