"Pro-Choice" means Pro-Abortion

When I discuss the issue of abortion, I usually refer to the other side as “pro-abortion.” They like to refer to me as “anti-abortion” and it seems appropriate to identify the sides of the issue using terms that clearly spell out what they are for or against. But for some reason, the pro-abortion side doesn’t like that term applied to them. They consistently reject the term and substitute “pro-choice.”

However, the distinction they are trying to make between pro-abortion and pro-choice doesn't really exist. The reason they like the pro-choice label is because it sounds better. It’s a euphemism. And, like most euphemisms, it’s designed to cover up the reality of the topic being discussed by framing it in more palatable terms. We use euphemisms to refer to things we find distasteful or embarrassing. We use euphemisms for sex and sexual organs. We use them to refer to a death. We use them to make crimes and bad choices sound better. And we use them to obscure the reality of horrendous acts like abortion.

Not only is “pro-choice” a euphemism, but it isn’t even accurate. The “pro-choice” liberals aren’t talking about being for choice in every regard. They’re usually against school choice and school vouchers, for example. They’re typically against the choice to own guns. They don’t want women to choose to stay home with their children and home school them. They don’t want parents to have the choice of what their kids eat for lunch at school. They don’t want choice in health insurance. The only time they trot out the “choice” rhetoric is when the topic of abortion comes up. So what is this choice they are so adamantly in favor of?

They only apply this issue of choice to a woman’s pregnancy. But it can’t be the choice to have the baby they’re talking about. Everyone agrees that a woman has a right to choose to have her baby. It can’t be the choice to put the baby up for adoption. No one disagrees with that choice either. So what is the choice that differentiates the two sides? What choice is it that the "pro-choice" crowd is in favor of? It's the choice to have an abortion. The fundamental issue is that "pro-choice" people think it is okay to make the choice to abort, and that makes them pro-abortion.

As an analogy, let’s look at some other topics. If you think a person should have a legal choice to take someone else’s property if he so chooses, you’re pro-theft. If you think parents should be able to abuse their children if they feel like it, you’re pro-child abuse. If you think it's okay for a man to choose to rape a woman if he wants to, you're pro-rape. You don’t have to think every man should rape every woman to be pro-rape. All you have to do in order to be pro-rape is think that rape is a legitimate choice a man has a right to make. So, by the same token, if you think it is okay for a woman to choose to abort her unborn child if she wants to – in other words, if you think that’s a legitimate choice a woman has a right to make – you're pro-abortion.

Really, the “pro-abortion” term is already a sanitized version. Abortion is such an innocent sounding term to describe such a horrific reality. We’re tearing an unborn baby limb from limb, crushing his skull, or burning him alive with a strong saline solution. We’re taking the life of an innocent human being in some of the most inhumane ways possible. But we don’t talk about that. We refer to it as “aborting,” like we do when we start a computer program and need to stop it before it completely loads. It sounds like just an “oops” we need to fix. Just something we started and decided not to finish. No big deal, right? We describe it as anything but the reality of what it is: the gruesome and purposeful murder of the smallest and most needy among us.

For the sake of clarity, I’ll give them the pro-abortion label, even though I would rather call them pro-murder, pro-torture, and pro-death. But I won’t refer to them as pro-choice any more. The millions of unborn babies sacrificed in the name of “choice” deserve better than to have me euphemize their deaths and disregard their lives like that. Ending their lives isn’t just some innocent choice and I won’t pretend that it is.

Not only does the pro-abortion side euphemistically label themselves “pro-choice,” but they label their opposition as “anti-choice.” Like their own self label, this one is inaccurate. I’m not against choice. I think people should have a lot of choices. Remember all those choices I mentioned above that liberals don’t want you to have? Well, I’m in favor of them. I think people should have the freedom to make any choice that doesn’t harm another person or otherwise infringe on their rights.

As for pregnancy, I think women should have a choice of whether or not to be pregnant. But a woman exercises that choice when she consents to sex. Once her choice to engage in sex creates a child, the time for choice is past. A new human being exists and she shouldn’t have the choice to murder him. So, I’m all for choices, including reproductive choice. But once conception has occurred the choice to reproduce has already been made. The only choice remaining is whether or not to kill the child. I don’t think anyone should have that choice.

