Pro as used in words like pro-choice and pro-life is a prefix that quite simply means "favouring or in support of". No mystery there. Anti on the other hand, which pro-choicers use to attempt to tarnish their adversaries in this debate is a prefix used to mean "opposing, against or the opposite", so in this case, when Pro-choice folks call pro-life folks anti-choice, they mean opposing choice. So, to say that those who are against abortion are anti-choice is at first blush ingenuous, and is meant to be pejorative.
Jared Loughner was pro-choice a few weeks ago here in Tucson, Arizona. He went to a polite political gathering with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and many of her constituents, and firmly expressed his choice that she and several of her supporters did not deserve to continue to live. It was, after all, his choice to believe that. To prove his point, he pulled a Glock 9 gun out and shot Ms. Giffords point blank in the head, and shot an additional 18 other people, 6 of whom died from their wounds. Not one Pro-Choice organisation came out in favour of Jared Loughner's right to choose to shoot those people. Not one. So, those groups calling themselves pro-choice are not pro every choice, just particular choices.
People make choices every day. I chose to drink a cappuchino just a few minutes ago. I might have chosen a chai latte, or a cup of decaf, but, no, I chose a cappuchino. I exercised my right to choose. Yet, those who favour abortion call me anti-choice, because I do not believe that it is a woman's right to impose her will on an unborn child that she helped create, usually complicitly.
In the debate that waged over at Father Tim's, those favouring a woman's right to have an abortion were attempting to say that organisations offering abortion as an alternative to a live birth of an unborn child are not really pro-abortion organisations.
They were in particular writing about NARAL. That organisation's official name today is NARAL Pro-Choice America. It's original name when it was established in 1969 was National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. After Roe v.Wade, it changed its name to National Abortion Rights Action League, then to National Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League. Finally in 2003, the long form was reduced to the current moniker. In that time, only one major change happened. Where the second "A" in the short form NARAL stood for Abortion early on, it jumped up to the first position in the later names.
One commenter over at Father Tim's blog post, who is pro-choice quoted this from the NARAL web site:
Our SolutionOf course, if there is a solution offered, it is appropriate to know the problem that is being solved, so here it is direct from NARAL's site:
We will always have to fight to keep abortion safe and legal. This means defeating attacks in Congress and in the states.
We also believe in reducing the need for abortion. This means we support improving access to birth control and teaching young people comprehensive sex education.
Finally, we always are sure to separate anti-choice myths from facts.
-NARAL's page on Abortion, 1/20/11 (emphasis added.)
The ProblemSo, this sounds like a lot of rhetoric to me, but let's break it down a little piece by piece, starting with the Problem.
Anti-choice people want to outlaw abortion, regardless of the woman's situation. They will stop at nothing to make it harder for women to access abortion. They even target the doctors who provide abortion care.
Anti-choice people use many of the following tactics to reach their goals:
Violent tactics that intimidate doctors and patients
Bans on safe abortion methods that protect women's health
Restrictions on low-income women's access to abortion and other health care
Dangerous laws that jeopardize young women's health and safety
"Crisis pregnancy centers" that intentionally mislead women
"Personhood" measures that would ban abortion
Distortions of science to instill fear
Restrictions on women's access to RU 486
Refusal clauses that deny women basic health services.
"Anti-choice people want to outlaw abortion, regardless of the woman's situation."
Yes, they have that one sorta right. 1 for 1, except for calling pro-life people anti-choice. Those people who identify with the pro-life cause are FOR all human life from conception to natural death. We cared about Terry Schiavo, when she was killed by her husband removing her feeding and starving her to death. We are against Dr. Death (Jack Kevorkian) and euthanasia. We are against placing a score on a human life that makes it more valuable than another, or less valuable than another human life. We are against a choice that would terminate a human life chemically, surgically or otherwise, and that particularly includes abortion in its many shapes and forms. So I guess it is not really 1 for 1.
So, how about this next piece:
They will stop at nothing to make it harder for women to access abortion. They even target the doctors who provide abortion care.
That is a highly charged statement. "Stop at nothing". Really!! Almost to a one, pro-life people are fighting this battle on their knees. The Catholics pray the Rosary, pray prayers of intercession for the babies, their parents, abortion providers, and others caught in this web of deceit. And they do target the doctors, by picketing peacefully in front of their abortion mills, and do so with more vigour during the 40 Days for Life programmes twice a year in most major cities in the US and Canada.
Let's move on to the tactics attributed to those mean anti-choice folks:
Violent tactics that intimidate doctors and patients
Some anti-choicers actually enter restricted zones to tell young women that they are praying for them and to beg them not to abort their unborn child. I'll bet that the truth does intimidate people. It does me, when I am off the reservation.
Here's the next 3:
Bans on safe abortion methods that protect women's health
Restrictions on low-income women's access to abortion and other health care
Dangerous laws that jeopardize young women's health and safety
There is no abortion method that is safe for the unborn child, and the number of cases where unsafe abortion practices are coming to the fore is reprehensible, in light of such a declaration. What particular need do low income women and young women have for abortion? If you keep it zipped up, there is no need for abortion. If you value the child that you created, you do not have a need for abortion either. There is also no evidence to suggest that an abortion protects a woman's health. In fact, the evidence of post abortion mental and physical health issues is heading for an epidemic. See what former abortionist Joy Davis has to say, or read the stories of these other former abortion providers.
How about this one:
"Crisis pregnancy centers" that intentionally mislead women
Crisis pregnancy centers take in young women and help them to deliver safely the babies that they have in their wombs. These babies are often put up for adoption, though a mother who realizes that she wants to keep her baby is encouraged to do so. How's that for misleading?
This one is actually true:
"Personhood" measures that would ban abortion
We of the pro-life belief hold that an infant in the womb is a person from conception, and deserves to have all rights that other persons have. One pundit, who is a Catholic, though one must question his sincerity on this particular point, proclaimed a couple of times on his show that a child in the womb is a "potential human being". A baby in the womb is as much a potential human being as a 2 year old is a potential teenager.
Or this one:
Distortions of science to instill fear
The only distortion of science is by the pro-choice crowd, who keep trying to insist that a baby is not a baby, but fetal tissue, able to be aborted at least until it leaves the womb. That does not even make sense.
This is no surprise and is absolutely true:
Restrictions on women's access to RU 486
Pro-life folks are absolutely in favour of a complete ban on RU 486. Why is pretty simple? RU 486 causes an abortion of a live fetus early in its gestation. By the way, many instances of birth control pills also cause spontaneous abortions, preventing the fetus from implanting.
The last one is pretty rich:
Refusal clauses that deny women basic health services
There is no pro-life follower who is interested in denying any woman basic health services, but abortion is not a basic health service. It can easily be argued that abortion is hazardous to a woman's health.
So, NARAL wants you to believe that they are not a pro-abortion organisation. I, for one, do not believe it for an instant. The above from NARAL is all rhetoric and baffle gab, intent on misrepresenting facts to show a false front.
It would be appropriate to read what Abby Johnson, a former abortion clinic director, says on her web site. in her new book "Unplanned," which is available on Amazon or from her web site.
The truth is painful. It usually is, but it sure beats the lies that have been floated to trap women into surrendering the children in their wombs.
No comments:
Post a Comment