Abortion: A New Look at Some Old Terms

 

by Jack R. Voltz

 

 

Opinions on abortion vary widely. While it is difficult to categorize everyone involved in the issue, generally speaking, people can be divided into five major categories which mark the degree to which they support or fight against abortion: proaborts, prochoicers, fence-sitters, semi-prolifers, and mega-prolifers. Please keep in mind these categories are not set in stone--there are no fixed boundaries.   Also, people can easily shift from one category to the next.
 

Proaborts

I call people that support abortion unconditionally proaborts. The proabort typically thinks along these lines: "Abortion is the right of every woman. It is their body, they can do whatever the heck they want with it." From the opposite end of the abortion spectrum, where abortion is seen as the murder of an innocent child, it is all too easy to characterize all proaborts as inhuman, unfeeling monsters.

Yet it must be noted that most proaborts have underlying motives which, in a generous light, can be seen as pure, even altruistic:

The problem is, many proaborts encase this semi-philanthropism in a wall of hatred and rage against anyone who opposes abortion, which tends to mask their true motives.

Other proaborts support abortion simply because they see no reason not to support it:

 

Prochoicers

Prochoice is a term I use to denote people who openly admit abortion is an awful thing, but still see it as a viable "choice" for women who desire it.  Whereas the proabort is adamantly supportive of abortion, without giving too much thought to the matter, the prochoicer is more pensive, perhaps ruminating over a number of factors before reluctantly concluding that abortion is a sad and repugnant thing, but a necessary evil nonetheless. The pro-choicer may read the newspaper daily, finding confirmation for the need for abortion in every article on:  

Fence-sitters

I use this term to denote those who express no opinion on the abortion issue, and even if they have an opinion, generally keep it to themselves and are unwilling to take any action either way. Fence-sitters may see abortion as a moral evil. They may be moved by accounts of the brutality of abortion, just as they are equally likely to be deeply moved by heart-rending stories of the women who express a need for abortion. Yet, for a variety of reasons, fence-sitters choose to remain out of the line of fire. Reasons may include:  

Semi-prolifers

This is a term I use for people who oppose abortion, yet still have reservations about banning it totally. Semi-prolifers know what abortion is and know the reasons why it must be eliminated. They expend considerable energy and work countless hours to fight abortion. They may financially support prolife campaigns. They give of themselves selflessly and tirelessly for a cause that is well worth fighting for. In fact, "semi" is actually a misnomer--better to call these folks "ninety-nine and 44/100ths percent prolife." Yet despite this seeming total opposition to abortion, they still allow a tiny portion of themselves to contemplate the unthinkable. They feel that women may need a "safety net" for the following special circumstances:  

Mega-Prolifers

This term I reserve for anyone who opposes abortion unconditionally, without reservation or hesitation. It matters not the reasons for their opposition, what matters is the totality of it. To the mega-prolifer, abortion in any shape or form is abhorrent and must be banned totally. Issues raised by those who do not support a total ban on abortion become non-issues:
Rape and incest were the twin wedges that pro-abortion forces used to split state legislatures, which, prior to 1973 were generally anti-abortion.  Once pro-aborts got their foot in the door with those exceptions, it was a short hop to the Supreme Court, where the Roe vs. Wade decision (and its companion case, Doe vs. Bolton) effectively legalized abortion-on-demand in America. In the 25 years which followed that monumental travesty of justice, we've all heard dozens of arguments in favor of keeping abortion a legal "choice" for women.  But of all of the arguments used to support abortion, there is none so tenacious, so insidious, and so gut-wrenching as the "rape" and "incest" arguments.