As for the term “anti-abortion” that is often applied to my position, I really don’t mind that one. I know it is usually used as a put down. It’s supposed to paint me in a negative light by pointing out what I’m against rather than what I’m for. But in this case I don’t mind being described by what I am against. Yes, I’m against abortion. I’m proud to be against abortion. I’m also anti-rape, anti-theft, and anti-child abuse. Nobody thinks those are bad labels. I lump abortion right in there with the rest of those crimes. So I’ll wear the anti-abortion label with pride. All the pro-abortion people are welcome to call me that.

Linked up with WLWW.

Do Christians Force Their Beliefs on Others?

Whenever Christians take a stand on moral and political issues in public, you are likely to hear liberals counter with “You can’t force your beliefs on other people.” I totally agree that no one should force their beliefs on another person. However, I disagree with the way the liberals use that phrase.

The way liberals use the phrase, they talk of Christians "forcing religion" on people when they are simply voting according to what they believe is right or practicing their faith in public. But forcing your beliefs on someone is when you use force (whether your own or the force of the government) to make them observe your religion or to try to coerce them into believing as you do. I don't see Christians doing that. I haven't heard anyone saying that government should force people to become Christians, to tithe to the church, to say prayers, or do any other religious observance. If anyone knows of such things happening, let me know. I’ll be first in line to say that it should not be happening.

The fact of the matter is that it is not, and should not be, illegal to practice your faith in public as long as you are not infringing on anyone's rights. In fact, the Bill of Rights specifically states that Congress may not "prohibit the free exercise" of religion. Allowing people to act and vote according to their religious beliefs is precisely what the First Amendment was designed to ensure.

One thing that confuses a lot of people is that a lot of Christians do vote (and otherwise participate in government) in ways that are consistent with their faith. For example, Christians believe that abortion is wrong, according to the Bible, and thus want it to be illegal. However, that is not forcing religion on anyone. They are not forcing anyone to agree with them, but are simply using their voice in government according to their own beliefs just like everyone does (including liberals). Everyone votes according to their own beliefs. The political views of Christians are informed by their religion, but that does not make any and all stances that they take a forcing of religion on others. If Christians were trying to force people to go to church on Sunday, that would be forcing religion on others. Having your faith influence the way you vote is simply exercising your religion in the public square, which is a Constitutionally-protected activity.

So there is nothing wrong with someone citing the Bible as reason for the way they vote and the laws they advocate. Christians have every right to do that, just as people of other belief systems have every right to use their beliefs to inform their political stances.

I will say, however, that we Christians should have independent reasons for the laws we advocate for. "The Bible says it is wrong" is not sufficient reason to make something illegal. After all, coveting and lust are wrong according to the Bible, but shouldn't be illegal (and how could you tell if someone is lusting or coveting, anyway?). Not all wrong things should be illegal. Not all good things should be required by law. We should keep this in mind whenever we take any political stance. When Christians give only religious reasons for making an activity illegal, we open ourselves up to the charge of forcing religion on people (even if it is not the case). Instead, we should also be giving informed and independent reasons why things like abortion should not be allowed by government. (Click here for my secular argument against abortion.) In other words, Christians need to be able to give reasons, not only that an activity is morally wrong or against our beliefs, but that a secular government should disallow it for all of its citizens.

No-Crust Coconut Custard Pie

I case you haven't figured it out yet from reading my blog, I love coconut. I have recipes on here for Coconut Cake, 2-Layer Coconut Cake, Coconut Pecan Pie, Coconut-Topped Chocolate Cake, and Coconut Macaroons. So here's another delicious coconut recipe to add to the collection.

This pie is SO easy. Usually, the most complicated and time-consuming part of making a pie is the crust. It's also, often, the most fattening part of the pie. So why not save yourself time AND calories by cutting out the crust? Like my No-Crust Pumpkin Pie recipe, this recipe is often said to "make its own crust," but it doesn't really make a typical crust. It just firms up and doesn't need a crust. This particular pie actually has a thin layer on the bottom that is somewhat crust-like, though it isn't flaky or dry at all. But since you don't have to mess with making a real crust, you can put this pie together in 5 minutes. The other handy thing about this recipe is that all of these ingredients are things I keep on hand on a regular basis. So this is a great recipe for when I want to make something extra for after dinner and don't have time to run to the store for special ingredients.

