The Lie of Pro-Choice

Conceptionby FJ Rocca8/28/15
The euphemism chosen by promoters of abortion is “Pro Choice” implies the rational decision of one action over another. It does not consider the quality of the thing about which the choice is being made. The act of choice is essentially neutral. It is only a matter of right and wrong when the specifics are made clear. In the case of abortion, the “choice” is death over life.

Actually there is no choice in the Pro Choice argument. The Pro means for and the Choice means abortion. No one argues for the choice of not aborting. The argument is that women should have the option of aborting. There is no choice being argued in the opposite direction. That choice doesn’t need to be made.

Pro Life advocates are more specific about the term they choose to describe their position. They support life—specifically the life in the womb. While Pro Choice advocates declare that the choice is the exclusive right of the mother (hence, abortion on demand, a common phrase used to describe the Pro Choice position) Pro Life advocates declare that the mother is not the arbiter of the life in her womb, because it is a person who has a right to life.

So what are the main considerations in choosing to abort? Is the mother the rightful arbitrator of whether to end the life in her womb? Make no mistake, whether one considers a fetus “tissue” or a baby, it is indisputably alive. People take life all the time. Swatting a fly takes life. Killing cattle for food takes life. In war, killing the enemy is taking life. All of these are thought by the majority of people to be valid in one way or another, notwithstanding arguments to the contrary.

People also kill other people under circumstances that are almost universally considered evil. Murder is evil, unquestionably. That’s why it is necessary to prove a murder case beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. There are legal definitions for murder in different degrees, for manslaughter, and for justifiable homicide, as well. In every definition there is specific reference to the victim of the crime. Without consideration of the victim, there would be no crime.

In 1973, the Supreme Court held that abortion was legally the choice of every woman, regardless of her reasons for wanting to have an abortion. Specifically, the Court said that the only balancing argument was whether the abortion took place before or after the fetus had achieved “viability,” i.e., whether the fetus could live outside the womb. The Supreme Court based that decision upon a right of privacy they assumed was in the Constitution, even though no such right is spelled out or even hinted at.

I am not a lawyer, thus, I am unbound by complex and tortuous technicalities in the law. I believe that legal technicalities, however impressive they may sound to the layman’s ear, often do nothing more than cloud pure human reason. But I am aware enough of what is so simply said in those documents from which all laws in the United States are drawn and upon which they are fundamentally based: the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, and its amendments in the Bill of Rights are among the least ambiguous and most openly clear documents ever written.

The Declaration of Independence, the first of these documents, states clearly that every human being is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable human rights. By use of the term “Creator,” it is implicit that we possess those rights are most certainly not conferred upon us by any government. Governments do not create human beings, and because the specific identity of our Creator is not enumerated, whether we are created by God or Nature or some other as yet unidentified force, those inalienable rights are conferred upon us at the moment of creation.

That moment cannot be at birth, because what we have become as human beings by the time of birth has already taken place in the womb. No person can be “created” nine months after conception, because conception is the actual beginning of the creative process. Moreover, the right of privacy, upon which the Supreme Court based its decision, can only be enjoyed by an already created being. If the mother possesses that right of privacy, does the child in her womb not also enjoy it?

One might argue that it is sometimes necessary to take human life. But the reasons must be strong. For example, in cases of capital punishment, it is usually required by law that a capital case against a defendant be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. In case of war, it is always necessary obtain Congressional approval.

No steely reasoning is necessary for abortion. Indeed, the main argument is whether the mother demands it. Whether the fetus is a person or merely tissue is secondary to the mother’s will. In fact, this secondary consideration is moot in its premise by the very nature of the term “Creator” in the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps in cases where the child is severely handicapped or will suffer if brought to term, or in cases when the life of the mother is threatened and a choice must be made whether to save the mother or the child, there may be a legitimate argument for abortion.

But even in such cases, rights of the unborn child must still be considered. To declare the arbitrary right to abort an already created human being, without just cause, even by that being’s parent, is absurd and goes contrary to all decent human conscience. Before any life is taken, including the life of a child in the womb, a case ought to be made that it is not merely desirable, but necessary.

That abortion is abhorrent is easily demonstrated by the number of its proponents who say exactly that. Many women have said that they would personally never have an abortion, but that they support the right of other women to have one. This approaches the level of contradiction if you ask why these women would not choose to have an abortion, because the answer is almost inevitably that it is a matter of conscience. Then, if it is a matter of conscience, and one chooses not to have an abortion, the only logical conclusion is that abortion is wrong.

The life of the child in the womb is nor the property of the parents. No one owns another person, not even his parents. The mother and father may take part in the act which leads to conception, but they do not actually “create” the baby that develops in the womb. In fact, the parents merely supply the physical means that lead to conception, i.e., an egg and sperm. And because they are not the Creators of that life, they do not possess proprietary rights to its use and disposal. And whether one believes in God or not, no human being can create life. It takes a force greater than human force to do that.

