• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Some of the best news I’ve heard in years came across the wires last
week: Abortions are down — really down, considering all factors
– in the United States, according to figures documenting this horrid
procedure over the last decade.

As I suspected it would, this wonderful news seems to have upset the
pro-abortion crowd — the “industry” of “woman’s rights” activists and
organizations that survive as long as this procedure remains legal in
this country.

As a result of what I view as fear of losing relevance, some of these
groups — couched erroneously in the realm of advocating “reproductive
rights” — have begun a counterattack, designed to “provide women with
facts about reproductive rights.”

One such group, called The Naral
Foundation,
has introduced television commercials
(especially on the “woman’s” channel, Lifetime) that swimmingly portray
the argument of “pro-choice” as being one that is supportive of the
good, old-fashioned American principles of “freedom” and true
“independence.” The commercial evokes images and allusions to our
founding fathers to suggest that they gave up their lives, freedom and
prosperity to fight for, among other things, a “woman’s right to
choose.”

In other words, Naral is blatantly and unapologetically suggesting
that our founders pledged their lives and sacred fortunes to combat
monarchial tyranny … so women could have the “right” to kill their
unborn children.

Unbelievable.

During the commercial — produced with a woman’s voice-over and
filled with charitable images of older Americans, women and families –
deigns to suggest that as an American woman who is pro-choice, “I accept
responsibility for my actions.” This is probably the best example of
hypocrisy in the whole sorry, morally and intellectually bankrupt
“debate” for the “right” to kill our unborn children.

For one thing, this “right” — ostensibly passed to us by our
“founders” — exists for one reason only: To provide respite from
irresponsible sexual behavior.

If you doubt that, consider:

  • The real numbers of women who accidentally get pregnant
    because of a rape or incest are so low as to be negligible, so that
    alone does not justify allowing unlimited access to abortions to
    the 99-plus percent of women who get pregnant voluntarily.

  • If the so-called “pro-choice” abortion movement has nothing to do
    with justifying irresponsible behavior, then why is the debate centered
    on “a woman’s right to choose?” To “choose” what? To “choose” to
    have sex whenever she feels like it. And to “choose” to murder that
    infant growing inside her if she becomes pregnant.

  • Other than the ultra-rare cases of getting pregnant due to an
    assault, there is no such thing as an “accidental” pregnancy. Whether
    you take birth control, use condoms, anti-spermacidal jelly or something
    else, the act of engaging in intercourse is voluntary and
    the well-known result of intercourse is pregnancy (abstinence is
    the only 100 percent effective method of birth control). So, where’s the
    “accident”? Allowing a woman to get away with the excuse, “I meant to
    have sex but I didn’t mean to get pregnant” is to allow her to ignore
    the biological facts about the results of having intercourse and to
    allow her to escape the consequences (if you look at children that way)
    of her own actions.

  • Statistics have indicated for decades that nearly all abortions
    are done by “choice,” not by need or necessity to “save the mother’s
    life.” Even using the term mother is an oxymoron; until she
    allows her child to be born and begins to raise that child, she is only
    “a pregnant woman,” not a mother. It’s like the saying, “Anyone
    can be a father but not everyone can be a dad.”

It is absurd to label a woman “choosing” to abort her living
child as “accepting responsibility” for her own actions. If that were
the case:

  • The woman would have known from the beginning that
    intercourse — despite “protective” measures — can still lead to
    pregnancy;

  • The woman would accept the fact that she got pregnant and raise
    her child;

  • The woman would have “chosen” not to risk getting pregnant by
    abstaining from intercourse in the first place.

Far from being “responsible,” Naral and other groups like theirs
should frame the abortion issue for what it is: Allowing women the
“right to choose” death. They should also — if they’re
interested in the “facts” about abortion — be teaching that
responsible women consciously and voluntarily choose not
to put themselves at risk of having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy.

And, to be “honest” about the whole debate, there is no such thing as
“pro-choice.” You support abortion or you don’t; this excuse, “I
wouldn’t have one, but I support another woman’s ‘right to choose’” is
nothing but disingenuous garbage because no one has the “right”
to choose to murder another living human being. That’s why we have laws
against it.

Naral ought to be ashamed of itself for so badly misrepresenting the
truth about responsibility and abortion.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.