Friday, January 1, 2010

Choice?

I just read that NARAL, the pro-abortion group, named Personhood USA as a nominee to its Hall of Shame, even though the Personhood USA organization is only just one year old. Personhood USA linked to the NARAL announcement on their blog post about it, and I couldn't help but follow the link to the NARAL Prochoice America site and read some of the vile things that they have there. I am continually amazed at how the pro-abortion side has warped the English language to justify their position on baby-killing.

The pro-abortion side claims to be "pro-choice," thus labeling those of us who believe that murdering babies in the womb ought to be considered murder in our laws, "anti-choice." I normally like to refute the whole "pro-choice" label in the following manner...

A single woman gets pregnant. She can: 1) decide to keep the baby and raise it herself (perhaps with help from her family), 2) decide to carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption, or 3) decide to kill the baby via abortion. Another woman finds out that her husband is cheating on her with another woman. She can, 1) try to work things out with her husband, assuming that he wants to stay in the marriage and that he is genuinely sorry for his infidelity, 2) divorce her husband, no matter how much he apologizes or begs, or 3) kill her husband or hire someone to kill him for her.

What is the difference between option three in the first scenario and option three in the second scenario? Both of them involve the premeditated, intentional killing of a human being. Both of them would bring a great deal of shame and guilt upon the women initiating the killings. Both of them involve a dead victim. Why is one considered a crime worthy of prison time, while the other is perfectly legal (and, if the current healthcare bill passes, might even be paid for by the government)? Does the illegality of one somehow remove the "choice" from the woman involved? If it did, there would not be any instances of a woman killing her unfaithful husband (or vice-versa). Of course, we all know that isn't the case.

Those of us who want to protect the right to life of unborn children are not "anti-choice" any more than those who favor legalized abortion are "pro-choice." The choices will always remain. The question is, do we recognize and protect the right to life of all human beings? The pro-abortion people are always spouting off their "Against abortion? Then don't have one," slogan, which just demonstrates how little regard they have for human life. If they had been around in the 1850's, they might also have been saying, "Against slavery? Then don't own slaves."

The entire issue of abortion needs to revolve around those being victimized the most by abortion, the unborn children. Are children in the womb alive? And if they are alive, are they human beings? The answers to both of those questions are a resounding and unequivocal YES! That's what the personhood movement and Personhood USA (and by extenstion, this Texas Personhood blog) are all about.

2 comments:

  1. Bam! You're right, Dan.
    We at Personhood U.S.A. are honored to be "shamed" by people who advocate baby-muder.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We Pro-Lifers should all, also, be "pro-choice" as defined by the "choice" God made when He created a living "person" at the time of CONCEPTION! From that instant on NO one (man, woman or especially politician) has any "choice" in the matter.

    ReplyDelete