FJ Rocca was born the day after Pearl Harbor in the same hometown as Johnny Appleseed. He is a trained classical musician, a published illustrator and a prolific writer of fiction and non-fiction. His website is • (1151 views)

FJ Rocca

About FJ Rocca

FJ Rocca was born the day after Pearl Harbor in the same hometown as Johnny Appleseed. He is a trained classical musician, a published illustrator and a prolific writer of fiction and non-fiction. His website is
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to The Lie of Pro-Choice

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    The “choice” in “pro-choice” is about women being able to choose their destinies free from the constraints of paternalism/religion and the constraints of their own biology.

    I think this idea has been deeply embedded as a given, so many discussions about this tend to deal in slogans. The lives of the unborn are traded for the freedoms women (and men) enjoy because of abortion. And because this is the transaction, at heart, it is typical of people to not think bad of themselves so they dress this up in various euphemisms and baloney rationalizations.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    Undoubtedly there are a relative handful of genuinely pro-choice libertarians, but it’s true that most people calling themselves “pro-choice” are actively hostile to anyone who might get an abortion not doing so (even though that’s equally a choice), and usually to such choices as how to defend oneself, what car to drive, how much water to use in your toilet or shower, what fats to use in frying food (which they oppose anyway). what sort of light bulbs to use, and many others. This is why I use “pro-abortion” or (increasingly) ‘abortion worshjpper”.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The act of choice is essentially neutral

    Some may try to make the word “choice” neutral, but it is by definition anything but.

    Logically, if making a choice were a neutral act, there would be no need to make it.

    My “Compact Oxford English Dictionary” defines the word choose thusly, “pick out as being the best of two or more alternatives.” The act of making a valuation is inherent in the very word.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      “Choice” is a word that has been morally neutered by many, including libertarians. But even that isn’t the story. “Choice” is considered a positive good, thus the euphemism of “pro-choice.” Choosing what? Doesn’t matter, I’m “pro-choice.” Who would want to be anti-choice?

      “Rational” is another terms that has been made not only morally neutral but to represent a positive. But reason is a means, not an end. The ends are made via other moral reckoning.

      We have this societal learning curve that started (at the appropriate level) of Dick-and-Jane books. But instead of being a first step toward literacy (generally speaking), Dick-and-Jane has become the destination. We are a simple (not in a good way) culture. We speak of “choice” and not the thing being chosen. We are simpletons.

      Here’s a quote from Peter Hitchens that speaks to this:

      To anyone brought up when English literature, scripture, liturgy, poetry and hymns were still taught and learned, it is astonishing to find out how little they have in common with those who were raised and educated in the post-revolutionary culture. The pre-revolutionary survivor can finish other people’s sentences, detect the rhythm in other people’s speeches, recognise a score of allusions in a page of print. There is hardly a word or phrase which does not awake a richer thought, or an echo of something hauntingly similar.

      I get what Frank is saying about the act of choosing being neutral. I wasn’t aware of the dictionary definition pro-good slant on “choice.” I wouldn’t have definite it that way, although there is “choice” beef, “choice” seats at the Super Bowl, etc.

      Anyway, whatever the case may be, the reality of trading unborn babies for various liberties is what this is all about. And rarely do you hear anyone get to the meat of it. Men are often content with “A woman’s right to choose” because then they don’t cross-up the females. And in today’s hook-up culture where the idea of family is degraded (not honored), why ruin your odds for hooking up (or suffering other feminist PC penalties that hang over all male heads like the Sword of Damocles) by facing the unholy transaction underneath all the buzzwords and slogans? Just go with the Dick-and-Jane slogan. It’s safer.

      And for women, well, they’re the ones who carry the pregnancy. There is indeed a large burden involved. But does that excuse blurring the issue with slogans? I don’t think so. And is there some kind of basic right to end the life of another? That’s the question here. Abortion advocates for the longest time have tried to deny that there is an other involved. Modern science has made that impossible.

      So now they fall back on “choice” or any encumbrance on snuffing babies for convenience is derided as “a war on women.” We heard this stuff from Hillary just yesterday and both Rubio and Carly (to their credit) nuked the screeching Leftist bitch from Arkansas. And if those are the kind of people on your side, you have to wonder about the rectitude of your side.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Note that “anti-choice” is a favorite liberal smear-phrase for social conservatives, even though the latter favor far more choices than do “pro-choice” liberals. But liberals mostly do their best to hide their obsession (abortion) in euphemisms (choice, women’s health, reproductive rights).

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Certain one would be, all things considered, for choice as opposed to a nanny state telling you what you have to do to the nth degree. But libertarians freak out at the idea that there is no society without some authority saying, to some extent, what you can and can’t do. The question is not “if” in regards to any restrictions to choice, but “what,” “why,” and “how much.” (This is how adults think…or used to when he had such a thing.)

          Choice is generally good when it pertains to potato chips and soda pop. It’s bad when the choice is killing the unborn for mere convenience. Some things need to be outlawed in order to protect the innocent and to fashion a society worth living in.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *