A Reasonable Definition of 'Pro-Choice'

I'm a definite, determined, and devoted pro-choice fundamental Baptist!  I believe that a woman has a right, responsibility, and requirement to choose: a choice to keep her knees together or rear a child.  That personal, practical, and profound choice would solve most of the abortion problems.

I told a young woman (who had 13 children, all supported by taxpayers) on the Sally Jesse Raphael Show where we were both guests that she would be much better off if she had spent more time in the vertical position, standing on her own two feet, than in a horizontal position.  She looked at me blankly, not understanding what I said.

While it is commendable that she did not choose abortion (that would have eliminated her income), she obviously did not choose to keep her knees together.

Is it possible, dare I say it, that the young woman did not know why a baby seemed to pop out every nine months or so?  Sex, one of God's greatest gifts to humanity, can be misused, as in prostitution, pedophilia, perversion (same-sex "marriage"), polygamy (multiple wives), polyandry (multiple husbands), and polyamory (simultaneous and mutual sexual relationships).

I began my first book, Liberalism: A Rope of Sand, in 1979 with this shocking incident: Professor L.R. Agnew, of the UCLA School of Medicine, posed this set of circumstances to his students: "Here is the family history.  The father has syphilis; the mother has TB.  They have already had four children.  The first one is blind; the second one died.  Third is deaf.  The fourth has TB.  The mother is pregnant with her fifth child.  The parents are willing to have an abortion if you decide they should.  What do you think?"

"Most of the students decided on abortion," said Professor Agnew.

"Congratulations!" he told them.  "You have just murdered Beethoven."

Pro-life people should be careful to make it clear that the fact that the child turned out to be a master musician whose work is celebrated worldwide makes no difference in the morality.  If Beethoven had turned out to be a chimney sweep, it would have made no difference as to right and wrong.

Radical leftists are frothing at the mouth over Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, and Texas because of the abortion bills they have passed or are in the process of passing.  It is getting dangerous to be an abortionist; jail time may be in their future.  It should be, since they are butchering helpless babies who can't even cry out in their own defense.

Humanity has become so jaded that people affirm that a child should be aborted even if he would not have a good quality of life.  Some even think parents should have the right to kill a child a few years after birth!

It was revealed in the murder trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell that a late-term baby survived a botched abortion and was "swimming" in a toilet and "trying to get out."  An assistant killer then took the large baby out and "snipped the back of its neck while the mother was still in the room."  Then Gosnell, a bloody barbarian baby butcher, sarcastically said the baby "was big enough that it could walk to the store or the bus stop."  I'd like to see Gosnell in his white coat walk up the 13 steps of a gallows — literally.

There was testimony that the abortionist had snipped the spinal cords of about 10 babies who survived the abortion procedure.  He was sentenced to life without parole, but the babies they dug out of the clogged toilet are still dead. 

In my opinion, everyone in this sorry, sordid, sinful mess is complicit in murder — not manslaughter, not accidental death, not wrongful death, but murder.  And any society that permits such atrocities is vile, vicious, and violent — and in the toilet.

Two professors published, in the Journal of Medical Ethics, a paper titled "After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?"  It was a shocker, defending and advocating infanticide but calling it after-birth abortion.

The professors declared, "Therefore we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be.  Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk."

Their vacuous arguments get worse by the paragraph.  They say, "Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life."  The professors argue that personhood doesn't begin until sometime after birth, so there must be some magic going through the birth canal.

The professors defend their position by saying, "[I]n order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm.  If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all[.] ... In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions."  

No one can defend such heartless slaughter, but people try.  In fact, some people tell us abortion is an "act of compassion" since an unnecessary and unwanted child will also grow up unloved.  Well, I'd rather be "unwanted" and "unloved" than "unalive."

There are many motives for a woman to kill her unborn baby.  One reason is that the baby will be an inconvenience to her.  After all, it is difficult to live an active social life with a baby hanging on the hip, or being required to get a baby sitter each night.  Plus, you know, all the months of sickness, awkwardness, etc., and the sleepless nights, colic, teething, feeding, etc.  Babies are a lot of trouble. 

Still others tell us a child should not be permitted to live if he will be disabled, disfigured, or debased.  It would be nice if the baby had a choice in the decision.  But only the woman has a choice.  Not the baby.  Not the father, who is seldom involved in this discussion.

It seems a woman assumes that that life within her is hers alone, but the father has as many rights as the mother.  The baby would not be there but for his cooperation.  But then, the father is never considered by the hypocrites at Planned Parenthood or the screaming feminists.  He, like the unborn baby, has no rights.

Women, in a word, have a right to control their own bodies, and the word is "no."  They become "with child" because they refused to say the word and keep their knees together.  The heartless mother, the nurses, and doctors will all stand at the Judgment one day as they finally realize they tried to undo what God did.

In a nation where little children (born and unborn) are slaughtered, no one is safe.  Fyodor Dostoevsky (author of Crime and Punishment, etc.) said, "If God is dead, then nothing is morally wrong."

But God is not dead; I met and spoke with Him this morning.  Those who kill the innocent will also meet with Him!

Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, who ran a large Christian school in Indianapolis and wrote columns for USA Today for eight years.  Boys's book, Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning!, is available here.  Follow Dr. Boys on Facebook at Don Boys, Ph.D. and at TheGodHaters and on Twitter, and visit his blog.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com