Lauren Enriquez, Human Coalition’s Public Relations Manager, is a fantastic thinker, writer, and defender of preborn children, their moms, and their families.
On Monday, the New York Times published one of Lauren’s op-eds entitled “How the New Feminist Resistance Leaves Out American Women.” Kudos to Lauren for being published in the Times, and kudos to the Times for publishing a piece that runs counter to its typical philosophy.
I encourage you to take a moment to read Lauren’s piece. In it, she rejects hyper-feminism, declaring that their infatuation with promoting abortion is directly opposed to the genuine empowerment of women. She maintains that a fanatical movement hell bent on providing unrestricted abortions doesn’t properly represent the majority of women in the U.S.
As you might imagine, the comments she received on Twitter (@LNEnriquez) and Facebook were quite… colorful. And Human Coalition has been fielding angry, vitriolic emails ever since the article went live. Here are just a few examples:
“Yes, thank you for illustrating how self-loathing women can be the enemy of progress too. Mind your own vaginas.”
“Your NYT piece is a disgrace. The #prochoice movement respects women’s right [to] choose birth. Some of us will always choose abortion.”
“YOU are a liar, pure and simple; and as a medical professional, you should and will one day be ashamed of yourself. Hope you enjoy the coin you make from self-righteously and fraudulently selling out women, pretending you have any authority on this subject other than a sick desire to feel falsely “heroic” like only cowards attempt, and blatantly trying to misrepresent voices that are already having such a hard time being heard. SHAME on you. You are a disgrace.”
When we in the life-affirming community receive such negative feedback, it presents a fabulous opportunity for us to provide an informed, winsome, and candid response. Remember, there is nothing truthful, morally accurate, or scientifically supportable about abortion. The entire enterprise is built on lies, driven by emotion, and supported by nothing but air and pomposity. Every single negative comment Human Coalition has received that pushes abortion rights is fabricated on nonsense and easily debunked.
As I’ve reviewed the litany of responses Lauren received, a few themes popped out at me. You probably deal with these all the time in your conversations about abortion. I hope my responses will arm you to properly engage in the abortion debate and, hopefully, win some converts.The term “pro-choice” was invented in the 1970s by some pro-abortion men who were trying to figure out how to market abortion more effectively. Click To Tweet
Just remember – there are no winning abortion arguments. The truth is always, always on your side.
- “There is no such thing as ‘pro-abortion.’ I’m pro-choice. I don’t like abortion, but I believe every woman should have the right to choose abortion if they wish.”
Hogwash. To be pro-choice is to be pro-abortion. The term “pro-choice” was invented in the 1970s by some pro-abortion men who were trying to figure out how to market abortion more effectively. They were extraordinarily successful in their efforts.
Someone who makes this claim is just riding the fence and unable to muster the necessary courage to firmly plant themselves in the pro-abortion camp. They don’t want to be seen as mean or nasty, so they hide their abortion advocacy behind what they think is women’s empowerment.
Here’s how nonsensical this argument is. Let’s say you were “pro-college.” In other words, you were in favor of people having the option to go to college if they wished, but you were also fine if people decided not to go to college. No one would have any issue with you – in fact, you’d be seen as fair-minded and sober.
Now, let’s say you were “pro-rape.” In other words, you were in favor of people having the option to rape someone if they wished, but you were also fine if people decided not to rape anyone. You personally wouldn’t dream of raping anyone, but you couldn’t find it within yourself to force your moral or religious beliefs about rape on anyone else.
Your friends and family would think you were nuts. But what is the difference between being pro-college and being pro-rape? Both positions give the freedom for people to make their own choices and live out their desires – free from moral or religious obligation.
The answer is, of course, that one choice has no moral consequence, while the other is a moral evil. Choosing whether to go or not go to college has no moral weight. Choosing to rape someone is evil.
This is the genius of the “pro-choice” marketing scheme (and why Human Coalition does not use the term). It effectively removes the abortion argument from the realm of right and wrong, and places it in the context of supposed women’s rights.