This pie is best served warm. It is homey and comforting. It reminds me a little of my Sour Cream Pound Cake recipe (which, sadly, does not contain coconut, but is still very good) in that it doesn't have a strong flavor, but is just smooth tasting and good with hot tea or a glass of milk.

4 eggs, beaten
2 cups milk
3/4 cup biscuit mix (e.g. Bisquick) or all-purpose flour
3/4 cup sugar
2 tablespoons butter, melted
1 teaspoon vanilla
2-1/2 cups sweetened, flaked coconut

Mix all the ingredients until thoroughly blended. Pour into a greased, 9-inch pie plate.

Bake at 350 degrees for 50-60 minutes or until pie is set and coconut is browned on top. How easy is that? Enjoy!

Note: You can also make a gluten-free version of this pie by using gluten-free flour or Bisquick.

Birth Announcement

Katelyn Rachelle Harold is here! She was born August 20th at 11:14 am weighing 7 lbs 9 oz and with a length of 21.5 inches. We are happy she is here safe and sound. Today was my due date, but Katelyn came 8 days early and so she's 8 days old today.

For those interested in how it happened, here's the birth story. For those not interested in labor and delivery, you can skip this. No hard feelings. It's really not that interesting except to some of us moms.

-----

Anyway, my water broke sometime on the 19th. I kept getting little trickles of fluid, but it wasn't nearly as obvious as what happened last time with Reagan. I knew when my water broke that time. But I finally convinced myself that it must be amniotic fluid that evening. So I called the doctor and, at their insistence, went to the hospital to be checked. It was an hour drive and I really didn't want to go, especially since I knew they wouldn't let me go home if my water was broken. I wanted to go to bed (it was after 10 pm) and see if my body would get going on its own. With Reagan, my water broke and I started labor a few hours later. But nothing was happening. So there I was on my way to the hospital with no contractions going on and hoping they weren't going to induce me.

Yep, my water was broken alright. I wasn't going home that night. So they gave me the option of just waiting to see what happened or to start things off with an oral prostaglandin, which was supposed to be gentler than inducing with pitocin. Considering that it had been hours since my water broke and I wasn't having any contractions yet, I decided to go ahead with the prostaglandin in hopes of avoiding pitocin.

It worked...sort of. I started having contractions, but they didn't get very strong or regular, even after 7 hours. So they recommended pitocin to get things moving and avoid the risk of infection from having my water broken for too long before delivery. It was a greater risk for me since I am Strep B positive and we weren't exactly sure when my water had broken. So I ended up taking pitocin and deciding on an epidural. Call me chicken, but pitocin with no pain relief is no joke. Unfortunately, it took awhile to get the anesthesiologist started and then the first time didn't work. So I ended up sitting there, back hunched (which is NOT a comfortable position for labor, by the way, since it puts a lot of pressure on the abdomen), for about an hour while they did and then re-did the epidural. And then it didn't completely relieve the pain. It made my legs completely numb, but rather inconveniently left certain other regions with pretty good sensation, although it did help some.

And just as I was starting to get some pain relief from the epidural and hoping to FINALLY get some sleep, or at least some rest...

I started getting a lot of pain and pressure. And it got worse. I thought my cervix was going to rip in two. Seriously.

They had just checked me before they did the epidural and I was at 5 centimeters. So I figured I had quite a ways to go yet. But no, in the space of about 3 minutes I went all the way to 10 centimeters. Maybe it was laboring in that uncomfortable position. Maybe it was being able to relax a bit after getting some measure of pain relief. But I went through transition in a big hurry. And all the sudden they are calling the doctor and telling me not to push yet (which is easier said than done, by the way).

The doctor came in and got ready pretty quickly and then it was just a few minutes of pushing later that Katelyn made her entrance. But she was blue and not responding very well. The cord had been wrapped around her neck twice, which I didn't find out until later. I was a little worried, but after some rubbing and suctioning, she finally started crying and turning pink. It's a good thing I didn't have to push any longer or she might have gone without oxygen for longer. But she is fine and we are so thankful. God is good.

We even got to go home just 24 hours after the birth. So here we are in the land of wakeful nights and round-the-clock feedings and learning to juggle a newborn and a toddler. But I wouldn't have it any other way.