The rhetoric in favor of abortions for rape and incest usually goes something like this:  

"Suppose your wife (or daughter) were raped--what would you do? Wouldn't you want her to be allowed to have an abortion?  If we don't keep abortion legal, women who are raped will be forced to carry the rapist's child."
Incest follows similar lines of reasoning.
As with most rhetoric, this situation ethic is oversimplified and designed to reach you emotionally, at a gut level.  First, the act of aborting a child of rape or incest is tantamount to executing him for the crimes of his father.  Even if it was right to punish the child--which, of course, it isn't--shouldn't the child receive the same punishment that his father receives?  Whatever weird system of logic you use to justify rape or incest abortions, it should at least be internally self-consistent. If the rapist is caught (or the incestuous relationship is exposed), does the perpetrator usually get the death penalty? Almost never.  Is it fair, then, that the child is tortured in some excruciating fashion when society eventually even forgives the father for his crimes?  Just because a child is conceived in rape (or incest) does not taint that child with the father's sin.  Nor does the rape detract in any way from the inherent worth of the child, who, as any compassionate person must agree, is wholly innocent of all crimes his or her father may have committed.  NBC talk show hostess Faith Daniels revealed to People magazine that she was conceived in rape.  She was put up for adoption at birth by her mother.  Ask Faith if she believes abortion is okay in cases of rape (she doesn't); ask her if she thinks she was a mistake (she doesn't); ask her if the rape burdened her all of her life (it didn't).

There can be no doubt that rape is an emotionally charged issue.  There are no easy answers to the problem.  When a woman is raped, she needs compassion and understanding from her loved ones, not condemnation.  A man whose wife is raped should be more concerned with reassuring her that he still loves her and caring for her needs than with seeking revenge on the rapist by insisting that she abort the child.  Although he may see abortion is the quick and easy solution to the rape that will "make things better again," in actuality the abortion will probably do more harm than good.  Even if his wife comes through the abortion unscathed physically, she may be forced to carry around with her for the rest of her life the emotional trauma of the rape and the knowledge that she has just allowed a child of hers to be put to death.

 A child born with genetic deformities and/or mental and physical handicaps possesses the same God-given right to be born as any other child.  Anyone who supports this type of abortion under the guise of "compassion" is only fooling himself--there is nothing even remotely "compassionate" about abortion. T rue "compassion" for unborn babies who have birth defects or other handicaps would be to allow the child to be born, to raise him and care for his needs.  Sure it takes more effort, but there are rewards--the love and devotion of the child, an increase in familial bonding, and the blessings of the Lord for your compassion. Mega-prolifers generally fear this argument because it is the most difficult to answer.  But as with all arguments in favor of abortion, it will yield to the light of truth when examined closely.

First of all, I don't consider ectopic pregnancies to be true abortions.  In general, the physician tries to save the lives of both of his patients; when it becomes clear that both patients would certainly die, the woman's life is saved (in ectopic pregnancies, the developing unborn child attaches himself to his mother's Fallopian tubes rather than the walls of her uterus--if the child were to continue development, he would surely kill himself and his mother).  Similar arguments can be found for other "health of the mother" cases.

Secondly, all "health" cases and are a non-issue since every abortion law in existence at the time of Roe vs. Wade (and in existence now) makes provisions for these exceptional cases.  As Pastor Randy Alcorn (author of "ProLife Answers To ProChoice Arguments") states, "Laws must allow for exceptional cases, but they must not be built on them."

  A complete treatise on every argument against these "hard cases" is beyond the scope of this article, but suffice it to say that all of them are extremely rare, comprising only about 1 to 3 percent of the total annual abortions in America.

 

Where I stand

I consider myself to be in the "mega-prolife" category. Not "mega" as in "Gee, what a great job I'm doing," but "mega" as in totally against abortion in any shape or form.  I mark the beginning of my "mega-prolife" career at a specific point­-the moment I viewed a seven-minute video called "The Hard Truth."  This horrifying video--which should be required viewing for anyone who considers him or herself prolife--instantly brought home the realities of abortion at a level unattainable by merely reading books and listening to speakers.  From that moment on, I vowed I would do everything within my power to end abortion of all types, for any reason. It is my fervent prayer that one day you, too, will join the ranks of "mega-prolifers" and redouble your efforts to fight to end this Satanic reign of terror.


Back to my prolife page
Back to my home page