But then, maybe they had “pro-choice” abolitionists in 1860 too.This may be one of those moments when passion overcomes prudence, as I cannot remain silent in the face of such seduction.

This may be one of those moments when passion overcomes prudence, as I cannot remain silent in the face of such seduction.

We have a new President, and I am praying for him and his administration to guide our nation in righteousness.  My fear is in how they define righteousness.  Case in point, is anyone surprised that he has taken immediate action to reverse the pro-life policies of the previous administration? 

Given that January is Sanctity of Life month, I had initially planned to share two  blog posts related to the pro-life issue of abortion.  The first was Virtues That Define Us, posted on January 11th.  The second was I Was Once a Zygote, published January 17th.  

I am compelled to offer a third. 

On January 18th, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, complained that pro-life voters for President Trump “gives me great grief as a Catholic.”  And then all but implied that pro-life voters made the difference in the 2016 election by adding, “I think that Donald Trump is President because of the issue of a woman’s right to choose.” She made her position clear by stating, “we renew our commitment to build on the legacy of Roe v. Wade so that we can protect a woman’s right to choose…“

Catholic Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco was quick to respond.  “No Catholic in good conscience can favor abortion….Our land is soaked with the blood of the innocent, and it must stop.”

Pelosi’s use of the euphemism right-to-choose has prompted me to speak out as well to highlight the use of deceptive semantics like right-to-choose to expand abortion rights.

So here’s my third pro-life related post for January, The Right to Choose What?  It could just as well have been sub-titled, Words Matter!

Unless you have been in a fifty-year coma, you will immediately recognize the tinderbox slogan used by Pelosi and others who passionately defend the right of a woman to have an abortion…at any time during her pregnancy.

Those who support abortion rights prefer to call themselves pro-choice.  Who wants to be called pro-abortion anyway?  A favorite comeback from pro-choicers is, “I am personally opposed to abortion, but I support the right to choose.”  

Have you ever noticed that the slogan doesn’t specify the choices involved?  It’s rather ambiguous.  If this weren’t such a serious topic, I’d chuckle at the use of euphemisms to describe a person’s position on this fundamentally human life issue. Supporting the “Right-to-Choose”  begs the question, “The Right-to-Choose What?”

The answers to that question typically include more euphemisms.  The “right to terminate a pregnancy” sounds as benign as a decision to cancel your Direct TV contract.  The unborn life in the womb has often been labeled as just tissue, the products of conception, or uterine contents.  These semantic seductions have but one goal – to hide the reality that a separate, distinct human life is being killed.

The ambiguity is intentional.  What freedom-loving American doesn’t support the innocent, patriotic sounding phrase Right-to-Choose?  

I support the Right-to-Choose too!

The right of fathers to choose to save their unborn child’s life.

The right of taxpayers to choose not to fund abortions through their taxes.

The right of parents to choose to be involved in an abortion decision of their minor daughter.

The right of women to be fully informed about the risks associated with abortion.

The right of the unborn to choose to live.

The right of medical personnel to choose not to be forced to participate in abortion procedures to which they are morally opposed.

Ok, let’s be honest.  Abortion proponents are clever and creative in their use of an admittedly successful semantic wordplay that sounds so American, so democratic, so, dare I say, patriotic, as a means to manipulate feelings and distort the truth.  

Yet, there are some who claim to be both pro-choice and pro-life.  Huh? Are they trying to reconcile their conflicted feelings on the issue, or just trying to make a vague term even more ambiguous? 

This linguistic seduction emphasizes the value of the choice rather than the rightness or wrongness of the choices involved.  

The reality of the abortion debate in America today is that those who consider this issue a foundational issue will vote accordingly.  Those who support abortion at any stage of pregnancy for any reason tend to vote Democratic.  Those who believe the unborn life should be protected tend to vote Republican.  Fair enough, but let’s avoid word games that only serve to cloud the real issue.  The use of terms like Pro-Choice and Right-to-Choose, while persuasive and effective (for those who support abortion rights), are only a semantic deception designed to serve as a smokescreen. 

The day will come, soon I hope, when Americans will look back at the American Holocaust when 60 plus million lives were killed by abortion (loss of life) with the same shame that we have for slavery (loss of liberty) and the mistreatment of the American Indian (loss of property).  

And we will wonder how we were so easily deceived by the distorted progressive double-speak of words like “reproductive healthcare” and “right-to-choose.” 

If you support abortion rights, then let’s debate it and be honest about the consequences of the choice!  But please do not be deceived that you can be pro-choice and pro-life at the same time. Supporting the right-to-choose means you support either of the choices being made.   Until someone can convince me otherwise, to say that one can be “passionately pro-choice and not be pro-abortion” is, at the very least, confusing, or at worst, delusional. 

If you claim to be pro-choice, and one of those choices is abortion, then you are pro-abortion.

If that statement bothers you, then answer me this.  If you were a Southerner in 1860, would you have used the euphemism of the day to describe slavery as our “peculiar institution?”  Or would you claim to be an abolitionist who passionately opposed slavery, but held a right-to-choose view by saying, “I am personally opposed to slavery, but support the right of others to own slaves?” 

But then, maybe they had “pro-choice” abolitionists in 1860 too.