You Might Say You're 'Pro-Choice,' But All I Hear Is 'Redistribution Of Oppression'

/ Commentary

Rarely do I compose rebuttal pieces responding to incorrect claims made by abortion-choice advocates pertaining to the pro-life movement and what it stands for. Most everyone sharing my view of abortion knows the plethora of baseless criticisms hurled at us on a regular basis are not worth our time or energy — however, once in a while a particular submission making its rounds online obliges one to stop and set the record straight.

One such submission is the article titled You Might Say You’re ‘Pro-Life’ But All I Hear Is ‘Anti-Womens’ Rights by Diane Brewer — presumably a student attending Sam Houston State University. She puts forth multiple arguments, all of which paint pro-lifers as uncompassionate and uneducated zealots who are “calling women baby-killers outside of Planned Parenthood.” The following is a systematic refutation of these arguments:

“While pro-choice isn’t exactly anti-life, pro-life is the exact same as anti-choice.”

Assuming by “anti-choice” she is labeling pro-lifers as adamantly against a woman choosing to have an abortion, she is correct. That I am not sorry for. However, if we were to attach this same logic to the term “pro-choice,” again, consistently sticking with “choice” as meaning the choice of abortion, the opinion of the “pro-choice” movement could be none other than one which is pro-abortion. If one desires to meticulously analyze each potential denotation behind each label, one has to fairly apply it to each. Pro-choicers will stop at nothing to reiterate they support a woman to have all options in regards to her pregnancy — including abortion. Allow me to reiterate my side, then: we support a woman’s choice to abstain from sexual intercourse, to responsibly utilize birth control, to give life to her child and subsequently raise said child, or give life to her child and put said child up for adoption in a home longing desperately for one.

I, nor my fellow pro-lifers, support the so-called “choice” of a woman to allow a doctor to end the life of her child. This, again, we are not sorry for.

Neither poverty nor rape serve as scenarios that deem abortion morally acceptable.

Before I get verbally assaulted for being a “rape apologist,” leave me room to initiate this section with the proclamation that rape is horrendous. I would like nothing more than to see convicted rapists leave prison without their genitals, and to have them punished to the full extent of the law.

A dead child is not a justified method of alleviating the evil, or even the effects, of this crime.

It is wrong to intentionally kill human beings. The truth in this statement does not change when the atrocity of rape is involved. The life potentially procured during this ordeal should not be subject to any punishment — let alone one legally and sensically more extreme than the ramifications the perpetrator is receiving. This life is innocent, and this life is a human being.

What’s more, statistically-speaking, abortion as an action taken due to both rape and incest account for about 1.5% of all terminations of pregnancy. Let us not use a less than 2 in 100 fraction as an overarching point in advocacy for abortion. 1.5% is not an overarching figure in the least.

Killing people because one’s finances are not in check is wrong. This may be an insensitive tone to describe the plight of being pregnant while impoverished — but perhaps it is needed when the initial contention suggested putting a price tag of convenience on a human life.

Since the preborn are undeniably human, we can attest the value of their lives being priceless. If a family unit of five in poverty were struggling to feed sufficiently every member, would slaughtering the youngest, weakest child of the three in the street be condoned by society or basic morality? I will allow the reader to answer this question. Just as this scenario is horrific and illegal, if abortion were done on the street, much like where the theoretical child was killed, the horror of it would be revealed; and I can confidently anticipate this would be deemed illegal immediately.  

Your biology regarding preborn children is dishonest, and I recommend looking slightly longer for an up-to-date source on fetal anatomy proving life begins at conception — because, believe me — there are many.

When is a lifeform “that isn’t a baby yet” a baby? The author slyly utilizes only two terms when depicting a preborn child — “zygote” and “baby” — the two chronological ends. So, again, to elaborate upon my initial inquiry, when does a human being inside of the womb become worthy of the writer’s humane attention?

This is precisely the reason the abortion-choice arena lacks both a moral and scientific foundation. At what point do we draw the barrier preventing violence along the timeline of a preborn child’s development? Whoops, I digress — “no one knows when life begins anyway,” correct?

She said it herself: “It's something the mother may not even be aware of yet,” acknowledging on average, a woman realizes she is with child when said child is past the zygote stage: about 4-5 weeks gestation. By this time, the baby has had a consistent heartbeat, the eyes are beginning to form, the brain’s cerebral hemispheres rapidly start to grow, and much more.

As requested by her statement reading, “As a scientific mind, I want something that's less than a decade old,” pertaining to sources proving life begins at conception, here are 20 of them, peer-reviewed, from 2002 to as recent as 2013.

Your approach to pregnant women in crisis is toxic — and your characterization of me is wrong.


The author stated towards the end of her piece after listing off unjustified circumstances for receiving an abortion that, in the event she was approached by a friend considering this route, she “would be there to comfort her, to console her, to make sure she knew the world didn't hate her, just like I would hope someone would do for me if I was in that position.”

Pro-lifers do not “hate” post-abortive women. I, and every single pro-life individual I associate with, has always and will always condemn and separate themselves from those calling women who have had abortions “murderers.”

We are not religious zealots. We are not insensitive, obnoxious, self-perceived saints. But we are also not people who think of women as you do.

Our own publication has the privilege to include beautiful, post-abortive women. They are, by far, the most graceful, persevering, and wise women I have interacted with to-date. The level of necessary their experiences truly are will never be known by them, but they are incredibly appreciated.  

They can attest to this, though, when I state what they needed right before deciding to have an abortion was not a coaxing into the act, not “consoling” for how tragic the life inside of them was. Your preconceived notions regarding a woman’s strength through what may seem like impossible circumstances is what is truly “anti-women.” I recommend you read this post-abortive woman’s testimony before placing yourself on a moral high ground over what you perceive as a loving approach.

The pro-life opinion is not against women — it is against the systemic redistribution of the oppression of women. This barbaric practice not only degrades women within a thoughtless disbelief of the inherent perseverance in every female, but slaughters preborn women as well.

I and the author will certainly agree on the unfairness of banishing women to the kitchen in the early 1900s, but simply shifting this oppression to a banishment of even weaker women to their graves is monumentally more unfair.
 


The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Human Defense Initiative.

You Might Say You're 'Pro-Choice,' But All I Hear Is 'Redistribution Of Oppression'
Share this

Subscribe to Human Defense Initiative