Abortion Strips A Woman’s Free Choice

The way to end abortion is to show women that abortion strips them of freedom. Abortion does not preserve choice; abortion pollutes choice.

Killing in the name of freedom does not preserve one’s own freedom. Women nearly always have the freedom to kill; they do not always have the right to kill.

Pro-choice activists tell women that in order to preserve their freedom, they must defend their right to kill their children. But the question is not whether an act is committed freely, but whether it is an objectively good act. If you freely choose to do something that harms your own life or the life of another, you are perverting your freedom.

For example, we do not applaud a lonely woman for freely choosing to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge and end her life. We applaud the woman who makes the harder choice to preserve her life by facing, treating and overcoming her isolation head-on. Nor do we applaud a destitute man for freely choosing to break into a wealthy family’s home. We applaud the man who burns the midnight oil until he can support himself.

We have a U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Roe v. Wade) which asserts that it is fine to kill babies when they are growing in their mother’s wombs. Many American women think that this precedent is ethical because it defends their freedom to choose.

However, this precedent does not defend female choice consistently. For, a woman cannot “choose” not to be a mother once the baby comes out and starts crying, pooping and peeing. Two women can make the same choice and the Supreme Court will applaud one woman for making the choice early and send another woman to jail for procrastinating.

American abortion precedent sends the mobster-like message: “You want to kill? Just make it quick and dirty and don’t tell nobody. Capisce?”

An unplanned pregnancy can be hard to face. For the woman, it can appear as though she should have the right to choose to end her baby’s life so that she does not need to deal with the expected inconvenience.

But how can we compare inconvenience to life? It seems like they can’t be weighed against each other in this way. How can the worth of a human being’s life be less than the (assumed) flexibility to be gained without the (assumed) burden of another life? If life itself is worth less than maneuverability, then life is not worth much at all—including the woman’s own life. And, using this logic, a single father could take his teenage daughter’s life if she became a “burden” to him.

In order to show women that choosing life can expand their field of choices, I think we should:

More young women would say “yes” to life but “not yet” to motherhood if their doctors, friends and family members encouraged them to choose adoption over abortion.

What woman would want to choose abortion if she knew the side effects of her choice, including permanent physical and psychological pain? Why don’t women’s magazines committed to “female health,” such as SELF, Glamour and Cosmopolitan tell women the truth about how abortion rips apart their bodies? After all, they devote most of their content to sex, and abortion is a choice women make after having unplanned sex.

When we tell women that babies in wombs are not persons (as Roe v. Wade does), we are not helping women to live “freely.” We are damaging their psyches by promoting a lie. This is because murder violates natural law, which comes from reason. And, if you believe in God, murder violates divine law (see the 5^th Commandment), which comes from God.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano explains on FOX News, our culture needs to admit what science and reason tells us, that babies in wombs are persons.

I think the best way to convince women not to have abortions is to show them that abortion actually degrades their humanity and strips their free will rather than expanding their range of choices.

This week is the 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in America. Since the decision, over 56 million innocent children have been aborted, an average of 3,835 lives per day. That’s worth repeating: Every day around 3,835 innocent lives are taken by abortion, higher than any other cause, and yet this sad fact is known by so few of the public or rarely reported by the media.

In contrast, consider the public attention brought to Adam Lanza’s shooting spree in Newtown, Connecticut just over a month ago that took the lives of 26 people, including 20 second-graders at Sandy Hook Elementary who left this earth way too early. The tragedy rightfully dominated public consciousness and the news for a week, and the aftermath is still being covered, as it should, as we attempt to discern how to reduce the incident of such attacks.

But should the tragedy of abortion be covered less than the tragedy of Newtown?

In terms of lives lost, the daily number of abortions equates to having almost 150 Newtowns every single day for an entire year for 40 straight years.

And yet there is no daily coverage of this fact. Why does Newtown shock us but not abortion?

Are the innocent lives taken by abortion not as equal, not as valuable to us?

Many would consider abortion an even greater tragedy as the child is not given a chance to live for even one moment on this Earth.

When over 100,000 Americans join the March for Life later this week in Washington, DC, as they do each year, why is it likely to receive so little public attention as it always does? This is despite it being the largest public rally in America almost every single year.

Would not the media intensely cover a 100,000 person march for gun control or mental health legislation that was inspired by Newtown? Of course they would.

Now to be fair, public consciousness has not been entirely absent on matters related to pregnancy. It did recently focus on the announcement by Prince William and Princess Kate that they are having a baby.

Note that all of the media coverage and public discussion of the announcement said that it is a baby, recognition that it is a human life, not merely a glob of tissue. They called it the Royal Baby, not the Royal Glob of Tissue.

If everyone recognizes that it is a baby in Princess Kate’s womb, is it not a baby for all pregnant women? For her being a royal does not change this matter of simple logic.

And if it is a baby, a human life, for all pregnant women, is not the destruction of human life in the womb of all women murder?

It must be.

So we have 3,835 murders via abortion per day on average since 1973, the equivalent of almost 150 Newtowns every single day, and yet we apparently have had more important things to talk about, to care about, like Royal Weddings and the fiscal cliff, all the while this genocide continues before our very eyes.

Will we be part of an indifferent generation?

If you believe in an afterlife and make it there, when you meet the 56 million children who have been aborted in the United States since Roe vs. Wade, what will you say to them when you meet each and every one of them eye-to-eye? Will you tell them you had more important things to be concerned about than their lives?

Unfortunately, abortion supporters don't see the unborn child as anything but tissue, and therefore won't equate the millions of dead babies with any of the recent massacres. Furthermore, I doubt many believe in the afterlife or that they'll have to meet the babies that were aborted. What all of this means is that your arguments would fall on deaf ears.

Unfortunately, we can't count on most men to make a stand on this, because most men support abortion rights. As long as they don't get hit with child support payments, they don't care what happens after they've shot their load.

In this environment, I don't know what we can do to turn this around. Unless our society as a whole sees unborn babies as human beings, it will never accept our arguments against abortion.

Ultimately, yes. She is the one in control of her own body. She gets final say on whether she will position herself to get pregnant.

As for me, I don't believe in intercourse outside of marriage. Besides, I don't have any abortion rights. So my job as the male would be to disrespect the woman enough to get her pregnant, and then convince her that abortion is the only option.

Abortion is man's best friend. It allows them to treat women as sperm receptacles without any consequence to themselves. Women are the ones who get scarred for life over it - a little tid bit that the abortion supporters conveniently forget to tell them.

If women want control of their bodies, then they should take control of their bodies. If they don't want to be pregnant, then don't engage in activities that lead to pregnancy, which in this case means allowing a man to ejaculate inside of them. That is their choice.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.