Choice of Abortion
Choice and Freedom
The verb "to choose" does not stand on its own. Grammatically, it requires an object to become a complete idea. It implies "freedom". But "freedom" to do what. It is the "freedom" to move or act in a certain way. "Freedom" and "choice" are assumed equated with "good". But this is not always the case. There is no "freedom" without "responsibility". The question is, does the "right to choose" reflect our "responsibility" to others?
The term "choice" necessitates an object to choose from. The "choice" must choose between "this" or "that". Without alternates, there is no "choice". So the "choice" must be judged as "good" or "evil" based upon the alternative chosen, and the results of that alternative. When "choice" and "freedom" alone are the basis of argumentation, the chances are good it is bound with evil intentions. The "choice" may be an excuse to run away from responsible behavior.
As an example, perhaps a husband "chooses" to commit adultery, or to run from his family leaving a mother at home with small children with no way to pay the bills. Perhaps the man chooses to end the life of his wife and children arguing that "the life they lead is not worth it and they are better off dead". Is it good to nurture and preserve life, or to snuff it out for the convenience of the killer? The choice of "freedom" to do what is convenient and beneficial for one's self to the detriment of others is often packaged otherwise to hide the selfishness. The true and honest consequences for others are ignored in the "justifications".
So the "choice" should be judged not based upon whether a choice was made, but rather what the choice between two or more alternatives was - in this case, to uphold our responsibilities to our neighbor, or not. With this, we must distinguish between the important and non-important factors in judging a choice. Whether a man commits adultery before, during or after the honeymoon is immaterial. Whether he murders his family in the city or country side, in a house or outside of a house, in this location or another makes no difference.
There are other factors involving the "freedom to choose". Is the choice bilateral, or unilateral? If bilateral, typically the choice is beneficial for both parties. Unilateral choices are often made at the expense of another. People have a habit of making choices that benefit themselves regardless of the impact on others.
Built into the paragraph above we know that choice implies a preferred outcome. One benefit is preferred over another. And benefits are often not shared equally in unilateral decisions.
Maybe the husband wants some fun on the side, and therefore decides to jump in bed with another woman. Maybe he feels he spends too much money and time on his family and he wants it all for himself, so he leaves them with a good-bye note, or shoots them. The unilateral "right to choose" places the other party at a disadvantage.
Choice and Abortion
Why does the government allow abortions? The political answer is undemanding: the aborted do not form a political constituency. This is a long-winded way of saying, the unborn do not vote. Is it not ironic that women, after having gained suffrage under the pretext of being suppressed, use their new found right to maltreat the most innocent, and indefensible, in the most extreme fashion?
The "freedom to choose" is the pivot point for the abortion argument. Supposedly, "freedom" is what is at stake, and "freedom" is always "good". The diversion from the core issues has served those who demand the "right to choose" very well. The core issue is not the "right to choose", but rather "the right to choose between alternatives".
Choice of Alternatives
In the discussion of abortion the situation is relatively simple as there are only two alternatives. The alternatives are allowing nature to proceed thereby bringing the baby to term, or violently interrupting the natural process so as to hinder the birth of the live baby. The short form of the previous long-winded description of the abortion option is the "death or live birth of the unborn".
The alternatives defined as "death or life" on the abortion topic cannot be contested. It is clear that a live baby will be birthed if left to the natural course of events. Another thing is clear. The mother believes that life is worth living, otherwise she would have committed suicide. So the aborting mother believes that life is good for her. In a convoluted form of logic she believe that when death is good for her baby, life is good for her. The death of the baby is perceived as beneficial to the aborting mother. Read those last two lines a few times until the meaning seeps in.
In today's society, the born are protected outside of the womb, but not inside. No explanation is given to differentiate the interrupting of the normal process of life inside or outside of the womb. Murder in the city, or in the field, is just that, murder. Geographical position has no bearing on the right or wrong of the action.
We also know, or at least we have a high degree of confidence, that if we could obtain an answer to the question "Dear Unborn, would you like to continue living"?, the unborn would reply "I would like the freedom of choice between life and death. The answer is LIFE." We are convinced that the baby would choose to live if given the "freedom to choose". Of this, there is no doubt.
What does the baby think about all this? Does she have an opinion? Should it be technically possible to receive an answer presented to the unborn, especially the ones conceived through rape or incest, "Hey, do you want to live?", what would the baby respond? If the baby girl or boy could vote, would she or he be "pro-choice"? "Pro-choice" to live, maybe. How many would concede, "Yes, I am such a hassle and a bother, go ahead and snuff out my life. A greater misdeed I could not have perpetrated."
The aborting mother has decided, unilaterally, that the unborn shall not live, and this against the wishes of the unborn. We believe she has diligently thought this choice through and not taken it lightly. She has weighed the benefits of the choice. The question is, what are the benefits to the mother? We don't bother asking what the cost is to the unborn, as this is obvious. Death is death, whether in the womb, or outside of it.
The aborting mother has chosen to not allow the baby to be born alive. Death is the alternative to alive.
