pro-aborts like to play word games, as
part of their natural tendency to be deceptive.
Since most people generally are instinctively
against abortion, but since many people
are for personal freedoms, then the pro-aborts
say they are pro-choice rather than pro-abortion.
Sounds harmless, doesn't it? Sounds positive
even. But the fact that one allows a choice
in favor of the murder of the unborn means,
ergo, that he is in fact pro-abortion.
His posture is not harmless; it kills.
Pro-Life 101: "How Dare You
Call me Pro-Abortion?! I'm Pro-Choice!"
by Hilary White
August 5, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- Perhaps I am just obsessive, but something
happened in Rome a year or so ago that
has been bothering me and won't leave
me alone. In June last year, when the
Vatican was gearing up for a state visit
from the new president of the US, the
editor-in-chief of the Vatican's daily
newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, made
statement that Barack
Obama's long, flawless pro-abortion
voting record, policies and personal
opinions do not make him "a pro-abortion
president." Not at all. "He
was, rather" merely "pro-choice,"
said editor Gian Maria Vian.
Vian had praised
President Obama for his speech
at Notre Dame University
(remember all that?) in which he said
that the president "tried to engage
the debate, stepping out from every
ideological position and outside every
not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice!"
How many times have pro-life advocates
come across this indignant exclamation?
Vian has here presented the quintessential
"liberal Catholic" position
(perhaps not unconnected to the secular
humanist position), that the best, highest,
most moral stance is that there must
never, under any circumstances be "confrontation."
There is no greater evil than to take
an "ideological position."
Peace in our time, and at any cost.
sounds fine, to some, when we are talking
about abortion, a subject upon which
there is much moral disagreement. But
try changing the discussion just a little.
Imagine for a moment we are talking
about moral evils upon which there is
no dispute. Can there be a non-confrontational
position on genocide? Imagine for a
moment the editor of the Vatican's newspaper
praising Barack Obama for his non-confrontational
stand on slavery. On rape. On wife battery.
a person says, "I'm pro-choice,"
he is trying to find a middle point
between two things that are simply opposed,
an obvious intellectual squirm.
let us examine the "pro-choice"
assertion. Say a person were to tell
you that he is "pro-choice"
on slavery. He would say, with a noble
lift of the brow perhaps, "I don't
like slavery. I don't feel it is right
for me to own another human being. But
I also don't believe that it is my right
to impose my personal beliefs on another.
I believe in personal choice. It is
between a man and his god whether he
should own a slave".
is obvious, isn't it? The thing chosen
must be moral before the concept of
being "pro-choice" can also
be moral. For Vian to say that Barack
Obama is merely "pro-choice,"
and to imply that this is a position
superior to the "ideological"
pro-life stand, he is, first, kowtowing
to the abortion industry who invented
the slogan to soothe troubled consciences,
and second, but most importantly, he
is saying that abortion is a moral thing
championing the pro-life position, we
simply say that between life and death,
there is no third thing. You are either
alive or you are not. Abortion kills
or it does not. It is morally permissible
or it is not. There are simply some
things that do not admit of a "neutral"
third position. Between these two opposed
possibilities, there can only be "confrontation,"
distasteful as that may be to some sensibilities.
sounds good. It sounds like supporting
freedom and rights and all those things
that enlightened people should support.
It derives from one of the greatest
propaganda triumphs in recent human
history: the slogan "a woman has
a right to choose".
is what we grammar fiends call a "transitive
verb". You can't just "choose,"
in the same way as you can run or work
or sleep. "Choosing" requires
an object, a thing that is chosen. The
slogan "A woman has a right to
choose," is a grammatically unfinished
sentence. It is possibly a fault of
the erosion of our education system
that millions of people accept this
slogan without asking "A right
to choose what, exactly?"
instinct to say that the term "pro-choice"
is nonsensical indicates that the listener,
at least subconsciously, still adheres
to the laws of rational thought. He
knows that there can be no "third
way" between right and wrong, evil
and good. Between life and death.
is being more apt than he perhaps realises.
Pro-life people are those who have chosen
a side in the war that really, objectively
and externally, exists. There is a war,
as it says in the scriptures, between
God and the fallen angels, between good
and evil, and in that war, there can
be no neutrality.
people are those, simply, who have seen
that abortion, the deliberate killing
of innocent people, is evil and must
be stopped. We know that there have
been and still are other evils, things
that can never be reconciled with the
Good. Things like genocide, slavery,
human trafficking. Man's inhumanity
to man. We know that these things must
be confronted, even at great cost. And
that the people who defend these things
must be personally confronted as well.
who hold this position are regularly
accused of "extremism". When
we make comparisons to the other great
evils of our age, to the slaughter of
the Jews in WWII, to the killing of
hundreds of thousands in Rwanda, to
the African slave trade, we are denounced
as fanatics. So be it. Even when the
accusations come from inside the Vatican's
walls. So be it.
See related LifeSiteNews stories"
COMPELS PRIEST TO APOLOGIZE FOR “PRO-CHOICE”
Nun Remorseful after Silent No More
Leader Unveils Tyranny of Abortion
to me to live is Christ, and to die
is gain." (Phil 1:21)