The abortion holocaust has nothing to do with choice. But it has everything to do with right and wrong. If you support the choice to fatally discriminate against an entire class of human beings simply because they are inconvenient, smaller than you, less developed, or not financially feasible, then you are not pro-choice. You are pro-abortion. Stop hiding behind the marketing fluff and be honest with yourself. You support the greatest discrimination of human beings in the history of the world. That may sound monstrous to you – and that’s because it is.The abortion holocaust has nothing to do with choice. But it has everything to do with right and wrong. Click To Tweet
- “Do you support universal healthcare? Are you going to adopt these babies? Aren’t you part of the conspiracy to cut social welfare programs? You pro-lifers are hypocritical – only caring about the baby and leaving the woman to her own devices.”
This pro-abortion argument has about a thousand variations, all of which are intended to intimidate. And they have nothing to do with the morality of abortion.
Let’s say a mother of a 2-year-old falls on hard times. She loses her job, her boyfriend walks out, and she has no healthcare. Should we give her the legal right to kill her toddler in order to relieve her stress and tension, and improve her financial situation? If not, why not?
Most Americans would say that such a suggestion is immoral and awful, and they’d be right. So… what’s the difference between killing a 2-year-old and killing a baby in the womb?
Nothing. There is no scientific, moral, philosophical, or biblical reason to say we should protect and provide for one class of children (toddlers) but kill at will another class of children (preborn).
This abortion argument is an attempt to deflect and shame. It deflects from the key argument (who are the preborn and why should it be legal to kill them), and it shames unprepared pro-lifers into silence (you don’t support universal healthcare, you don’t adopt, etc.).
Whether or not we adopt, support big or small government, or volunteer at a soup kitchen or a pet care facility has absolutely nothing to do with the morality of abortion. Should we be very concerned about those things and work to care for the weak, vulnerable, oppressed, and downtrodden? Absolutely, yes. Does our participation or nonparticipation in those activities impact the morality of abortion? Not one bit.
The underlying premise is rather insidious, and most people who espouse this argument haven’t thought it through. The point is this: if you don’t agree with my political or community views, then your position on the value of human life is invalid.
Friends, the value of human life has nothing to do with our opinion about it.
- “You don’t have the right to force your beliefs on others! Keep your religious mumbo jumbo to yourself. You can’t legislate my morality.”
Yawn. This argument is over 40 years old. And it is so trite and mindless that it’s almost not worth addressing. However, this nonsensical argument persists in various forms, so here goes.
Why do we have speed limits? We have speed limits so people will drive responsibly and not kill other people.
Do speed limits infringe on my personal autonomy? Yes.
Do speed limits limit my choices? Yes.
Do speed limits legislate my behavior? Yes.
Why is theft illegal? Because the state is supposed to help protect our personal property.
Do laws against theft infringe on my personal autonomy? Yes.
Do they limit my choices? Yes
Do they legislate my morality? Yes.
The primary purpose of law is to legislate our morality. We have laws to protect us because we are sinners who otherwise would hurt ourselves and other people. If there are no consequences for illegal behavior, then society falls into anarchy and eventually falls apart. Laws exist, in some fashion, to force us into morally acceptable behavior for the betterment of society.
That Western law is heavily derived from biblical principles is irrefutable fact and something we should not apologize for. The Bible is the greatest book ever written – something the Founding Fathers (even the deists) acknowledged and espoused as they crafted our government.
We are a nation founded on the principle that God gave us certain inalienable rights, and the government is in place to protect those rights.The current abortion legislation in our nation is the greatest moral breach, destruction of freedom, and genocidal holocaust; and it’s the worst example of social injustice in the history of our country. Click To Tweet
I realize many people don’t agree that American law and government were formed on biblical principles. They are wrong.
I realize many Americans think the slaughter of millions of preborn children and the destruction of their mothers is an empowering right and an expression of freedom. They are wrong.
“You can’t legislate my morality!” Of course our morality is legislated. And the current abortion legislation in our nation is the greatest moral breach, destruction of freedom, and genocidal holocaust; and it’s the worst example of social injustice in the history of our country.
Congrats again to Lauren on her excellent article. Keep up the great work and keep speaking up for women all across the country who are genuinely concerned about the quality of women’s lives – including those not yet born.