THE POLITICIAN`S FAVOURITE WEASEL EXPRESSION
What`s behind all the wishy-washy "choice" language? Voters have become utterly confused, if not greatly irritated by politicians who seem unable to finish a simple English sentence. Canada`s Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, more than any other, exemplifies this perceived inability to express a clear thought. In his main address to the Liberal Party convention on March 17, 2000, he told 2,600 delegates that "Canadians do not want a right-wing party (referring to the official opposition Canadian Alliance party) in this country. They do not want a party that does not support women's right to choose."
It`s really all a question of cowardice and deceit, of trying to keep people from actually knowing that what in fact is being supported is repugnant and morally unacceptable to the vast majority of voters. In what other situation, when one speaks about choosing something, one doesn`t finish the sentence? For example, after viewing the furniture at Wal Mart, you don`t say to the salesperson, I think I will choose..." and not say whether you want the sofa, or the bed.
What politicians really mean is, "I support a woman`s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy and thereby terminate her child`s life." Why can`t they just say that? Why does the media, and why do we as Knights, allow political candidates to get away with this vague, meaningless "choice" language when we should be challenging them to finish the sentence? Why in fact do we allow them to get away with murder?
Most, if not all Knights, are vigorously pro-choice. But unlike the politicians described above they`re not at all shy to specify what that choice is all about. They`re not afraid to name the choice, to finish the sentence. If political leaders like self-professed Catholic Prime Minister Jean Chrétien ("My mother`s name is Mary...My initials are J.C.") are proud of the fact that they support the taking of the life of an unborn baby, then why can`t they simply say so? Why can`t they tell us, "I proudly support the right of a woman to have and abortion and kill her unborn baby"? People, although outraged by such an ghoulish statement, would have more respect for politicians and abortion advocates who dare to fully articulate their thoughts and voice the implication of their choice.
As is the nature of the beast, these apparent pro-abortion politicians are trying to hide the reality of the inherent evil in abortion. Their position is admittedly an uncomfortable one, but because it has become so politically correct many are afraid to proclaim what they might feel is right. But this is no excuse for allowing this charade to go on. They should be challenged at every turn to finish their statements on "choice." Politicians, as all of us, should be more honest and open with their beliefs and language that confirm and proclaim their inner beliefs on the evil of abortion.
Just reflect for a moment on the silliness of this supposedly self-evident "woman's right to choose." What is it suppose to mean? Would it qualify to say that a "man`s right to choose" has been "undermined" by having a law stating he cannot dump his family without proper compensation? What`s sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. The right to choose, if it is to be a right at all, should apply to all - men as well as women.
Many politicians would lead us to believe, if we really analyse what they say, that we have a right to live our lives the way we choose, and to terminate the lives of those we do not choose. Unfair assessment perhaps, but accurate nevertheless. The "right to choose" really has no limits: it is even the right to the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. "Choice" has to be defined. Thus, for the question "Who should have the choice to kill preborn babies?" the answer is "Nobody."
How intelligent do we purport to be when we don’t ask ourselves, how is a woman`s "right to choose" to kill her preborn baby any different from a parent`s "right to choose" to kill an infant son or daughter? What`s the difference? The age of the child? The geographical location outside the womb? How intelligent do we purport to be when we don’t ask ourselves, the difference between a woman`s "right to choose" to kill her baby and the Nazi "right to choose" to kill alleged social enemies of Hitler`s Reich? The Nazi judicial process made all this very legal. The mother who pays the abortionist to kill her baby knows that thanks to our Supreme Courts and lawmakers in Canada and the U.S., her choice is also legal. How intelligent do we purport to be when we don’t ask ourselves, the difference between a woman`s "right to choose" to kill her baby and slave owners` "right to choose" to deny the humanity of Blacks, because it benefited the slave owners?
It`s obvious that no one has a "right to choose" when the choice would directly violate human rights, human dignity and human nature. Not even if the government says so. Not even if all the intellectuals and social leaders in the world say so. Not even if a way of life has grown up around this manufactured right
For the sake of further dismantling the absolutely absurd argument of "choice," lets take its logic and apply it to something like smoking. If someone argued that smokers not only have the right to smoke, but that tobacco farms should be placed in every province or state and non-smokers should not encroach on smokers' rights by objecting to smoking in public places, would they be described as "pro-choice" or pro-smoking? To ask the question is to answer it. The same as it should be for those so-called pro-choice politicians who object to being referred to as "pro-abortion."
The fact remains clear that pro-choice politicians who support "choice" in its never-defined meaning have to continually keep changing reality by disguising the truth. It seems a strange kind of truth, however, that requires deception to promulgate it. And strange also that they need all this criminal deception to live with the grim truth that abortion maims, mutilates, and mangles defenseless little babies.
New Brunswick, Canada
April 4, 2002
Return to the Unborn Children's Website