The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing -- Edmund Burke

Home  TOC  Sitemap  Search

Alerts - Petitions - Polls - Surveys

Archives  Features  Cartoons

About Us  Contact Us

Conservative Calendar of Events

Election 2002

Columnists  Guest Voices  Bios

Publishers Corner


Abortion
The Shame of America

Part 2

Michael A. Wallace

mwallace@americasvoices.org      
biography
archives


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 single leg.

Convenience/Lifestyle

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.
2

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 Issues

"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 issue?

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 anarchy.

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 deterrent.

Patent Protection

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 it."
4

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.

The 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.

Federal 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.
Michael A. 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 America's 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 mwallace@americasvoices.org.

 

Home  TOC  Sitemap  Search

Alerts - Petitions - Polls - Surveys

Archives  Features  Cartoons

About Us  Contact Us

Conservative Calendar of Events

Election 2002

Columnists  Guest Voices  Bios

Publishers Corner

Awards

D-Day inaugural
feature article

www.americasvoices.org
publisher@americasvoices.org
editor@americasvoices.org
webmaster@americasvoices.org

Disclaimer

Editor's Mailbag
Publishing Guidelines

Copyright © Copyright © 2020, 2003, 2004 by America's Voices, Inc.
Columbus, Ohio.  All rights reserved.

America's Voices, America's Voices University, americasvoices.org and www.AmericasVoices.org are service marks of America's Voices, Inc. a not-for-profit educational organization.