Robert Meyer
Anatomy of a poor choice
By Robert Meyer
I have heard many people claiming that the new law banning partial-birth abortion is just a cloaked means of chipping away at Roe vs. Wade. Well, to be honest, I sure hope so! But, realistically the bill will have to survive a court challenge, and all the pro-abortion pundits will be spinning rhetoric higher and deeper than ever before.
Was this procedure even authorized under the constitutionally illusionary Roe vs. Wade? What about choice? Unless there is rape or coerced incest involved, is a choice not made when one chooses to engage in behaviors likely to result in pregnancy? And where an unwanted or "inconvenient" baby is involved, the option to adopt is available. What about saving the life of the mother? If such a case ever becomes more than a theoretical obstacle, I'm sure that medical and legal experts could grant an exception. But my understanding is that such a contingency was already crafted into the bill, thus the usual suspects are flapping their jaws needlessly. Still there are the usual suspects, certain federal judges, trying to stonewall the application of this law. And what can a partial-birth abortion accomplish in saving the life of the mother, that an emergency C-section can't? The point is, we ought to make a law governing the usual case and not the rare anomaly. To do otherwise, is to say that we should have no traffic signals, because we might someday have to stop at a red light, at 4 A.M., when no other vehicles are on the road.
It is obvious that abortion advocates can not win the debate appealing to reason, but they have won the battles with appeals to emotion and sophistry. Consider the nomenclature of "pro-choice." While it appears to identify groups or individuals who are philosophically predisposed to opportunities to chose, quite the opposite is the case.
Take the opportunity to question any pro-abortion hardliner. Ask them for example, if they believe in the rights of the people through the state, to execute criminals convicted of a capital offense. Ask them if they believe in school choice by means of vouchers or tuition tax credits See if they believe in the right of citizens to bear arms. Do they believe in the right of organizations like the BSA to exclude potential or current members, who can't abide by their oath or meet the moral standards of membership? What about the choice of a student valedictorian to share their reverence for God in a graduation day speech? All of these rights are directly tied to The Bill of Rights, or in principle, were options for people at the founding of this nation. Abortion on the other hand, was discovered by Justice Blackmun, in the "penumbra" of the constitution some three decades ago.
Pro-choice really means pro-abortion. In order to make the pro-choice label applicable to any meaningful philosophical position as it relates to reproductive issues, there would have to be a group in opposition to the right of women to give birth to children. As far as I know there is not.
Want more evidence about "choice"? Anne Nicol Gaylor, co-founder of the "Freedom from Religion Foundation," issued a news release some time ago entitled, Who Says Atheists Can't Start Charities? The purpose of their "Women's Medical Fund" was to pay expenses for indigent women to have abortions. But one might wonder, if they are pro-choice, would they also pay the expenses of the women carrying their children to term for adoption? Would they consider financial aid for the woman electing to keep the child? Aren't these also "choices"?
Another soft spot in the war of clever terminology, is to brand the developing baby a "fetus" or "product of conception." The term "fetus" though, is a latin word meaning "unborn baby." As for "product of conception," a baby certainly is that, unlike a piece of facial hair or other things I have heard the developing child compared to. To dehumanize a classification of human life by legal authority or convenient terminology, is a means by which genocide has been legitimized in the past. In 1936 the Nazi Supreme Court declared that Jews were "non-humans." What happened after that?
Today on T.V., we have all sorts of options for viewing, some of which are vulgar, pornographic, violent or are basically in poor taste. Civil libertarians defend these as freedom of speech. Add to that, we have video tapes of all sorts of surgical procedures that are aired on educational channels, some of which make people squeamish. Well fair is fair, so why don't we show a procedure of patial-birth abortion on television, then let the public decide? Walking down the street holding up a poster of an aborted child isn't my cup of tea, but it does illustrate P.O.C.: the product of choice.
Once I was so naive that I thought the abortion argument hinged on an honest disagreement over when life begins. I never imagined that anyone could believe this issue was really a clandestine plot to keep women pregnant and in the kitchen. But we will hear even stranger things in shameless defense of this Hitleresque practice, once the pot of dissension gets boiling.
