I have been told I am "anti-choice" by so many who consider themselves "pro-choice". To say that I am anti-choice is not only ambiguous, it's dishonest. My opposition to human abortion is not an opposition to choices, but an opposition to killing human life.
By definition, someone who is “anti-choice” would be opposed to ALL choices whether they be about feticide, stealing, or something as inconsequential as listening to public radio. If one opposes a man hitting his wife, is that person "anti-choice"? Of course not. It is an an opposition to violence, not an opposition to choices. I have heard time and time again the phrase "you want to take away women's choices". FALSE. I want to replace the choice of abortion with life-affirming choices. I'm not trying to take away choice, I'm trying to give hope to women and their unborn children not try to take anything away from them.
Even the term “pro-choice” is misleading. It isn’t that those who are “pro-choice” support all choices (surely they don’t support domestic violence); it is that they support the choice to abort a living human being. Which is why I believe that pro-abortion is more accurate because when you say "I support a woman's choice to have an abortion", you're really just adding a few extra words into the sentence "I support abortion". Opposing that choice isn’t anti-choice; it is rather anti-abortion or pro-human life rights. Now that is precise, logical, and scientifically accurate.
The core issue is not about choice any more than murder, slavery, and stealing are about choice. It is about what we do with living unborn human babies biologically developing inside and dependent on another human. Significant questions that need to be asked and answered are: Do these babies have rights and if so, what are they? Does the mother have rights and what are they? What do we do when these rights conflict? Do some rights take precedent over others?
My belief is that the right to life should supersede all other rights because without life no other rights would matter or exist. I believe that ALL human life is inherently valuable. That is why I am pro-life.
By definition, someone who is “anti-choice” would be opposed to ALL choices whether they be about feticide, stealing, or something as inconsequential as listening to public radio. If one opposes a man hitting his wife, is that person "anti-choice"? Of course not. It is an an opposition to violence, not an opposition to choices. I have heard time and time again the phrase "you want to take away women's choices". FALSE. I want to replace the choice of abortion with life-affirming choices. I'm not trying to take away choice, I'm trying to give hope to women and their unborn children not try to take anything away from them.
Even the term “pro-choice” is misleading. It isn’t that those who are “pro-choice” support all choices (surely they don’t support domestic violence); it is that they support the choice to abort a living human being. Which is why I believe that pro-abortion is more accurate because when you say "I support a woman's choice to have an abortion", you're really just adding a few extra words into the sentence "I support abortion". Opposing that choice isn’t anti-choice; it is rather anti-abortion or pro-human life rights. Now that is precise, logical, and scientifically accurate.
The core issue is not about choice any more than murder, slavery, and stealing are about choice. It is about what we do with living unborn human babies biologically developing inside and dependent on another human. Significant questions that need to be asked and answered are: Do these babies have rights and if so, what are they? Does the mother have rights and what are they? What do we do when these rights conflict? Do some rights take precedent over others?
My belief is that the right to life should supersede all other rights because without life no other rights would matter or exist. I believe that ALL human life is inherently valuable. That is why I am pro-life.
|
Posts
