Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Roe v Wade: Was It All About Choice?

The 40th anniversary of Roe V Wade has me thinking a lot about "choice" today.

For instance, I'm wondering just what choice the preborn boy or girl whose life is about ready to end via an abortionist's suction machine would make. Does anyone really think the child would say, "Well, I certainly don't want my mother to be unencumbered by the likes of me. So, let the dismemberment begin."

Of course not.

I'm wondering too why a movement which has taken for itself the very title "pro-choice" would be so adamantly, aggressively against those things which would allow a woman considering abortion to know the full range of choices before her, not to mention all of the relevant data about abortion.

I mean, how irrational and hypocritical can one be to insist that "choice" is the supreme right and yet oppose such common-sense, choice-heavy opportunities as being informed of the possible effects of abortion (just as the medical profession is legally obligated to do with all other surgeries and medications), being shown an ultrasound image of the baby growing inside her uterus, having access to the various alternatives to abortion, and so on.

And why are people who so proudly wear the word "choice" on their sleeves so dead set against parental consent (even parental notification) laws? Why would they oppose the state's inspection and regulation of the health standards in an abortion clinic? Why wouldn't "pro-choice" advocates applaud the operation of pro-life pregnancy centers since they do, in fact, offer an amazing array of pro-woman, pro-baby, pro-family services free of charge?

Given the publicity surrounding ObamaCare and its mandates, here's another problematic question for those insisting they are "pro-choice" on abortion. It's just this -- why shouldn't citizens who have deep convictions against the needless taking of innocent human life (because of the Bible's revelations and two millenia of church teaching) have the choice to refrain from participating in and/or paying the costs of an abortion?

Where is there any degree of consistency from the "pro-choice" lobby on any of these questions? The answer, obviously and sadly, is there is none.

No, "pro-choice" advocates haven't been exposed as much by the arguments of pro-lifers as they have been by their own glaring hypocrisy. What they are zealous for turns out not to be "choice" at all. Nor are they even genuinely focused on women, freedom or health.

It's all about abortion.