© Robert Meyer
I have heard many people claiming that the new law banning partial-birth abortion is just a cloaked means of chipping away at Roe vs. Wade. Well, to be honest, I sure hope so! But, realistically the bill will have to survive a court challenge, and all the pro-abortion pundits will be spinning rhetoric higher and deeper than ever before.
Was this procedure even authorized under the constitutionally illusionary Roe vs. Wade? What about choice? Unless there is rape or coerced incest involved, is a choice not made when one chooses to engage in behaviors likely to result in pregnancy? And where an unwanted or "inconvenient" baby is involved, the option to adopt is available. What about saving the life of the mother? If such a case ever becomes more than a theoretical obstacle, I'm sure that medical and legal experts could grant an exception. But my understanding is that such a contingency was already crafted into the bill, thus the usual suspects are flapping their jaws needlessly. Still there are the usual suspects, certain federal judges, trying to stonewall the application of this law. And what can a partial-birth abortion accomplish in saving the life of the mother, that an emergency C-section can't? The point is, we ought to make a law governing the usual case and not the rare anomaly. To do otherwise, is to say that we should have no traffic signals, because we might someday have to stop at a red light, at 4 A.M., when no other vehicles are on the road.
It is obvious that abortion advocates can not win the debate appealing to reason, but they have won the battles with appeals to emotion and sophistry. Consider the nomenclature of "pro-choice." While it appears to identify groups or individuals who are philosophically predisposed to opportunities to chose, quite the opposite is the case.
Take the opportunity to question any pro-abortion hardliner. Ask them for example, if they believe in the rights of the people through the state, to execute criminals convicted of a capital offense. Ask them if they believe in school choice by means of vouchers or tuition tax credits See if they believe in the right of citizens to bear arms. Do they believe in the right of organizations like the BSA to exclude potential or current members, who can't abide by their oath or meet the moral standards of membership? What about the choice of a student valedictorian to share their reverence for God in a graduation day speech? All of these rights are directly tied to The Bill of Rights, or in principle, were options for people at the founding of this nation. Abortion on the other hand, was discovered by Justice Blackmun, in the "penumbra" of the constitution some three decades ago.
Pro-choice really means pro-abortion. In order to make the pro-choice label applicable to any meaningful philosophical position as it relates to reproductive issues, there would have to be a group in opposition to the right of women to give birth to children. As far as I know there is not.
Want more evidence about "choice"? Anne Nicol Gaylor, co-founder of the "Freedom from Religion Foundation," issued a news release some time ago entitled, Who Says Atheists Can't Start Charities? The purpose of their "Women's Medical Fund" was to pay expenses for indigent women to have abortions. But one might wonder, if they are pro-choice, would they also pay the expenses of the women carrying their children to term for adoption? Would they consider financial aid for the woman electing to keep the child? Aren't these also "choices"?
Another soft spot in the war of clever terminology, is to brand the developing baby a "fetus" or "product of conception." The term "fetus" though, is a latin word meaning "unborn baby." As for "product of conception," a baby certainly is that, unlike a piece of facial hair or other things I have heard the developing child compared to. To dehumanize a classification of human life by legal authority or convenient terminology, is a means by which genocide has been legitimized in the past. In 1936 the Nazi Supreme Court declared that Jews were "non-humans." What happened after that?
Today on T.V., we have all sorts of options for viewing, some of which are vulgar, pornographic, violent or are basically in poor taste. Civil libertarians defend these as freedom of speech. Add to that, we have video tapes of all sorts of surgical procedures that are aired on educational channels, some of which make people squeamish. Well fair is fair, so why don't we show a procedure of patial-birth abortion on television, then let the public decide? Walking down the street holding up a poster of an aborted child isn't my cup of tea, but it does illustrate P.O.C.: the product of choice.
Once I was so naive that I thought the abortion argument hinged on an honest disagreement over when life begins. I never imagined that anyone could believe this issue was really a clandestine plot to keep women pregnant and in the kitchen. But we will hear even stranger things in shameless defense of this Hitleresque practice, once the pot of dissension gets boiling.
© Robert Meyer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
