June 18, 2001
Pro-Abortionists Defined - Pro Choice
Means Free Choice
"Pro-choice", the favorite slogan of the
pro-abortion movement means, being free to choose to have an
abortion. So let’s just call it what it really is –
free choice. In fact, a recent television advertisement by
the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) directly
touts abortion in terms of free choice. They say, "I
believe there’s a reason we were born with free will."
(To wantonly kill others so they cannot exercise their free
will?) They assert, "The greatest of human freedoms
is choice. And I believe no one has the right to take that
away." They brazenly claim that free choice was a
founding principle in this country, as though ours was a
rule-less and immoral society. NARAL has eagerly and
piously adopted the classic propagandist tactic to tell an
untruth constantly (in primetime) until it becomes believable.
An observation is revealing. The NARAL advertisement only
began airing on primetime television immediately after President
George W. Bush’s inauguration. Did they cite these
supposed freedoms and principles before? They didn’t
have to, because Clinton and Gore and the regime they led didn’t
have any qualms accepting abortion as a legitimate freedom or
free choice as a founding principle. One can therefore
conclude that they are illegitimate claims, or they would have
made them previously, and that they make them now, in George W.
Bush’s presidency, precisely because they are not. They
do so now for propaganda purposes.
The pro-abortionist’s central philosophical construct seems to
be built as a three-legged stool, the legs being 1) the human
trait of free will, 2) expressed in free choice, and 3)
controlled only by an individual’s conscience. They are
ultimately asserting that woman’s conscience should be the
sole controlling factor, without any restriction of law.
Removal of but one leg of their stool collapses their argument,
but their line of reasoning can be destroyed without removing a
One well known public television and movie personality, a
minority woman and fervent defender of abortion, cited the issue
this way on NARAL’s web site: "It’s about our
life, ladies." She quite unintentionally hit the nail
on the head. What it’s truly about in the majority of
cases – statistics reveal - is preservation of the woman’s
lifestyle at the expense of an unborn child’s life. The
life of the unborn child is being traded for preservation or
advancement of the woman’s lifestyle, and in some cases, the
man’s lifestyle too.
How narcissistic is this obsession with self at the expense of
others! Imagine for a moment, if you can, your own life as
non-existent because you were an inconvenience at one time in
your parent’s life. Imagine none of your accomplishments
in life as having occurred at all. Do you see the flashes
of memory? No first steps. No tooth fairy. No
Santa Claus or Halloween trick-or-treating. No grade
school romances. No summer camp. No first
date. No successful closing of a business deal. No
celebration of an anniversary. Nothing.
Contrast where you are now in life with what you just tried to
imagine. Would you now support your parent’s decision to
abort you? If you say "yes", based on their
"right" to choose whether you live or die, then you
invalidate any good you have accomplished in life, any joy you
have given others, or any benefit you have rendered to
mankind. If however you say "no", but you
support abortion now as matter of choice, then you have no moral
basis to choose to sacrifice the life of the unborn. But
since when has hypocrisy stopped people who lack conscience?
Free Choice and Conscience for Other
"Choice" is attractive but logically defective,
because no one has unrestricted "freedom to
choose". Suppose however for a moment that "Free
Choice" was the true, legitimate issue. Why then does
not the average citizen have the right to "Free
Choice" about guns, or about taxation, or about education
for their children, or committing crime, or about any other
Why shouldn’t the law-abiding gun owner have "Free
Choice" about the guns they purchase and how and where they
will use them? Is not their conscience a sufficient check
on their behavior, as conscience is touted as controlling a
woman’s decision to choose to have an abortion? The
abortionist’s hypocrisy reveals their obsession with
self. Their advocacy for abortion represents selective
Conscience is poor protection for the unborn child.
Conscience hasn’t prevented 40 million deaths.
Conscience hasn’t stemmed abortion; instead, it has been
invoked to provide a thin veneer of intellectual respectability
to hide brutality and confuse and blunt criticism. Why
does conscience, if believed so effective at controlling the
behavior for the pro-abortionist, require the explicit
protection and backing of federal law?
