Anti-choice, Really? There really is a group officially against choice – in America? The so-called “pro-choice” movement, by claiming the “pro” for themselves and designating their opposition as “anti”, lend the appearance of their being the good guys in this debate. But how accurate are those labels?
Choice is only possible when there are options – usually multiple options. Wise choices require examining information about all available options. But all I ever hear from the “pro-choice” people is about one single choice – abortion. If “choice” is the primary, significant and noble issue, why isn’t there at least discussion of, let alone promotion of other choices?
We don’t hear from the “pro-choice” camp about the choice of adoption. This not only solves the “problem of unwanted pregnancy” but also provides those whose choices may be limited biologically a way to have the family they would choose.
We hear nothing about choices of celibacy, chastity, or abstinence. These are valid choices with which many people live happy lives. Ironically, most voices promoting “choice” are the same who buy into the argument that we are sexual beings and it is only natural to act on those impulses – as if we have no choice over our sexual feelings or actions. Not only are chastity and abstinence not given serious consideration, virginity is openly mocked. The freedom to choose to have sex whenever and with whomever is valued, but not making wise choices to refrain from or limit such behavior.
Where is the discussion about all the numerous small choices made, which over time result in the very situation which might bring a woman to consider the one single choice the “pro-choice” movement promotes? Choices about the way women treat their own bodies. Choices about dress, grooming, language, and behavior. Choices about whom to spend time with and in what places and what circumstances. Choices about what age is appropriate for girls and boys to spend time alone. Choices about what to share on social media. Choices about what media to watch or listen to. Choices to plan and prepare or to be carried away with the moment. These are really choices to act or be acted upon. Proactive people, making good choices all along, would be less likely to need to make those more serious choices. If the choice of whether to abort or carry a pregnancy fully to childbirth is the only choice to be considered, it is way too late in the game. The important choices were made long before that.
Choices come with consequences – that’s just the way it works. Consequences may not be immediate, which may cause some to think that they have been avoided. But consequences always come. Though we can control our choices, the consequences are beyond our control. Most are a result of natural laws – cause and effect. Because we are complicated beings dealing with complicated and varied circumstances, consequences may vary greatly. We can’t always predict what specific consequences will come from a particular choice or when those consequences will eventually come. But consequences will come. We don’t get a choice.
In reality, the pro-choice position is less about promoting “choice” and more about promoting the one single choice that in effect will remove an unwanted consequence of previous choices. Making that one single choice results in its own set of unavoidable consequences. So the Pro-choice position could more accurately be termed “anti-consequence.”
The “pro-life” position, termed “anti-choice” by the “pro-choice”, is actually not against choice at all. People in this camp would be more likely to discuss those choices which preceded an unwanted pregnancy and explore more than one “choice” as a solution. The only objection of the supposedly “anti-choice” is the “one single choice”, which in effect would deny an unborn human being the opportunity to make any choice – ever. So that makes the supposed “anti-choice” actually “pro-choice” for those for whom the “pro-choice” camp seek to deny choice.
So, to be more truthful in labeling, perhaps the name of one group should be changed to “pro-abortion”, and if we must keep the “pro” and “anti”, the opposition could be simply “anti-abortion”. But “choice” sounds so much more positive and noble than “abortion.” Perhaps because it is. And perhaps abortion is not really a wise choice to be promoting.