Introduction:
In the war of words surrounding the topic of abortion, by calling it a matter of choice, one side has waged a far more aggressive campaign to control the narrative and shape people’s perceptions on the issue. Through carefully disguised propaganda designed to keep even the most fervent supporters in ignorance, the proponents of abortion craft and manipulate language the way a magician does a deck of cards.
While we on the side of abolition have gladly worn the moniker “pro-life”, abortion advocates, through the media —popular, social, and news— have done everything they can to make “pro-life” akin to a swear word in the ears of the general populace. Using celebrities, college professors, and political pundits, these partners of evil have done everything to ensure theirs is the dominant narrative, leaving no room to hear the opposing viewpoint. Then, without a hint of irony or self-awareness, they have chosen to call themselves: “pro-choice”.
Blurred Lines
It used to be, in this war of words, that one could easily find the line delineating the sides and who stood on each one. There was little crossover between them, if any at all. However, in recent days that line has become blurred, particularly in the political sphere, leaving us who support life and the abolition of abortion, without a party to truly call home. In the lead up to the Republican National Convention, Donald Trump met with Republican leadership to officially change the party’s stance on the issues of abortion and gay marriage to more align with his own personal views.
It is unclear as to his motives for this move (though it would not be difficult to guess), but as a result of this decision, he has blurred the lines. This would be a pill more easily swallowed if many pro-life advocates, most of whom claim to be outspoken Believers were more vocal about their disdain for this decision, rather than championing the man who made it. How hollow a sermon sounds from the pulpit, where in one breath it decries the evils of abortion, and in the next it praises a man who will do nothing about it.
The Beginning
Let us examine the “pro-choice” side, so as to better understand what such pastors and ministers have chosen to tacitly support —so maybe we can avoid making the same mistake. I’ll make every effort to be as charitable in my assessment as I’m able, but let me be plain in saying that it will not be an easy task.
The term “pro-choice”, as cited by the Oxford English Dictionary, was first used in a 1969 issue of a California daily newspaper, the “Oxnard Press-Courier”, which referred to “Pro-choice and anti-abortion activists…headed to the Women’s Clinic.” It was adopted as a means to counter the opposition’s phrase, “Right to Life”. The term increased in popularity in the early 1970’s around the time that Roe v. Wade was ruled on, and it has been a popular phrase in the cultural nomenclature ever since. But the idea behind the phrase goes further back than that.
The Abortion Pioneer
Around the time that women received the right to vote in 1920, First Wave Feminism was on the rise. It sought to “free” women from the bonds of being a homemaker, relying on a man for financial stability, and even from motherhood. There was one woman who made a name for herself amongst the medical community, as well as in women’s rights circles for her take on reproductive and sexual “health”. Today she is most famously —or infamously— known as the founder of what became Planned Parenthood, and her name was Margaret Sanger.
A former nurse, she sought to “educate” young women about sexual health, publishing books on the subject with such titles as “Family Limitation”, “What Every Girl Should Know”, and who could forget “Women and the New Race”. She was seen (rightly so) as a radical for her views on family, sexual practices, children, and race relations. I wouldn’t expect you to simply take my word for it, so I’ll use her own and let you be the judge.
- “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”— Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, “The Wickedness of Creating Large Families” (1920).
- “A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.”— America Needs a Code for Babies, Article 3, March 27, 1934.
- “No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood” –Ibid, Article 4, March 27, 1934.
- “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” –Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939, p. 2.
I could continue, but I think we have a sufficient grasp on what “choice” meant to one of the movement’s figureheads. Had Miss Sanger gotten her way, it’s doubtful that I would be here to write about it. She and others like her sought to limit the number of children a couple could have; as they only wished for those with desirable genes to procreate, and thought it a mercy to kill a baby.
What It’s Really About
It would seem that from its inception, the “pro-choice” movement has only ever been about controlling the number of children born by way of restriction and death. Couple such means with the anti-motherhood propaganda for which the movement is known —images of hysterical babies being held by a rundown mother, or literature telling young girls their lives are “over” if they have children— and it creates a morbidly hopeless binary where either her life “ends” or the baby’s does; it’s little wonder why so many opt for abortion.
A Moment of Clarity
I saw a video on social media recently in which a self-described “pro-choice” girl rattled on about a friend of hers that became pregnant. As the video progressed she admitted to being shocked when her friend said she was going to take the pregnancy to term and raise the baby. The girl was beside herself, but took the opportunity to remind her friend, “you know you have a choice, right?” Her friend’s response was to simply say, “Yes, and I am choosing to keep the baby.” The girl ended the video with this realization, “I guess choice means you don’t have to have an abortion either, if you don’t want to.”
This little anecdote may seem innocuous, but it serves to illustrate a broader point. In the mind of abortion supporters, the word “choice” is merely a placeholder for “abortion”, but because of the negativity surrounding that particular word, they have endeavored (up until now) to sanitize their true position for the masses. It’s little more than a cheap marketing ploy designed to trick the impressionable into thinking “pro-choice” means they have options, when really all they offer is death.
DJT’s Position
On the issue of abortion, Donald Trump has made it perfectly clear where he stands, and those who have chosen to stand with him might believe they’re still operating in God’s Will. But, if they were to take a long, honest accounting of their stance, they might find they’re little more than Saul holding the coats of the men who stoned Stephen.
The Challenge
And so, we implore Believers who claim to be pro-life to make a choice. In light of all that has been presented: Will you be one who stands by, like Saul, as innocent lives, like Stephen’s, are destroyed? Will you choose to watch in approval, yet claim it was not my own hands from which the stones were thrown? Or will you decide to say “Enough!”, stand on the side of life, and let the coats fall to the floor?
Choose not to cast your vote for those whose value of life changes based on the election cycle but, instead, make the unpopular decision and withhold your vote for someone who holds life in higher regard than political office!
I will leave you with Moses’ words to the Children of Israel: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live…” –Deuteronomy 30:19