In truth, conscience is but one check – law the other -
against the potential ugliness of human nature, yet it can be
effective if coupled with responsibility. In fact, for gun
owners, ironically, conscience, responsibility and respect for
just law are a far more effective check against human passion
than conscience and disrespect for moral law are for
pro-abortionists. Which is uglier – the conscience
displayed by women and their doctors who have killed more than
40 million unborn children in America since 1967? or the
conscience displayed by law-abiding gun-owning citizens?
Contrast twenty-six million women and 40,000,000 abortions with
427,846 murders by firearms in this nation since 1967.3
There have been 93 abortions to every single murder committed
with a firearm. Yet the liberal establishment condones the
practice of abortion while pursuing the ultimate objective of
denying law-abiding Americans their legitimate right to gun
ownership – which would do nothing to prevent gun-related
deaths, the vast majority of which are committed by
criminals. Further, many people murdered with a firearm
are not "innocent" victims, whereas every child
aborted is indeed innocent. The overwhelming threat to
public safety and security is from those who practice and
protect abortion as a "right".
Again, pro-abortionists want us to believe the issue is
fundamentally about the "right" of a woman to choose
to have an abortion, for any reason her conscience
dictates. They won’t finish the phrase for the majority
of the time it applies – the "right" to choose to
murder an innocent life out of personal convenience.
Conscience for pro-abortionists seems not to be an effective
Another analogy will highlight the hypocrisy of the
pro-abortion stance. Even a person who is pro-abortion
would file for patent protection on an idea before that idea
achieves fruition. In other words, her idea receives legal
protection against infringement before it matures into our
physical world. Why does an idea with a profit motive have
more value than human life? Why do our laws protect the
former, but not the latter?
The unborn child is literally our Creator’s idea. The
unborn child is not a biological accident. What this child
would become and accomplish in life is unknown to mortal
man. Whether destined for greatness or humble existence,
this child deserves society’s protection. That is our
responsibility. God alone has patent rights over us
all. Pro-abortionists infringe on His right, and frankly,
there is going to be hell to pay.
Frederic Bastiat, a Frenchman, authored a book in 1848 titled, The
Law. In it he stated, "We hold from God the gift
which includes all others. This gift is life – physical,
intellectual, and moral. But life cannot maintain itself
alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the
responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting
Someone I love told me this story and it is inserted here
because it is appropriate, following Bastiat’s
observation. Mother Teresa of Calcutta was approached by a
young person and confronted with a question. She was asked
why God had not sent us a cure for AIDS. Mother Teresa’s
reply was poignant: He may well have, but we aborted
it. Such wisdom – at once equally not provable and
irrefutable by man - expresses why abortion represents a threat
to society’s interests.
author's discussions with men who are pro-abortion have led
him to believe they avoid facing the moral implications of
abortion by simply stating the problem is not their
concern. If they are pro-abortion, more often than not,
they simply say abortion is a woman's choice. They don't
express the opinion with deep-rooted philosophical thought, and
cannot respond to deeper questions on the issue; rather, they
uncomfortably delegate the issue to the woman's conscience.
Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports, 1973-1999.
The author gives grateful acknowledgement to "Janine"
for her assistance with researching and providing statistics for
the years 1973-1994.
4 Frederic Bastiat, The Law. (Irvington-on-Hudson: Foundation for Economic
Education, Inc., translated by Dean Russell, 1996).
Copyright © Copyright © 2020, 2003, 2004
by Michael A. Wallace & America's Voices, Inc.
All rights reserved.
Wallace is a registered Republican, a former
Eagle Scout, a Lifetime Member of the National Rifle
Association, a strong believer in Second Amendment rights, a
retired Marine officer, and a pro-life advocate –- all things
liberals seem to dislike. In addition to his affiliation with
Voices, Mike is a founding member of ConservaVets,
a conservative veteran's organization (which has since become Rally4America).
Mike uses thorough constitutional and historical research to analyze and
explain key moral and political issues of the day. He particularly
enjoys debunking the myths and lies perpetrated by the many liberal
groups who claim to speak for most Americans and by those who
misrepresent Constitutional principles to further their own agendas. E-mail
Mike at firstname.lastname@example.org.