Abortion

Those that call themselves pro-choice sometimes see us pro-lifers as simple-minded. They believe we are so caught up in our dogma that we cannot process all the nuances of the abortion debate. I think that not only can we process those nuances, we already have. You see, the largest difference between a pro-choice and pro-life ideology is that pro-lifers usually have strong and defined core principals that allow us to quickly process all aspects of the abortion debate, find the key decision point, make our decision and be comfortable with our position. Pro-choice supporters must parse everything they say in order to appear consistent and looking out for women's rights. That is one reason they call the pro-life movement anti-choice or anti-abortion. The pro-life name is most accurate, but has positive vibes. Anti-anything has a negative connotation, so they use it instead.

In any abortion debate, I tune out the noise. The key fact in my mind is that abortion kills a child. If anyone were to change my mind, they would need to make me believe this is not true. The arguments used by the pro-choice crowd are usually one of the following:

• It is not killing, since it is an unviable fetus. I am not swayed by viability arguments. Viability is a very slippery slope. If you believe it is okay to abort a fetus because it is not viable, then you might also believe you can kill those who rely on some type of life support. Respirators and feeding tubes are used to sustain the otherwise unviable. An argument that these are just a temporary bridge to viability doesn't work either. The womb is also temporary.
• Right to choose - The freedom of choice argument does not sway me either. I support choice. I just prioritize the life of a child higher than a parent's right to choose to kill it.
• Rape, incest, or the life of the mother - I also do not get engaged in debating all scenarios. Over 95% of abortions are for convenience. The manager in me would rather debate the most significant reason for abortion before turning to the reasons that occur less often. If we all agreed that abortion for convenience was wrong, I am sure we could find common ground on the rest. Until then, it's a legal procedure so the mother makes the decision.
• Men cannot comment - I understand that men cannot understand how unplanned pregnancy feels to a woman. But saying that men cannot comment is like saying men cannot take a position on rape, or that you cannot have an opinion on car-jacking unless you have been car jacked. Men have consciences too. We can weigh in on abortion.

Pro-lifers can stand strong in their belief that abortion kills a child. Any argument from the pro-choice position is always based on lesser considerations. The words they use is also an indication on what a thin rail they stand. Take Barbara Boxer's recent statement during the health care debate. Speaking about an amendment that would restrict government funding of abortion, she said it discriminated against women and went so far as comparing men getting a prescription for Viagra to a woman getting an abortion. I think she is smart enough to see a difference between pills and abortion, but in order to make her argument she must equivocate. It is shameless.

She then asked why the Senate could even consider restricting access to a legal procedure that only applies to females. If the subject was hysterectomies, I am with her. But this is a debate about abortion. If you truly believe abortion takes a life, her argument becomes deceptively specious. Any argument that must rely on deception, parsing of words, and attacking the motives of their opponents is not a well founded position. This is the ground pro-choice supporters own.