Proponents of legalized abortion constantly couch their rhetoric in terms of "choice" -- women should have "the right to choose" to abort their unborn children. They cringe when regressive, medieval fanatics like me suggest that some choices are bad and should be outlawed. This suggestion, naturally, makes me "anti-choice."
I can't tell you how many times I've been lectured about not "imposing my morality" on other people. The implication is that my opposition to abortion is based on my "belief" that life begins at conception, and that I can't legislate this article of faith on others.
This argument has always puzzled me, since the pro-life movement, by and large, uses logical and scientific arguments to prove that life does begin at conception -- and that that life is worthy of protection. Briefly, the unborn child is growing and developing, so it must be alive. It certainly can't be anything other than a member of the species Homo sapiens; that is, it must be a human being. And it can't be a mere extension of the mother's body, because it has a completely separate and unique genetic code.
The assertion that life begins at conception is not an article of faith. It is a reality that our laws must reflect. The pro-"choice" argument ultimately devolves into an assertion that it is OK to kill certain innocent humans, under certain circumstances. This is the morality of "might makes right" -- and we're into the very essence of the philosophy that has driven genocide after tragic genocide throughout human history.
For all their talk about not imposing morality, pro-choicers attempt to impose their morality an awful lot. Since "might makes right" is central to the entire "pro-choice" movement, it shouldn't be surprising to find out that abortion rights activists are imposing their will on people all across America.
Let me give you some examples. Recently, the Tennessee state legislature authorized the production of license plates that read "Choose Life" -- which doesn't seem like such a controversial statement. Don't pro-choicers, after all, say they want abortion to be "safe, rare and legal"? Don't pro-choicers favor "choice" -- meaning they don't care whether you choose life or abortion? Well, guess again. The American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood Federation of America sued the state because it wasn't printing a similar, alternative license plate, which presumably would encourage abortion.
NARAL Pro-Choice America, whose departing president, Kate Michelman, spoke at Penn last year, opposed the passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which requires that people who murder pregnant women be charged with two counts of homicide. Polls show that nearly 80 percent of Americans support this common-sense legislation. But -- in the name of "choice" -- NARAL refused to recognize the value of even a wanted child.
In a telling misstep, NARAL also originally opposed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which requires abortionists to be accountable for the lives of children "accidentally" born alive in the process of a botched abortion. Prior to the enactment of this law, infants born alive during an abortion would often be left to die. NARAL, apparently, was OK with this. Thankfully, the bill sailed through Congress with virtually no opposition.
The last several years have seen discrimination against private and religious hospitals that refuse to provide abortion services. The ACLU's "Reproductive Freedom Project" has issued reports specifically threatening hundreds of Catholic hospitals across the country with lawsuits if they receive public funding and don't provide abortion and contraception services. NARAL even says that conscience clauses, which protect the rights of conscientious objectors not to participate in abortions, are "dangerous for women's health." Whatever happened to the "right to choose"?
Finally, there is evidence to suggest that, when women considering abortion see their unborn children by ultrasound, most decide to bring their pregnancies to term. The Informed Consent Act, pending in Congress, would provide grants to pregnancy centers to offer free sonograms to pregnant women. Why would anyone oppose this? As one Long Island, N.Y. abortionist told The New York Times, "The bottom line is no woman is going to want an abortion after she sees a sonogram."
We need to foster a culture where mothers know they can bring their pregnancies to term. But the pro-choice movement doesn't offer women real choices. According to Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute, there were 1.3 million induced abortions in 2000, at an average cost of $487 each. Abortionists have built themselves quite a lucrative industry, and they have no incentive to encourage women to choose anything but abortion.
There is an ongoing, systematic effort in this country to smother anything that might influence women to choose life, and to compel pro-lifers to support abortion. Can we expect anything more from an industry whose core philosophy is "might makes right"?
So much for "choice" and not "imposing morality."
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.
