Daily Archives: January 26, 2012

Pro-Life or “Anti-Abortion”? Who Decides???

Posted on by

Tonight I wish to tackle a few varied thoughts on the topic of “pro-life” and what that really means.  In the generation of “political correctness,” one of the things often mentioned is to call people or groups by their preferred terminology.  For example, most people of African origin in the United States tend to prefer the term “African-American” to “black.”  Most actively homosexual people prefer “gay” to a host of other terms, some very ugly and derogatory, and the majority of females today tend to prefer being referred to as ”women” rather than ”ladies.”  I for one think we should honor and respect those wishes for the most part, at least, unless it totally violates our personal convictions as the people of God.

What I find amazing, however, is that the reverse respect is not particularly applied. The very same people who would never disrespect someone racially or ethnically have no issue with changing the terminology used for those of us who are “pro-lifers” just for one. Almost without exception the term now chosen for us is “anti-abortion” while they remain “pro-choice” and would be very deeply offended if we called them “pro-abortion” or, worse but more accurately, ”pro-deathers.”  Yet one day someone, somewhere, decided it was more “correct” all around to change our  movement’s preferred name, without asking those of us who actively support saving the lives of the unborn, as “anti-abortionists.” And somehow it seems to have stuck.

Part of the issue of course is valid–there are many supposedly “pro-lifers”  who are anxious to save the unborn but do not show much concern for the currently and visibly alive here on earth, such as those in abject poverty or immigrants, or those on death row. Whatever one’s view on those issues, at very least we must deeply and actively care about the people who are in those situations. That too is part of being “pro-life” and always has been.   Still, should it not be our choice what to call our own movement?  I think the answer is fairly obvious.

But there is a deeper issue at hand. What is the motive behind this unasked-for change in terminology?  I would contend it has to do with the continuing attempt to bring us together with the “pro-choice” movement. And while there are people on both sides of the issue who are honestly of good will, and who care deeply about society, we as “pro-life” folks have the specific goal of eliminating abortion from society, or at very least lessening its frequency and perceived need. That of course is a huge threat to the other camp whose main concern is the “woman’s right to choose.” President Barack Obama, arguably one of the most blatantly “pro-choice” leaders in the entire world today, rather creepily used the 39th anniversary of Roe v Wade to express his desire to keep abortion “safe and legal.”  Here are his remarks on a day which many of us mark as one of the most tragic in world history. He rejoices for the women while we mourn for the untold millions of unborn.

-

Official photographic portrait of US President...
Image via Wikipedia

obama-celebrates-roe-vs-wade-decision-54-million-abortions

What is so blatantly and patently  false about this line of reasoning is something which should be painfully obvious to all, no matter what the economics, ethnicity or genders involved.  Simply this–with the rare exceptions of rape and incest, women do not generally become pregnant all by themselves. The Supreme Court ruling in 1973 supposedly was put into place to “protect” the woman’s right to choose what  she does with her own body–but with no consideration whatsoever that she has already made that choice by freely joining her body to another human of the male species in order to create the crisis situation in the first place. Very few pregnancies are forced upon anyone.
-
Yet the father has no “choice” at all in whether to save or raise his own child simply due to the physical location of the unborn baby. How that can be considered “Constitutional” by a Constitutional attorney who is now our President is beyond imagination to me. I was told last year by several well-meaning people, when I posted some similar items on my Face Book page, that, as a male, I simply had “no vote in the matter.” Period. This kind of prejudice against life is absolutely staggering to me. For the record I in no way judge the women having abortions and never have, and I say that with all of my heart, but nor do I believe that the rights of the father should be dismissed either, to say nothing of the unborn child. The prevailing attitude has gone from one extreme to the other in so many tragic cases.  May God forgive us all for contributing to this problem, whether directly or indirectly.  And my silence and apathy has done so many times in the past.  I pray it will do so no more however.
-
I might add that the same line of reasoning applies to the decision to force insurance companies to pay for contraception, also led by Obama administration of late.  Below is a link to a powerful article on this topic.  Even if you do not agree, I would challenge you to check it out with an open mind and heart.  The writer, Thomas Peters, shares some tremendously compelling points:
-
-
I would only add the following to his remarks via the comments which I also posted on his page:
-
People wonder why Catholics have joined forces with conservative politics increasingly over the past few years–a question I have asked myself as well even after returning to the Church. Well here is an example of why. We as Catholic Christians are in the dubious position of believing in social teaching that is generous to the poor and needy, as well it should be, however having even those terms redefined for us by the far left in ways such as this. We should pay for someone’s contraception so that they can freely have sexual activity without, as President Obama once said regarding his own daughter and potential grandchild, “being punished with a pregnancy.”  And the mantra is, “they are going to do it anyway.”  I am not sure when enabling people to do that which many of us consider to be sinful, as well as harmful to themselves and society, became the government’s job to enforce and regulate. But here it is.  We thought George Orwell‘s “1984″ would come about by dictatorship, and in reality it is coming about instead in the name of freedom. But it still ends up to be a very real form of personal oppression, by practicing, as Pope Benedict XVI aptly calls it, “the dictatorship of relativism.” And that is even more insidious because those of us who believe otherwise have gradually become the “narrow and intolerant” if we dare to disagree. Frightening.
-
The bottom line: we do really live in a “culture of death” as Blessed John Paul II told us while on this earth.  And if we do not speak up, exactly who will? Especially when the media and politically elite within our society attempt to subtly silence and pigeon-hole us by stealing our own “Pro-life” terminology? Think about it.
-
Pro-life protesters make a silent demonstratio...

Image via Wikipedia

Related articles