Enough with the endless abortion euphemisms

I thought “reproductive choice” meant choosing whether or not to conceive, not whether or not to destroy a child already conceived.

I thought “reproductive health” meant fixing faulty reproductive systems and ensuring healthy pregnancies, not puncturing uteruses and the skulls of perfectly healthy unborn babies.

And how I wish “feminism” meant fighting for equal rights, not for special exemptions from fetal homicide laws. (Existing fetal homicidal laws make a man guilty of manslaughter if he kills the baby in a mother’s womb, except in the case of abortion.)

euphemism-misc1

“We hear that abortion is fundamentally about a woman’s right to reproductive freedom. Or abortion is a litmus test for judicial nominees. Or abortion is symptomatic of what’s wrong with the social discourse in America. But none of those things is what abortion really is. Abortion is the intentional killing of unborn children.”

–Jon Bloom in Relentlessly Call Abortion What It Really Is

As much as abortion clinic counselors want to tell women that abortion is but the removal of clumps of cells, tissues, and at best “fetal matter” (watch real video footage of Planned Parenthood feeding women with misinformation and blatant lies), here’s what actual abortionists have said:

“Even now I feel a little peculiar about it, because as a physician I was trained to conserve life, and here I am destroying it.” –Dr. Benjamin Kalish

“We know that it’s killing, but the state permits killing under certain circumstances.” –Dr. Neville Sender

“In one room, you encourage the patient that the slight irregularity in the fetal heart is not important, that she is going to have a fine, healthy baby. Then, in the next room you assure another woman, on whom you just did a saline abortion, that it is a good thing that the heartbeat is already irregular . . . she will not have a live baby.” –Dr. John Szenes

“After twenty weeks, where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it because the potential is so imminently there.” –Dr. James McMahon

The killing of babies can be tolerated, even championed as a human right, as long as we shroud it with euphemisms and avoid calling it what it is. Where are the honest politicians and protesters chanting, “We demand the right to decide which of our children to kill!”? Let us stand guard, lest our conscience be dulled by mere rhetoric.

euphemism

Advertisements

Re: “I am pro-choice because all evidence shows that restricting abortion increases the rate of abortion.”

There are pro-choicers who don’t consider the unborn baby a human being. A fetus is not a human life, they say, so they have no rights. And then there are pro-choicers who do recognize the unborn’s personhood. They also acknowledge that it’s unfortunate that an innocent life is terminated during abortion, but consider it a necessary evil. Statistics show that lifting restrictions on access to abortion reduces its occurrence. Besides, would you rather abortions be performed by trained, certified physicians, or by shady back-alley providers?

The first justification calls for a discussion on whether personhood is inherent or earned. In this post I intend to specifically address the second.

It’s safe to infer that these individuals feel abortion is on some level immoral, though most prefer to call it “unfortunate” or sad.” At least, I assume so because they do want it to be rare. What I’m perplexed by is this “logic” of allowing something as a means of reducing its very occurrence. It reminds me of the movie The Purge: In a dystopian society, the government has instituted an annual 12-hour period called “The Purge,” where all criminal activity is permitted. The justification? Because of this, overall crime-rate is now at an all-time low.

Reactions to this analogy have been varied. I’ve heard “I don’t see how that’s ‘dystopian’ if it works!” (to which I have nothing to say), while others have taken great offense. The latter group is not wrong to point out that abortion is a real-life situation, not some fantasy, non-existent scenario. Regardless, it seems to me an analogy that successfully highlights, without any sugarcoating, the inherent moral contradiction in saying that you want restrictions lifted so as to reduce the incidence of that very act. Or is putting lives on the line supposed to be some sort of reverse psychology tactic? As Rush Limbaugh aptly put it, “The message that President Obama delivered…was: morality is immoral. . . . Why work to reduce the number of them occurring if there’s nothing wrong with it?”

I’m in no way denying facts and statistics. Call me an idealist, but there has got to be better ways of reducing the occurrence of abortion that don’t force us to deny our conscience as individuals and as a nation. Have we looked hard enough? Rather than let Planned Parenthood drive up demand for its own profit, have we even tried to reduce demand for abortion? How about pouring more resources into…

…quality sex education (granted, content is highly debatable) + access to birth control (since the non-religious are unlikely to opt for abstinence) + better maternal healthcare and work benefits + better physical, emotion, psychological support for crisis pregnancy moms + reducing stigma against pregnancy out of wedlock in and outside the church + applauding the courage of women carrying their unplanned pregnancy to full term + actually recommending adoption as an option + …

I don’t know, I’m no public policy expert, but there has got to be ways to reduce abortion that are less morally lazy than expanding access to it.

Life isn’t what you make it

As much as we’re told that “life is what you make it”, that phrase could not be farther from the truth. The present life we’re living, wherever we’re reading this right now, is collectively made possible by our parents, teachers, friends, neighbors, bosses, doctors, firefighters, law enforcers, lawmakers, ancestors, founding fathers…..and lastly, ourselves.

Nothing apart from the decisions we make is inherently, wholly ours.

First and foremost, we’re alive today because we were each given a shot at life. We had the support of individuals (biologically related or not), groups, communities, and/or institutions that believed that we — though weak, voiceless, defenseless, even useless — were of value and had rights as members of a just and humane society.

We were cared for, taught the ways of survival, of weathering storms, of overcoming obstacles, defying odds, of discovering and pursuing our passions, until we’re ready to take those training wheels off. We then embraced the independence to carve out our own lives, and the freedom to do as we please. But never at the expense of others, because we remember to love and respect the way we were loved and respected for simply being human. We give others a chance to find their way the way we were given chance after chance.

Let’s consider our own profound indebtedness before we  make judgments about whether someone would be worthy recipient of society’s resources, or make assumptions about whether someone would be able to live a fulfilling life. If one is given the resources that will enable them to overcome and flourish, they will.

The greatest of these resources are love and respect, and the most basic of these is a chance at life. And when they no longer need their training wheels, they will pass them on to those who do. May this be the kind of society, the kind of human race we are proud to be members of.

IMG_0278

Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other.”   –Malcolm Muggeridge

Pro-choicers, will you please answer this one question?

I am shocked. I am outraged. Life post-depression has been incredible, but pro-abortion news stories and articles never fail to shock, outrage, and simply bewilder me each day. I could opt out of having these appear on my Facebook and Twitter feeds, but that would be to opt for denial. Today, President Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to longtime pro-abortion activist Gloria Steinem, not his first time bestowing the nation’s highest non-military honor to a prolific supporter of abortion. I can understand (this does not imply empathy) with why many people can associate abortion with romantic words like “freedom” and “choice,” but can we please look beyond rhetorics and the myopic snapshots that these rhetorics produce?

Please stop calling it “pro-choice” — abortion denies the defenseless child of any choice whatsoever. Please stop calling it “healthcare service” — what abortion does to the baby is the exact opposite of why healthcare is practiced, and why healthcare institutions and systems even exist. And you cannot begin to talk about “women’s rights” when you deny the first, most basic human right: the right to life.

In a promo for the recent Texas telethon that raised $50k for abortion, Sally Khon says women are “invited to laugh and feel powerful” — am I the only one who imagines this to sound like a sinister cackle?

Underneath all these labels are morally and logically inconsistent arguments. Pro-abortionists, there’s really just one thing to explain: why your life matters and theirs don’t.

I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” –Ronald Reagan