As we engage in the Fight for Unborn Life in many different arenas, it is vital that we use words, phrases, and terminology with truthfulness and wisdom.  It is also essential that we unmask and tear down words and phrases that are meant to intentionally deceive and destroy us.

In my book, Media Revolution, I coined a term that describes the intentional use of deceptive words and phrases – the Name Game.

There is perhaps no better example of the Name Game than the term “pro-choice.”

The term is a fabricated phrase that has been used with enormous effectiveness to deceive the entire nation.

In these next few emails, I’ll outline why “pro-choice” is the grandest of lies and how we should combat it.  Make no mistake – the Fight for Unborn Life is fought in the heart AND mind.  And abortion advocates have shrewdly changed our culture through the use of the Name Game.

The term “pro-choice” was created by abortion advocates to avoid the obvious unpleasantness of being “pro-abortion.”  It first appeared in print in 1975 and has become one of the most powerful terms associated with any movement in American history.

Wikipedia defines pro-choice as “(a term that) describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy. This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights, including access to sexual education, to safe and legal abortion, and to contraception and fertility treatments.”

The Wiki article was obviously written by a pro-abortion proponent, as it contains a number of deceptions even at first glance.

Today we’ll examine the “what” and “who” of the term “pro-choice” as supported by abortion advocates.

1.  What choice do pro-abortion advocates support?

The answer is in the definition above – “the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy.”  As Wikipedia continues, “This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights.”

Abortion advocates maintain that a woman has the right to choose whether or not to stay pregnant. The sad irony of that choice, however, is that it ignores the rights of another human being and, by doing so, allows one person to legally take the life of another.

It is here where many abortion advocates get upset because they either ignore or refute that life begins at conception.  Ignoring it is the only logical position, since science no longer leaves any doubt that life begins at conception.

The fact that an egg and sperm bring separate genetic material together in the first cell is universally accepted.  There is no doubt that this new organism is completely distinct from the woman in which he/she grows.  The heart of this new being begins to beat at around 18 days from conception.

Those who argue that an embryo is just a mass of tissue must present the burden of proof to substantiate that.  A mass of tissue does not have a heartbeat, nor does it contain completely distinct genetic material from its host.  From the moment of conception, the embryo is alive and developing.

If we correctly accept the fact that the embryo is alive, we then must also accept that it is of the same species as the mother – a human being. The embryo is not an ape or a grasshopper. It is a person.

The question then becomes one of rights.  When does the human being inside the mother have the same rights bestowed on him/her as the parents?

This is the crux of the argument.  Many believe rights should not be bestowed until birth.  Others argue rights should be bestowed at conception. Those of us who hold to a high view of life believe rights are bestowed at conception.  Science supports the fact that an embryo is simply a “younger us.”  As such, an embryo belongs to our species.  Logically, then, this “younger us” should be protected from harm just as we would expect an “older us” to be protected from harm.

2.  This leads us to “who” question.  Who does the pro-abortion movement really support?

The answer is they support the profits made from the abortion industry.  In the marketing sense, however, they support the mother only.

The term “pro-choice” is designed to appeal to our American ideals of freedom and liberty.  How dare we tell a woman what to do with her body?  That’s un-American!  The idea is that, by requiring that a woman must carry a baby to term, we are removing her American rights.  We are removing her choice.

The rights of the innocent are ignored.  In fact, they are trampled on.  And we rarely hear that half of the 50 million aborted Americans happened to be female. So much for women’s rights.

Pro-abortionists are skilled at convincing us that the “choice” is primarily that of being pregnant or not. Wikipedia calls it “reproductive rights.”  But they are wrong.  Every choice we make in life has consequences. The real choice for women  and men is whether or not to engage in premarital or illicit sexual intercourse.  Let’s face reality – no sex, no pregnancy. If we choose to have sex, we drastically increase the chances of becoming pregnant.

In our sex-saturated culture, it is generally assumed that sex is also a right, regardless of whether or not it takes place inside of marriage and whether or not a child is desired.  So we have the right to have sex whenever we want (and with whomever we want), and we also have the right to end a pregnancy if it results from having sex.

Do you see the twisted logic? The primary choice (do I have sex?) is ignored in favor of the resulting or secondary choice (do I keep the baby?). The first choice involves a woman and a man.  The second choice, though, involves three people.  And that third person is robbed of their rights and their choice.

Make no mistake. “Pro-choice” is “pro-abortion”, and “pro-abortion” is “pro-death.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating