Dear “Pro-life”: I am against abortion. But I am not against choice

If you run for office, you’ll get loaded questionnaires that essentially insist you sign up to overturn Roe v Wade. (And from the other side that you’ll sign up against things like the Hobby Lobby ruling, when the real issue is that individuals or families, not corporations, should control their own health care insurance choices.)

And let’s decode a little bit, since even the names of the movements are a lie: “Pro-life” means “I want to make abortion illegal.”

“Pro-choice” means I want the government to routinely fund abortion and make it a popular choice. I’m aligned with clinics that provide abortions and we tout the advantages to your life style of not having a child to raise or going through the inconvenience of carrying a child to term to be adopted.

Well I’ll have none of it. Here is the way I see it: The government does not get to make this choice. Having the threat of the government becoming involved in the choice probably causes additional actual abortions to take place and under worse conditions than are really necessary.

Essentially this is an issue of religious freedom and your definition of when life begins.

But I AM against abortion. If I am privileged to be in the circle of trust from whom some woman facing this choice seeks guidance, my advice will be for life.

Now let’s be specific: If the life of the mother is endangered I agree it is a slippery slope between the always present risk of mortality and the near certain death some pregnancies pose. I do not believe even Solomon could make a general call on what to do in every case. I would probably tend to side with saving the mother in the hopes of a chance for a more normal pregnancy later. But that is only advice and only hypothetical. The choice, after being fully informed and free of coercion in either direction, belongs to the mother.

What about rape? If the mother’s life is not in special jeopardy, MY counsel is for life. Half of that DNA is yours. Probably you will love this child beyond all reason. If you are convinced you will not, there is always adoption. But once again, that is only advice and advice only given to a specific pregnant woman if I’m invited to give my opinion by HER.

So that’s it. I’m against abortion. I’m against laws against abortion. I’m against corporations being involved in health care decisions, and that means they should not be involved in funding health care. (It was a stupid artifact of wage controls in world war II that got that whole business started, and that is too long a story for this entry.) I’m quite certain my “score” will be near zero with both “pro-life” and “pro-choice” forces. I don’t care. My goal is different: I want both personal freedom AND the fewest possible actual abortions.



About rsiz

Father and Husband, Oracle Technology Scientist and Consultant, planning to end poverty for citizens and legal US residents Lebanon, NH · See my wife's puzzles at
This entry was posted in politics, Thinking Clearly, US Senate Primary. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Dear “Pro-life”: I am against abortion. But I am not against choice

  1. Walter A. Stapleton says:

    Thanks for directing me to your blog site, Mark, relative to my telephone question as to whether you consider yourself “pro-Life” or “pro-choice”! Now I understand why you answered “see the blog”! Well, we do need titles, but I agree they are often inadequate and/or misleading! “Pro-Life” for why? “Pro-Choice” for what? “Protect Life in the Womb” or “Life is sacred including the pre-born” would be clearer for the former, and “keep abortion legal” would be more accurate for the later. But the shorter titles are quicker/easier to say, and for many are convenient to veil the gruesome nature of that “choice”! You’ve stated being “…against abortion (but also)..against laws against abortion”? Really? Isn’t that conflicting? Would you therefore be ‘against laws for abortion’ (like FOCA) just to be ‘fair’ in the use of the ‘against laws’? Rather, I would think, that if we are indeed a “..Nation under God”, shouldn’t our laws have God’s moral basis in both “Thou shalt not..” as well as “Love thy neighbor”? And doesn’t our Constitution, as the source document for our laws, guarantee the right to life, liberty, property and personhood (Fourteenth Amendment)? Of course, the Supreme Court in Roe-v-Wade, couldn’t/wouldn’t decide when life and personhood began, so they simply erred on the side of death up to a certain point in Roe, and then at any time before birth in Doe(-v-Bolton)! As though that weren’t bad enough, Justice Blackman in Roe even acknowledged, “…if this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case of course collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the Fourteenth Amendment”! So, if this kind of stuff is intrinsically wrong, don’t we as Christians have a moral obligation to fix it? We should have to say “yes” to that, which is why in our Republican State Platform this year, language was adopted “to support passage of a Life at Conception Act”!.
    11/01/2014, Walt Stapleton, NH Republican Delegate, Claremont NH.

    • rsiz says:

      Being against abortion, I would advise anyone who sought my counsel to not have an abortion.
      That is decidedly NOT in conflict with being against laws created for the government to tell a woman whether or not she may have an abortion.
      Likewise, I am a Christian but I do not believe we should seek to control the actions of others with respect to religion by LAW. So as a Christian I believe I have a moral obligation not to pass a law against abortion, but rather to advise for life.

      I do not understand how that is in the least little bit confusing or in conflict. I think someone has to go out of her or his way to misunderstand my position, yet both aligned “sides” of this issue claim me as their enemy. So be it.

      This is no different than folks who (like me) would advise against smoking but not make smoking illegal where the effects of second hand smoke do not do damage to others.

      The “sides” have decided that you are not pro-life unless you would make a law against abortion. So the name pro-life is a misleading name that actually means “make abortion illegal.”

      Pro-choice is a misleading name for a group that advocates for abortion as a first among equals strategy for birth control.

      As for the Republican platform, I rue that I could not make time to show up to argue a few things.

      Regards, Walt, and best wishes. I think I’ve answered your two actual questions. I take the rest to be rhetorical in the course of your argument for making abortion illegal.

      • Walter A. Stapleton says:

        Thanks for your reply to mine! I have enjoyed the exchange and appreciate this nice site you’ve created as a forum for discussion on this and other issues! The only thing I would add is that I believe as Christians, it is our duty to form and inform the culture instead of being merely compliant or reactive to it, One of the ways we do that is through law formed in concert with God’s Law as the source of all authority, as well as in compliance with our Constitution. Also, I don’t view our differences in this discussion as adversarial but rather exchange in dialogue! Blessings, Walt.

      • rsiz says:

        Likewise, Walt.

        An interesting side question is whether there will ultimately be more or fewer abortions if abortions were made illegal.
        I believe if we applied all the energy (wasted, in my opinion, because a: I do believe when “personhood” takes place is a religious judgement and b: short of an amendment it is not going to happen anyway [and no such amendment would ever pass]) to counseling against abortion and promoting the options we would reduce abortions more than any law would. Further, if the “pro-life” movement eschewed legally banning abortion in favor such counseling, the “pro-choice” forces would *largely* become allies in minimizing actual cases of abortion.

        That is the way I see it: Go ye therefore and make disciples in all nations (but not at the point of a sword or with the force of law. Convert them with Love.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s