Benefit and Profit in the Choice for Abortion
Is the issue truly "choice"? or is it something else? Again, a Ph.D in rocket science is not a prerequisite to fathom the answer. Framing the question around "choice" is a propaganda tool known as "misdirection". What is it that the choicers are getting, what is the profit?
More fundamental is another question. If she did not want to bring a child to birth, then why did she have sex? By exercising the "right to choose" not to have sex, she can obtain her goal of not having a baby without having to exercise the "right to choose" death for the conceived child. Keeping the pants on has proven a very solid solution this dilemma, and that with no negative side effects.
We presume she had sex because she enjoyed it in spite of the consequences of the potential of conception. Maybe she played the odds and figured "it won"t happen to me". Or maybe she figured, "I'll just exercise my freedom to demand capital punishment for the innocent" in the event of conception. Even in the case of rape, we assume that the baby must desire to live and not be subject to unjust violence.
Whether under consent or not, sex instigated a new life, this much is fact. The baby had no choice in the matter and therefore should not be held accountable. The baby also has no choice in being aborted. The unborn have no means of committing suicide, and as explained above, we have no evidence that the unborn would exercise their "freedom to choose death for themselves" even if they could regardless of their prospects in life.
The unborn are up against very powerful foes. Planned parenthood seeks many millions of dollars of business. Assassins in general are paid well. The aborting doctors are no different. Their big houses and sports cars are at stake. Being a gun for hire makes for a good life, at least for those pulling the trigger. Politicians are willing to fight for the right to be an assassin when campaign funds flow. Everyone has a price.
Some argue preposterous points such as, "It is an invader, like a foreign army. This is our justification for killing it". "Excuse my trespassing, please execute justice swiftly", the baby reacts. Is death the proper penalty for trespassing? But getting to the heart of the argument: (1) The baby was never asked to be there. (2) The baby crossed no borders to be there. (3) The baby brings no weapon of any kind, nor intends to do any harm to body or possession. The evil invader argument fails the test of reality. It is a cheap excuse for a selfish, murdering act. Propagandist love to paint the enemy as a blood thirsty, dangerous thug. This portrayal does not work well with the unborn. The only reason people believe this non-sense is that it is "convenient".
The idea that the unborn is simply not human or alive is absurd. The baby has a heartbeat at 18 days of conception. Now, how many non-living things have heartbeats? "Not many", says the biology teacher. Why not be realistic and call it a developing baby who is alive? The refusal to see the obvious is propaganda. This is standard operating procedure when a society is being whipped up to go to war. It is very difficult to send an army to kill aunt Suzy. But if the government can make the enemy into a non-human, evil, brutal animal, the resistance to killing is vastly decreased.
Choice of Selfishness
We know that the aborting mother is acting in her own interest, and at the same time against the interest of her baby. What is bad for the baby is good for her. This is called "selfishness". "Rights", "Freedom" and "Choice" are covers for nothing less than "selfishness". The same thought process is found among muggers. "I'll take that wallet, thank you. I love the freedom to choose to mug whomever I wish."
Putting meat around the term "selfishness", two things come to mind: time and money. Being a mother is tough work. It is selfless work. It is a full-time job, the pay is lousy, there are no vacations, and you cannot clock out at 18:00 and be done with it.
At stake is "motherhood" and all that comes with it. Some women choose motherhood, some choose against it to the detriment of the unborn. Children are "inconvenient", they say in their hearts. From the standpoint of the baby, is being chopped up, spiked through the head or poisoned is not "inconvenient"? There are other tools in the assassin's tool box than the ones just mentioned. Notice that the tools would kill any living human, not just babies - indeed, that is the point, to kill a human. Dismemberment, a spike in the head or toxic chemical would certainly make short work of any pro-choicer. Any woman or doctor not willing herself to be aborted has no right to abort another. She needs to prove this by her actions.
So the "freedom to choose" is fundamentally the "freedom to choose between selfishness and selflessness resulting in death or life for another".
The "freedom" fighters have left out two thirds of the equation when presenting their arguments. This is done on purpose. Who stands up and says, "I have exercised my right to choose abortion resulting in death because I am selfish for my own life."?
"It's her body, let her do as she pleases with it", demands another in a hostile tone. It is not what she does to her own body that bothers this writer near as much as what she does with the baby's body. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", is a famous quote that fits well here.
Those who master the art of the sanity check must realize the depth of the evil in man's heart upon witnessing such atrocities. Radical muslim extremest hatchet their innocent victims to death. Aborting mothers, doctors, law-makers and judges do the same. There is no excuse for cold-blooded murder. How can a politician be voted into office on the platform of "pro-convenience, death to the trouble-makers"? This is a very sick society indeed! It loves luxury more than precious life to the point of killing.
The serial killers, especially the law-makers and judges, will have to answer the God of Life one day. What judgement they will receive!
Author: Scott Wallace Brians
Date: 30 July 2010
Web Site: www.his-kingdom.net
Copyright: All Rights Reserved