Reclaiming the pro-choice label
posted at 7:30 pm on July 15, 2010 by MadisonConservative
Zombie’s latest article at Pajamas Media throws a hell of a fastball at the abortion debate, and hits the pro-life crowd pretty hard.
I think both sides of the abortion debate are lying and have been lying since the argument first arose. Anyone who wants to forbid abortion “except in cases of rape or incest” is, frankly, full of crap. And here’s why:
If you truly are “pro-life” in that you believe abortion is murder because the unborn child is a full-fledged human being, then you wouldn’t so casually allow the child to be murdered simply based on its parent’s misbehavior.
Most people who are anti-abortion adopt the label “pro-life” based on the shared notion that the zygote/embryo/fetus, no matter what its stage of development, is an undiminished human being with full human rights. And that’s a principled position which I can respect — if you stick to it consistently. But if you start making expedient exceptions, then your dishonesty has been revealed. Because if you really and truly believed that an embryo was a full human being, then you wouldn’t allow it to be murdered simply because its father was a bad man.
When I was younger, I held the cookiecutter pro-life view Zombie targets here, and I often found myself pondering why rape and incest were allowable circumstances if abortion were truly murder. The exception for the mother’s life being in danger is free of this conundrum, which is probably why she avoids including it. Pro-lifers typically argue that the child should not be punished for the mother’s actions. It follows, then, that the father’s actions are no more a reason to deem an abortion “not murder”. Or, indeed, was the argument that murder was acceptable as a result of the father’s actions?
Zombie goes on, but sums the abortion issue up in a very fundamental way.
That is, unless there was a hidden rationale behind the abortion ban which had nothing to do with the belief that embryos are children. If the “pro-life” stance was sometimes nothing but a ruse, a false front to disguise the real reason for being anti-abortion, that would explain why some “pro-lifers” are willing to murder unborn babies under certain circumstances.
And I have always believed that the hidden rationale is obvious: It’s all about sex.
Many politicians and regular folks feel (accurately, in my opinion) that allowing unfettered legal access to abortion will encourage promiscuity among young people. That if we intentionally make sex consequence-free, then more casual sex will happen, and more sex will lead to more babies out of wedlock, which will lead to any number of well-documented social ills. And furthermore, many feel, pre-marital and extra-marital sex is fundamentally immoral, in that it is explicitly forbidden by the three main monotheistic religions and by many other faiths as well.
Well, partly. I would certainly agree that some of the religious reasoning against abortion is due to attitudes about sex and promiscuity. However, there are other points to consider. Many women who have had abortions have suffered traumatic after-effects, both physically and mentally, due to having abortions. Anyone truly concerned with women’s health would not overlook these instances.
Additionally, there’s the history behind abortion in America, most notably its connection to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. Planned Parenthood, after all, was formerly the American Birth Control League. Margaret Sanger used this organization as a flagship in exerting active eugenics policies to minimize the black birth rate and population of the United States. That this organization not only still exists, but is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country today, should make any thinking person very wary of why they advocate abortion so freely, even when they’re not doing it illegally.
Regardless of the reasoning behind your opinion of abortion, when your chance comes to go to the ballot box to determine its legality, you need to focus on one concept: choice. You will either be for the choice to have an abortion, or against it. Over the years, like much of the English language, the term “pro-choice” has been perverted by pro-abortion female supremacists and liberals. In their context, it more clearly implies the advocacy and prolificacy of abortion, rather than the freedom to make that choice. Especially with outfits like PP pushing them, abortion is a huge business, only interested in your choice if it makes them a profit. These people need to be identified as the pro-abortion advocates they really are.
Meanwhile, the abortion debate needs to be reduced to whether you are pro-choice or anti-choice. Is it loaded? Perhaps, but it’s the undiluted truth if Roe v. Wade gets overturned, as I’m hoping, and the states get the chance to determine whether they want abortion to be legal. You’re either going to be for the choice to have an abortion, or against it. Just because you’re in favor of the choice doesn’t mean you personally want people to choose abortion. You can be against smoking, but that doesn’t mean you want it outlawed. The phrase “pro-choice” needs to be reclaimed, and the pro-abortion people need to be called what they are.
Recently in the Green Room: