June 03, 2010

Is ProChoice Really Pro Choice?


Historically, the names ProChoice and ProLife did not exist.  The two camps were referred to as pro-abortion and anti-abortion.  The anti-abortion people, however, did not like the 'anti' part, so they changed their name to ProLife.  Then the pro-abortion camp changed their name to ProChoice. (That is a very unofficial recap.  I imagine there were other reasons for changing the names.) 

While both of these names had a more positive character, the specific issue at hand was no longer evident and both terms could be considered from a broader perspective.  For instance, ProLife is not just about abortion.  It is a label that umbrellas a broader mindset about the dignity and right to life of all humans from the moment of conception until natural death.  Euthanasia and the death penalty are examples of other topics that fall under the ProLife umbrella.

The problem is that the same can not be done with the label ProChoice, after all, its supporters are not pro-choice in the broader sense.  For instance, with ProChoice, what choice does the baby have in deciding its own fate?  And what about the baby's father?  What choice does he have?  (The irony in that is that many ProChoicers think fathers should later be held financially responsible for that child later if it is born...)

And what about that baby's right to have grandparents and/or aunts and uncles and siblings and cousins?  They don't matter to ProChoicers because the only choice ProChoice is concerned about is the immediate choice of the mother to have the child or to kill it. 

Now some ProChoicers will raise a flag and say their focus is the reproductive rights of the mother, which I think are very important - when it comes to her right to decide whether to engage in sexual intercourse to begin with.  Once a child is created, however, her rights are superceded by the fundamental right of that child to continue to live.  In other words, the woman's career or family or educational potential should take the back seat, so to speak. If not, it would be like a soldier dying on the battle field and his fellow soldier leaving him there because he will miss meeting the General back at camp.

We as a society, and the pregnant woman, should be like that fellow soldier, doing everything we can to keep that child alive.  (Feminists For Life, who refuse to choose between women and children, are a great example in this arena.)

So, is ProChoice really pro choice?  I think not.  ProAbortion would be the more fitting label.


Stay tuned for a post explaining the ProLife approach when a pregnant mother's life is in jeopardy, e.g. why the bishop admonished the nun in Arizona who condoned an abortion for the pregnant mother whose life was in jeopardy.

image - http://kingston21.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/confusion-new.jpg


No comments: