Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Women's Reproductive Rights

Today I was terribly frustrated when I heard yet again the association made that those who seek to defend the helpless are seeking to take away women’s reproductive rights. This is a sad commentary on the politically correct mindset that pervades America’s spokespersons.

I must admit that it is a very clever deception. Not that I applaud such “cleverness.” Nevertheless, those who choose to press for their agenda by use of this phraseology truly know how to manipulate the language. They are very effective.

Certainly I and all who love the gift of life are in favor of “women’s reproductive rights.” It is angering to be accused of the exact opposite of what I believe and say. Yet that is what is done by those who promote and profit from abortions. It is a deliberate deception to refer to abortion as a Reproductive Right, for abortion is the exact opposite of reproduction. Abortion is the termination of the reproduction that has already taken place.

The fact is that the woman has already exercised her reproductive rights. That is why the one that she and her sexual partner produced is living within her. The conjugal couple have already exercised fully their reproductive rights and the result is that they have indeed reproduced humanity as a living and growing baby.

There are, of course, those occasions where the baby is the result of a rape, whereby the woman’s reproductive rights were violated by the villain who abused her. This violation is most certainly a horrific crime against humanity and against the woman. Such a crime most certainly should and must be punished.

However, the baby is the not criminal. The baby did not violate its mother. The baby is a newly produced and beautiful example of love, even though the sexual act was not one of love. This baby is a genuine reproduction of humanity and must be protected from the same violence that was perpetrated upon the mother.

The mother of the baby, even in the case of rape, is blessed with a true choice that brings loveliness every time. What may have begun as an act of selfish, sexual self-gratification has been turned into an act of life. Both the mother who carelessly succumbed to sexual lust and the mother who suffered the lustful violence of another can choose to receive the little reproduction with joy and love. This is the natural choice of any woman until something else causes her to go against her loving instincts. Fear or other pressures can lead her to seek to choose what everything in her being tells her is wrong. Life is the natural choice, as her own body and hormones tell her. Life is the natural choice as is evidenced by the fact that the sexual encounter produced life within her. To end life is unnatural. To end life is to end all hope for future choices both for the baby as well as the mother, as well as for the father and grandparents and the entire family of the world.

Yet those who seek to promote the end of all choices promote themselves as “Pro-Choice.” This lie seems appealing, especially to one who is frightened and facing unplanned responsibilities.

Two of perhaps the best known proponents of this inhuman fallacy call themselves NARAL Pro-Choice America and The Center for Reproductive Rights. (For Wikipedia’s history of NARAL click here.) What they promote truly is inhuman because they promote as a choice the end of the reproduction of humanity, and a great injustice to humanity, especially the humanity of the little child and of the mother of this child.

Nevertheless, they call this deception a defense of rights and especially of the right to choose. If this is truly what they seek, why then do they resist making information available to the mother to help her choose to protect her baby? Why do they refuse to warn the mother of the damage caused by choosing to go against her womanhood and her psyche, which continually argue within her in defense of her motherhood and in defense of her child? Why do they fight vehemently against laws that would require abortionists to give all available information to those who are considering ending their motherhood and the life of their child? Why do they hire attorneys to find ways to prevent laws that would require abortionists to supply information about what alternatives to abortion are available to these mothers?

The contrast is stark. On one side stand those who shout angrily against their neighbors and fellow countrymen, accusing them of stealing from women their reproductive rights. On the other side stand those who beg abortionists to set aside their greed so as to be honest with those who feel trapped and fearful, begging women to consider what they are doing both to themselves as well as their unborn children. Is there any comparison between the two sides?

Such an article as this will surely not appear in any major magazine or newspaper. Yet perhaps through the Internet some dear woman or young lady will come to realize that she is not trapped and that she truly does have a choice. The choice that women have is to rejoice in their womanhood and to receive the gift of life with thanksgiving, to live rather than to suffer, to step into the light rather than to hide in shame and guilt for many years afterward.

The Pro-Choice group has always been directed at concealing the truth and destroying and ending the life of children along with the life of freedom for the mothers of these children. The Pro-Choice movement began long before the 1973 Supreme Court case of Roe v Wade. The beginning of the Pro-Choice movement is recorded in Genesis 3, where the serpent presented a choice to the woman in the garden. The choice was between trusting the good life that she had been given or choosing to know both good and evil. The Lord forewarned that it would be a choice between life and death. The serpent presented the fallacious notion that the woman was being deprived of something more, that freedom would result from her choice. She was very sadly disappointed, as was her husband, and as all mankind has been ever since.

As we stand back and observe the Pro-Choice group in contrast to the Pro-Life group, which group truly appears to be free? Which group truly appears to be informed? Which group appears to be truly open with the truth and with the facts? Which group appears to be happier? Which group truly appears to be defending women’s reproductive rights?

From which group would you want to have your mother? Oh, but then, that wouldn’t be your choice, would it?

No comments: