#71
CHOICE AS A RIGHT


Why can`t pro-abortionists call us what we pro-lifers really are - stubborn and inflexible anti-abortionists? Apparently the worst epithet our opponents can think of to hurl at us is "anti-choice." How disheartening it must then be for them to realize that anti-choicers have struck again - this time in the Canadian province of New Brunswick.

The wonderful news, received in November 2002, is that one of the four hospitals - executing itself about half of all abortions - decided to virtually eliminate them. You`d normally think the reasons for this principled decision would find universal agreement: (a) women were arriving at the hospital without accurate information and without sufficient pre-abortion counselling to assure informed consent: (b) a lack of post-operative support for many of the women from remote, rural areas. As expected however in situations where some, even hospital abortionists, judge that certain limits need to be imposed, pro-aborts went into their typical outrage mode. The outpouring of indignant protest from feminist organizations was remarkable. It dealt at some length with alleged lack of accessibility to abortion, but concentrated mainly on the curtailment of what they consider a fundamental right for women: the sacred choice to abort - i.e. to kill their children.

Confusion reigned supreme in the public debate that followed the move to eliminate all "non-emergency" abortions at the Moncton Hospital. References were made ad nauseam to "pro-choice" and "a woman`s choice" in the context of undeniable rights. Although intellectually flawed and perverted, arguments were packaged with an intensity that convinced many of the uncommitted on the sidelines of the debate.

I will give my characterization of the official pro-choice position, and I challenge the abortion rights movement (Canadians Abortion Rights Action League, National Abortion Rights Action League, Planned Parenthood, National Organization of Women, etc) and any of its supporters to tell me where I`m wrong. My view of the official pro-choice stand is that abortions must be legal for all nine months of pregnancy, up to and including delivery; for any reason whatsoever; for no reason whatsoever; for a minor girl of any age without parental knowledge or consent; with the abortionist allowed to withhold information about risks and/or fetal development; to say, as does Canada`s infamous abortionist Henry Morgentaler, that what`s in a pregnant mommy`s tummy is not a baby; with the father of the child having no say whatsoever in the destruction of his child; paid for in hospitals and most abortion clinics (in Canada at least) with tax dollars. Is that about it?

Abortion advocates always say that the issue is not abortion, but choice. Is this dedication to choice universal? I mean, do they think people should be allowed to choose to do absolutely anything they want to do? Should people be allowed to choose to rob banks? To drive drunk? To prance nude in public (notwithstanding those gay pride parades in our major cities)? If not, what is their yardstick for deciding which activities individuals should be allowed to choose, and which ones they shouldn`t? Obviously the whole pro-choice thing is just a facade. The real issue is that all these pro-choicers approve of just one common thing: abortion.

An inalienable right to choose? The truth is there is no such right, because every right we have is subject to conditions. Why is it beyond pro-choicers` intellectual capacity to grasp that one person`s rights must end where the next person`s begin - or else chaos results? As already pointed out, society has no difficulty in dismissing claims regarding other choices. Not anymore than, for example, driving while impaired, lighting up a cigarette anywhere one chooses, peddling cocaine to those who choose to buy it, should the right to kill one`s unborn baby be considered inviolate.

Everything that is done to legally restrict even the grossest assault on unborn children is interpreted by abortion proponents as "intended to undermine a woman’’s right to choose." What the dickens is this suppose to mean, this"‘‘woman’’s right to choose"? 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.

Those who have had serious discussions with abortion`s staunchest defenders know just how brainwashed and blinded they have become, how wrapped up in pro-abortion sloganeering feminists are, and how little they have thought this whole abortion issue through. There is never mention of the baby - only when dehumanizing the fetus - just the usual tunnel vision locked on the so-called "women`s right to choose."

As Supreme Knight Carl Anderson has urged us, we must combat with all our energies the culture of death which, since 1969 in both Canada and the United States, has taken more lives through abortion than the combined population of Canada and Austria. The best approach to this ‘‘war’’ is to teach the public how to separate genuine rights from pseudo rights. One very effective way is to ask abortion sympathizers, mesmerized by the seductive rhetoric emanating from the popular media, how they can justify their support for abortion and at the same time find it stupid to even ask them simple questions like the following:

* How is a woman`s "right to choose" to kill her preborn baby any different from a parent`s "right to choose" to kill a born son or a daughter? Is there a difference? The age of the child? The place of residence?

* What`t the difference between a woman`s "right to choose"’’ to kill her preborn baby and a woman politician`s "right to choose" to "liquidate" her political rivals? Like the women who claim total control over their bodies and the bodies of the babies living inside them, why can`t tyrants claim total control over the lives of the people, particularly their enemies?

* Is there any difference between a woman`s "right to choose" to kill her baby and an invading army`s "right to choose" to kill any man, woman or child who annoys it, or gets in its way? Like this woman, the army has monopoly on power and can use it arbitrarily if there`s nothing to protect the civilians under its control.

* What`s the difference between a woman`s "right to choose" to kill her baby and Hitler`s "right to choose" to attack Jews, and even to commit genocide upon them, because the Nazis` hateful ideology demanded it and Germany`s Supreme Court legalized it? The mother who pays the abortionist to kill her baby, and may even be subsidized to do so by the state, knows that thanks to our Supreme Courts and lawmakers, her choice is "legal."

* What`s the difference between a woman`s "right to choose" to kill her baby and slave owners` "right to choose" to deny personhood and even life to Blacks and look upon them merely as disposable property, because it benefited the slavemasters economically?

Stupid questions indeed to anyone with any sense of humanity.

At the heart of the abortion-rights battle lies a deadly denial of reality. Obviously no person has a "right to choose" when the choice is to impose death on someone else. Much less when the choice is to impose the barbaric means of partial-birth abortion legitimized by both our Supreme Courts.

John Paul II was among the first religious leaders to warn the world that supporting a "woman right to reproductive choice" was nothing but a euphemism for turning the womb into a killing field. He again expressed himself eloquently in September 2001: "When some lives, including those of the unborn, are subjected to the personal choices of others, no other value or right will long be guaranteed, and society will inevitably be governed by special interests and convenience.

Freedom cannot be sustained in a cultural climate that measures human dignity in strictly utilitarian terms." He talks about freedom of choice as an illusion that plagues the ‘‘civilized’’ world, and which is bringing us to the very edge of social collapse.

He is undoubtedly alluding here to the "freedom" to kill an unborn baby and not have to call it murder but instead call it freedom of choice; the "freedom" to commit adultery or be sexually promiscuous and not have to call it sin, but call it freedom of choice; the "freedom" to refuse to honour God and ridicule those who try to honour Him and call it freedom of choice; the "freedom" to engage in perverted homosexual acts in the certainty that such actions represent the vanguard of sexual "liberation" and will be defended and applauded by the majority of citizens who call it freedom of choice; and, also, the "freedom" to support governments that have virtually outlawed God from the official functions of the state and its institutions of public education, in the name of freedom of choice - one that runs the gamut from a mother choosing to love her children to a mother permitting someone to surgically execute and dismember her unborn child up to and including delivery.

Thaddée Renault

New Brunswick, Canada

January 13, 2003


Return to the Unborn Children's Website