Thirty two years ago, a Texas woman known only as “Jane Roe” took her personal set of circumstances all the way
to the U.S. Supreme Court, and won the “right” to terminate her pregnancy that allegedly resulted from rape. It turns out there
was no rape, and she had no idea that her case would be used to justify the more than 40 million abortions that followed… Today,
she hopes to reverse it all.
Only one judge who sat on that court thirty two years ago remains today, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and his was a
dissenting vote. Even so, few give Ms. Roe better than long-shot odds of over-turning the landmark bench legislation known as Roe
That’s because pro-abortion advocates have successfully framed the issue in terms of “privacy” and “individual
choice” relative ones own body. Their success in protecting abortion is understandable, if you subscribe to this frame work
for the discussion, after-all who isn’t for “privacy”, or “free choices”?
But on closer inspection, these folks rarely support the concept of “choice” in any other arena, such as gun
ownership, tobacco use, even how McDonald’s should make their french fries, or how much or how little an individual has a “right”
to earn or retain. In reality, they do not support the concept of free choice in any arena but abortion, illicit drug use,
pornography and alternative lifestyles. All else must be government regulated in their minds…
In the arena of free speech, they are quick to defend Larry Flint, or Janet Jackson’s breast, or queer eye for
the straight kid in the Boy Scouts, but equally fast to oppose any “right” of free speech or expression as relates religion or
morality based education…
In the end, their arguments are hypocritical at best, false and completely invalid at worst. Is abortion a
Constitutional “right”? I defy anyone to show me where that is written in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights…”right” to
“life” is what it says…
Pro-abortion folks will direct you to the Fourth Amendment or at least the first third of this Amendment and suggest
it does. But if that entire line is read in proper context, along with the balance of that particular Amendment, it is clear that
it applies only to Illegal Search and Seizure. It addresses governments’ limited “rights” regarding criminal investigation and
prosecution, not abortion or any other individual “rights”…
Is abortion about “choice”? A woman’s “right” to say NO, is about choice. Her “right” to use one of many forms of
birth control is about choice. Her “right” to an operation eliminating her ability to become pregnant is about choice. The “right”
to take the innocent life of another has never been about choice, except concerning abortion in the liberal mind for
the last 32 years.
Is it about “privacy”? In a manner of speaking, yes. Should the government be involved in such decisions? Maybe
not… As a true conservative, I don’t like the government’s involvement in most of what it is involved in today.
However, murder is defined as the unnecessary taking of the innocent life of another with malice, or intent. You
would be hard pressed to explain how this definition does not apply to an innocent unborn child like Connor Peterson, unless you
don’t believe it is a child, a tough sell for anyone who has ever seen a sonogram. For the record, murder has never been a
In my opinion, pro-life advocates make some mistakes of their own. Their biggest mistake is lumping together
abortion, war, self-defense and capital punishment in one debate. Murder is already wrong and illegal and only
abortion (in this group), qualifies as the taking of innocent life.
When pro-lifers lump together abortion and capital punishment as though they are the same, they too are degrading
the value of that innocent unborn life by virtue of the comparison.
Is it about a medical procedure? Medicine is defined as the practice of saving life, not destroying it. Again, I
think pro-lifers make a mistake lumping a woman’s “right” to survive her own pregnancy, or her “right” to survive rape or
incest, in with abortions of convenience.
I do believe in a woman’s “right” to choose, which is to say that if anyone forcefully removes her “right” to say
no, or protect herself from unwanted pregnancy, I can support her “right” to whatever remedy she seeks.
If a woman’s own life is in danger as a result of pregnancy, I can support a doctors “right” to make any life saving
decision acceptable to the patient. This is the definition of medicine…
But let’s be honest, these incidents account for less than 10% of all abortions. More than 90% are nothing more than
a matter of convenience. When saying NO wasn’t convenient, wearing a condom or using an IUD, taking the pill, or getting fixed
wasn’t convenient enough; abortion becomes the next best thing… In other words, as a result of making all these decisions
wrong, we need the “right” to make an even worse one…
Abortion isn’t about a woman’s “right” to do what she chooses with her own body. It isn’t her body or life being
extinguished, but rather that of the only innocent party in the equation.
If convenience is the issue, why stop the “right” at birth? Kids don’t become a real inconvenience until after
they are born. Matter of fact, some become more and more of an inconvenience the longer they live, some becoming not only a
plight on their families, but on society. Who couldn’t think of a few liberals we’d like the “right” to abort even now?
The point is these later suggestions are no more ridiculous than all the arguments made for justifying
infanticide… America’s human “rights” record over the last 32 years is no better than China’s or Iraq’s for that matter. No
wonder the world laughs at America’s moral indignation…
America forfeited its moral authority in the world the moment it lost its moral compass at home.
Of course people fight for abortion “rights”; the same people who fight for a “right” to be irresponsible
throughout their lives…They are not seeking a “free” society, but rather a society free from consequences. Since no such thing
exists, government will continue to hold responsible people accountable for the irresponsible behavior of others…