America's Darkest Day
On January 22, 1973 five of nine men on the Supreme Court, using incredibly
broad interpretations of the 9th and 14th amendments to The Constitution,
claimed that these amendments established a right of privacy, which was "broad
enough" for them to rule that a woman may legally abort her own unborn child.
In dissent, Justice Rehnquist wrote that the ruling of those five justices
"partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the
intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Today, millions of Americans who have read, for themselves, neither the
ludicrous arguments used in justifying the decision, the dissent of the
justices who disagreed NOR The Constitution proudly announce that they have a
"Constitutional right" to abort human life.
They say these words as if this rationalization by five men transformed such
method of ending a human life into a moral one, even a "freedom" worthy of
celebration.
The belief that any act becomes moral or ethical solely because this appeals
court deems it to be legal is one born of ignorance. Those who hold such views
should be reminded that slavery, segregation and torturing animals were once
perfectly legal.
In a brilliantly executed plan to sway public opinion in favor of behavior
which had, for centuries, been unspeakable by most in polite society,
proponents of human abortion immediately labeled the decision a "pro choice"
decision. After all, how could any American be against "choice" or against "a
woman's right to choose"?
Roe v Wade granted no woman the "right to choose" life. That right and
responsibility of every mother was the expectation of every civilized society
in history.
Roe v Wade granted ONLY the legal right of a woman to kill her unborn child,
with no other criteria than her desire to do so.
The only "choice" granted by Roe v Wade was the choice to end human life in the
womb.
Proponents of abortion, many of whom foresaw the gold mine in the business of
aborting human life, succeeded in convincing millions of women that they would
now be "empowered" by the right to kill their unborn child.
This "empowerment" would allow them to avoid the ultimate responsibility that
any woman, through her own behavior and regardless of social class, freely
obtains.
Abortion proponents knew that the decision to legalize such a deplorable method
of birth control would be under constant attack. They rallied these "empowered"
women, and men happy to be granted this legal escape from fatherhood, to
support only those politicians who lacked the moral character to stand against
the abortion of innocent human life.
Pro-abortion forces began a well-orchestrated public relations campaign, using
carefully selected words and phrases, designed to desensitize the public to
aborting human life.
They started by referring to an unborn child only as a "fetus" (the Latin word
for "child").
Some went so far as to continually refer to a human embryo as "just a blob of
tissue".
No intellectually honest person, who has viewed a, legally abortable, live
human being in utero, via ultrasound, witnessing the new life's heart
feverishly beating within, could utter such a description.
This breathtaking sight can leave no person of conscience unmoved.
Abortion advocates constantly strive to further rationalize the idea of ending
a human life by referring to the act as simply the "Right to Choose", never
describing, in any detail, exactly what the procedure is that they are choosing
to do.
Any attempt by anyone to disseminate educational photos or actual video of a
human abortion is vehemently attacked. Abortion proponents want the public to
have a "right to choose" but not a right to know or, God forbid, a right to see
an actual human abortion procedure.
Women's Health?
Proponents of legalized abortion have succeeded, by design, in turning abortion
on demand, regardless of reason, into a "woman's health" issue, as if pregnancy
is caused by a virus or is a routinely adverse condition which occurs through
no "choice"of the woman.
Proponents cite the "mental health" of a woman "forced" to bear her own child,
while never mentioning the mental health affects on a woman who chooses to kill
it.
Many combat veterans and cops have been forced to take a life in defense of
their own. In spite of the fact that they had no choice, many suffer life long
stress and feelings of guilt. The idea that most women who kill their own
unborn child, for reasons of mere convenience, will not suffer the same
agonizing fate is asinine, illogical and dishonest.
The rape excuse.
Proponents of abortion cite rape as a reason to support legalized abortion for
every pregnant woman, never mentioning the fact that only an extremely tiny
percentage of pregnancies are the result of rape or the fact that, in most
states, abortion was already legal in cases of rape or incest.
The tactical errors of the Pro-life movement:
Those who oppose legalized abortion for moral, ethical or religious reasons
have, ironically, played right into the hands of those who support it.
By parroting the same catch phrases in debate, such as "pro choice", right to
choose" and "fetus", by referring to doctors who commit abortions as doctors
who "perform" abortions, the opponents of abortion are unwittingly
participating in the relentless campaign of pro-abortion zealots to manipulate
public opinion..
These are the very phrases which are specifically designed to put a positive
spin on legalized human abortion, to make it, in the eyes of the public, seem
like nothing different than removing a tumor.
Holier-than-thou?
Many who oppose abortion on religious grounds have taken to shouting their
message, though megaphones, from the street corner.
This serves only to reinforce the message of abortion proponents, that those
who oppose them are extreme "religious fanatics".
America is a country where even the faithful are split into many denominations
over differences in the interpretations of scripture.
Shouting chapter and verse at people on the street, many of whom are secular,
in an attempt to change their hearts and minds, is counter productive.
This method may succeed in changing the minds of a very few but it alienates
far more. This is detrimental to bringing about any meaningful change in public
opinion.
The answer to changing public opinion:
The pro-life cause would be better served and MUCH more effective if those
opposed to abortion would take a lesson from their adversaries in the power of
words.
They should refuse to use the phrase "pro-choice" and always use "pro
abortion".
They should refuse to say, "perform" abortion and always say, "commit"
abortion.
Stop using the word "fetus" and remind everyone that the word is Latin for
"child".
They should continuously ask why the father who, undeniably, contributes 50% of
the genetic makeup of every human embryo, has NO legal "right to choose"
whether his child lives or dies.
They should replace the shouting of rhetoric with calm debate on the scientific
facts, pointing out that an unborn baby is NOT "part of a woman's body".
They should distribute, without preaching, models of an unborn child in
different stages of development, as an education tool, putting an end to the
"just a blob of tissue" lie.
They should point out that, with the huge numbers of loving Americans looking
to adopt, there is NO SUCH THING as an "unwanted" baby.
They should refuse to use the clinical sounding phrase "terminate the
pregnancy", substituting "end the life of the child".
They should never use the partial phrase "right to choose" and always use the
entire phrase "right to choose to kill your unborn child". This would change
public perception, reminding people of what the "right to choose" actually
means.
The shouting match, which is the current method of debate, is a dead end.
Imagine if bumper stickers were commonly seen proclaiming, "Support a woman's
right to choose to kill her unborn child" or "Pro-choice to kill". Sounds
awful, right?
Abortion proponents would be FURIOUS, without having a leg to stand on in
objecting to the bumper stickers.
Like the martial art of Aikido, the opponent's own weight would be leveraged
to defeat them.
These powerful, bold, changes in tactics would accomplish much more than any
sidewalk rally, gruesome posters or abortion mill protest, which only serve to
annoy and anger the public.
The majority of people would start to recognize abortion as the, disgusting,
crime against humanity that it is.
Only by changing the hearts and minds of people, through intelligent, civil,
debate and education, can real political change take place.
The choice of words has infinitely more power than the volume in which they are
spoken.
Gus Morrow
Oceanside, CA
.
|
