Oh What Power There is in Language!

It's been said before, but I must admit "pro-choice" is quite a clever term. Who isn't a fan of choice? I make choices all day long; some good, some bad, but none the less I enjoy the freedom to make them.One of the choices I have made is the choice to be pro-life. Does that count? Is that valid in the "pro-choice" movement? The short answer is no. People who believe that life should be protected as all stages of development are labeled "anti-choice", another great use of language. This implies that we are against choice, but as I said we make choices all day long. It's quite irrational to suggest that we are against ALL choice so it must be a euphemism to a specific choice. Why can't we call it what it is? I am perfectly okay with stating that I am anti-abortion. I use the term pro-life because it encompasses more that just abortion, but it is absolutely accurate to say that I am against the supposed right of abortion.

My question is "What do you mean by choice?" Are you specifically referring to the choice of abortion? Yes, according to the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).

We believe that women should have option to choose abortion. Today they can, thanks to the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. But even though access to abortion is legal, our right to it is far from safe. Anti-choice groups attack our right to choose at every opportunity

The real question boils down to when does someone's choice interfere with the right's of another person. That's what the debate is really about. Look at the situation in Pennsylvania. Dr. Kermit Gosnell is charged with the murder of 7 newborns that he delivered alive then killed, and there seems to be a consensus among all people in the abortion debate that what he did was wrong. One pro-choice blogger wrote, "There is no excuse for killing newborns. That is not what being pro-choice is about."

The real difference in the two sides is where the line is drawn that denotes life. Some draw the line at birth, some at viability, some when it "looks like a baby", some at implantation and some at fertilization. Where do we go to get a clear answer to this question? Science? Philosophy? Religion? I believe that all three of these agree that at fertilization a distinct organism is created. It has DNA all its own and it immediately begins to grow develop and has a certain autonomy. Yes, it is dependent on another source for this continued growth, but so is a newborn, a two year-old, a twelve-year old, a severely disabled person, and many elderly persons. No man is an island; we all depend on others in order to thrive in our environments, yet we are all distinct human individuals with God-given rights that should be protected by law.

This is why I am Pro-Life