Monday, November 10, 2008

Some reasons for why the ‘I’m not pro-abortion, just pro-choice’ line is a nasty, evasive piece of nonsense

This post is inspired by the following comment at The Australian on-line:

Stephen Morgan Tue 04 Nov 08 (10:44am)
It’s time to rename the camps in the abortion as those in favour of full choice and those in favour of restricted choice - because it is the most accurate description of their relative positions.
Most importantly, it’s time for agitators to stop using terms like pro-abortion. Nobody is pro-abortion, and for anybody to label another person as such is not only inaccurate it is base and callous insult and nothing more.
Abortion is an option allowed by law, and morally acceptable if not preferable to most Australians. Open and full debate on the issue is far more constructive than the emotional diatribes of those whose sole motivation is religious fundamentalism.
Of course, were the religious fundamentalists to also engage in sensible debate on family planning and sex education we might be able to reduce the tragic toll of terminations in this country.
It would be truly gratifying to see them stump up properly instead of relying of the failed tactics of the past several millenia - that somehow just because they say it’s right, it must therefore be so.
Now as I pointed out in a response at the same page of The Australian’s letters blog, given that the two potential objects of a pregnant woman’s supposed faculty of ‘choice’ are abortion and non-abortion, and given that no-one contests that non-abortion is a legitimate exercise of this faculty, then it is perfectly fair to speak of pro-abortion individuals.

A parallel between the debate over abortion and the debate over the death penalty illustrates this further. It is well known that I support the death penalty strongly, and I have no problem with being labeled pro-execution; I will not try to weasel out of this with semantic games about being ‘not pro-execution, just pro-choice’, since it goes without saying that I do not want to see the death penalty imposed indiscriminately, without regard to the circumstances of the alleged crime.

Furthermore, if, as the ‘pro-choice’ folk argue, abortion is merely a morally neutral elective medical procedure, then why does Mr. Morgan think that to be called ‘pro-abortion’ “is not only inaccurate it is base and callous insult and nothing more”? Why does it evoke such a strong reaction?

But if one requires documentary proof that pro-choice means pro-abortion, then one need look no further than Victoria’s recently-passed Abortion Law Reform Bill. How can those who acquiesced in this obscene Bill purport not to be pro-abortion when it forces health professionals to perform abortions? Furthermore, the same Bill removes references to ‘child destruction’, despite the fact that one need not end a baby’s life in order to end a dangerous pregnancy.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Andrew Avellino, 2008 A.D.

No comments: