With Henry Morgentaler’s push to establish a series of money-making abortuaries across our nation, Canadians can expect to be subjected with increasing regularity and fervour to the objectless phrase “freedom to choose.”
Perhaps no euphemism in history has so directly affected our society than this Madison Avenue cliché which in actual fact has nothing whatsoever to do with true freedom (which respects the human rights of others) but everything to do with license: license to destroy innocent developing human lives such as each of us once was.
Pro-abortion activists like to call themselves “pro-choice” and their opponents “anti-choice.”
By this cleverly dishonest tactic they simultaneously divert attention from the real issue (should a mother be allowed to destroy her developing baby?), and portray themselves as the defenders of personal liberty. Taken to its logical conclusion the “pro-choice” argument could be trimmed to fit any situation, no matter how violent or repulsive.
Also misleading is the pro-abortionists’ continual use of the term “fetus” which translated simply means “little one” or “offspring.”
While the term is technically correct, we never hear the pro-choicers refer to the expectant mother as the “gravida,” the equivalent Latin counterpart. Why? It’s obviously too impersonal and dehumanizing.
Yet pro-abortionists continue to refer to the destruction of the unborn as termination of a ‘fetus’ or ‘foetal-placental unit’ or … better yet … the ‘products of conception’ (a term which, in actual fact, accurately describes everyone reading this article today).
The schizophrenia of modern medicine comes into sharp focus when we realize in one hospital ward doctors are performing in-utero surgery and are saving “wanted” babies born several months prematurely…. while down the hall, in another ward, much larger, much healthier “unwanted” babies are being destroyed by abortion.
Alfred Moran, executive vice president, Planned Parenthood of New York, recently pointed out to those attending the National (Pro-) Abortion Federation’s annual meeting in Minneapolis, that advancing technology would soon remove pro-abortionists’ most powerful “excuse” – the non-personhood of the unborn child.
We all value our freedom to choose … our occupation, our place of residence, out religious faith, our fiends, and goals in life. However, there are times when one person’s “choice” results in suffering and injustice for another human being. For this reason, a civilized society is justified in limiting the choices of its citizens.
Most people realize this when they stop to think about it.
Nevertheless, the magical “freedom of choice” incantation has dulled the minds of many.
“Pro-choice” is asking our government to condone a woman’s free will to kill her developing baby. They would have us believe that it is our “choice!” as already born members of society to extinguish the lives of those waiting to be born.
We ask you to think carefully about the “freedom of choice” slogan and follow it to its obvious conclusion. In the 1980s medical authorities readily admit that parents of handicapped newborns are often given the “choice” of a starvation death for their child; even when waiting couples are willing to adopt this less than perfect human being.
Top ranking physicians are now openly advocating that society should have the right to “choose” death for the mentally handicapped and unproductive elderly who are a drain on our health care budgets.
We will always have human problems but surely it is how we react to those problems that will define the future of our society.
If our attitude is one of compassion and practical concern for both the mother and her unborn child, then there is hope.
However, if we continue to choose death as a solution for societal problems, then each of us must face the fact that we will eventually become the object of someone else’s “right to choose.”
Arla Rendle is president of the Pro-Life Society of British Columbia.