Linked up with WLWW.

Abortion and the "Hard Cases"

I received the following comment on my post entitled "Demolishing Pro-Choice Arguments."

"If raped you feel the woman should be forced to carry to term? If an 11 year old is raped by her father or other relative, she should also carry to term? If prenatal testing identifies gross anomalies, the fetus should still be carried to term even if it will die shortly after birth? If the mother of that poor fetus is carrying her second or third child with gross anomalies and says she will kill herself if forced to watch another infant die, she should be forced to carry to term anyway?

Your world view doesn't work for all of us. I've been pro choice (not pro abortion) for decades. Judge not lest ye be judged."
 

I responded there, but I thought I would also respond (with a few modifications) in a separate post because these kinds of questions are often asked by the pro-abortion crowd.

First of all, I'll point out that her distinction between "pro-abortion" and pro-choice" doesn't really exist. I use the terms interchangeably because they mean the same thing. If I said that I thought a man should have a choice of whether or not to rape a woman, I would rightfully be charged with being pro-rape. In the same way, to be in favor of allowing a woman to choose whether or not to abort means being in favor of abortion.

In discussing the rest of her post, keep in mind that this type of question is often asked as a "gotcha" question. The pro-abortion advocates seem to think these cases "prove" that it is okay to kill an unborn child in at least some cases. The cases mentioned are all referred to as "hard cases." These are the troubling stories that make some people, who would otherwise be pro-life, start to waffle and sweat. They think of how difficult it would be in that situation and their emotions make them want to offer such woman a way out - to fix her situation with an abortion. However, when you apply logical principles to these cases, they aren't as hard to solve as you might think.

Before I talk about these cases specifically, it should be mentioned that even IF abortion should be allowed in these difficult cases, that does not mean that abortion should be allowed for all cases. The vast majority of abortions do not involve rape, incest, or deformities of the child. These cases do not provide any reason to think that a woman should be able to kill a perfectly healthy unborn child, who resulted from consensual sex, simply because she doesn't want him.

In addressing the hard cases, we should do so by applying the same facts and logic that we apply in all other cases of pregnancy. As I have written elsewhere, science tells us that the unborn child is a separate and unique human individual who must, logically, have the same rights that all other human beings have. Applying this knowledge and some additional logic to the hard cases clears up a lot of confusion.

In cases of rape or incest, any child produced is still just as human as any other unborn child. There is no difference between a child conceived in rape and one conceived through consensual sex. And, of course, the child is innocent of any wrong doing. It isn't the child forcing himself on the woman - it was the rapist who forced her. So killing the child isn't the right or fair thing to do. The child doesn't deserve to die for the crime of his father. We don't consider those born from rape to deserving of death, so why give a death sentence before birth for those same children? Nor does having an abortion un-rape the woman. Two wrongs don't make a right, so killing the child is not the answer.

Oddly enough, the incidence of abortion is actually low among women who have been raped. Many rape victims have testified that giving birth has helped them to see themselves as overcomers who found a way to make something good come from their terrible ordeal. They may not have had a choice over what happened to them, but they can choose to do what is right after the fact and give life. On the other hand, having an abortion has been described by some as being raped all over again. Of course, these experiences of women do not determine what is right in these cases, but they do show that an abortion isn't the easy fix for rape that it is thought to be.

As for children with terrible birth defects and other issues, that would be a very difficult situation to be in. But to cut the life of these unborn children even shorter than it already will be seems the opposite of compassion. We don't kill people because they are going to die anyway. We make their short lives as comfortable as possible until natural death. That's what we do for people who are born and it should also apply to those unborn, because they are human beings too.

In cases where the mother threatens suicide or other self-harm, the baby still doesn't deserve to die. A woman who is threatening to harm herself needs help. If someone threatens suicide if you don't kill someone else, you don't for that reason kill the person they want dead. That's insane. You treat the one threatening suicide.

While these hard cases are often fraught with emotion and tough situations, the right thing to do is not dependent on how difficult or emotional it is. Emotion is not a valid basis for making decisions, especially when talking about the life of an innocent human being. Applying logical principles shows that the right thing to do is always to protect the unborn child.

Linked up with WLWW.