The News

Really Pro-Choice

Rev. Steve Schlissel - March 2, 2016

The NYT has a story today about the “deeply divided [Supreme] Court” which will be getting another opportunity to whittle down the number of slaughters notched on their 1973 belt. (It was January 22 of that year when they announced an open hunting season on unborn babies, bidding Americans to kill as many as they’d like in the cause of wonderful, liberating egalitarianism [aka anti-Christianity], the most up-to-date alternative to God’s appointed Messiah and Lord).

A picture accompanying the article showed protestors with placards in front of the Supreme Court, one of which read, “DON’T AGREE WITH ABORTION? DON’T HAVE ONE.” Well, that certainly makes their point well, doesn’t it? There is no need to debate or argue. Our system grants room to BOTH sets of beliefs—to those who believe abortion is a fundamental right allowing a woman to do what she, as a sovereign individual, wishes to do with her own body; and also to those who believe that a pregnant woman is more than a sovereign individual. Considerably more. A pregnant woman—she be two.

But as the placard implies, our great system has provided a way for these two very different beliefs to “just get along,” to live in sweet harmony and peace. No pregnant woman may be coerced or forced to endure abortion if she doesn’t wish to have one, and no pregnant woman may be denied her right to have any abortion she might choose to endure. Well, then, I guess that sign sure says it all, doesn’t it? The greatness and wisdom of America, made undeniably evident in our legal system, allowing each individual to do what each individual believes is right. Perfect.

What was that you say? We forgot someone? What do you mean? Oh. That OTHER individual. The one who made the pregnant woman two. You want to know why “pro-choice” conveniently stops at one—the one being the woman in favor of aborting—when every abortion involves another individual who has not been solicited for his opinion (“his,” though more “hers” are slaughtered by kindly feminists and body-parts-sellers). Hmm. That is a toughie. But I guess we’ll just have to accept that those who cannot make their choice known, well, they don’t get a vote.

What? You say that’s awfully convenient—marching under a “pro-choice” banner while leaving a solid 50% with no choice at all. And they happen to be the 50% who bear the most brutal, the harshest, the ugliest and the only irreversible consequences of the others’ choice? Hmm.

And you say it’s even stranger for pretended lovers of choice to disallow in any public debates about this “choice,” the use of photographs or images which make it uncomfortable or impossible to deny that abortion is the termination of every choice that would have and could have been made by the one who is not consulted about his choice. Hmm. You say we are even discouraged from postulating what that unborn child might choose in this affair. What do you mean? Oh, that simply imagining such a choice being presented to a baby in utero would be sufficient to settle things, for then we’d have a tie: the baby would obviously choose to live, as human beings are known to do, while the mother would be choosing that he die. Yes, that does put a different spin on it, I suppose.

Well, that’s all very interesting. But the greatness of the American system means not only that we may disagree, but that we must be able to ACT on the beliefs about which we disagree. And so, in the end, it can only be: I can have my abortion and you—you can have your opinion.

So, I guess the sign really did say it all. A sign of the Times, indeed.

But it would seem more civilized, don’t you think, if those who demand a right to slaughter, or the right “terminate,” would at least be REQUIRED (that’s right—no choice) to declare, before the fact: if, in abortion, you are not choosing to murder a human being, just what ARE you ‘aborting’? Before you answer, can I interest you in some photos?