Select Page

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on partial birth abortion, proponents of abortion have reacted as if the sky were falling.

Abortion proponents have grimly announced that a “woman’s right to choose” is in peril. Of course, they speak about the “right to choose” only in the abstract; they are careful not to identify the choice they have in view.

The morality of any “choice” under consideration, however, cannot be divorced from the thing that is being chosen.

Choices are not mere abstractions. They are concrete, and they have consequences.

Let’s not kid ourselves about what is at stake in the “choice” debate.

When abortion advocates talk about the “right to choose”, they are not talking about the right to choose between chocolate and vanilla.

They are talking about the right to choose to kill an innocent unborn child.

The fact that a mother would contemplate killing her child, and that there are those who zealously advocate such a “choice”, is evidence that something has gone very, very wrong in our society.

As the Feminists for Life slogan puts it, “women deserve better than abortion.” Indeed they do, and so do their children.

Adoption is an option that is not discussed nearly enough in the public debate about “choice”.

Rarely is the case for adoption made with the same vigor as the case for abortion.

Part of the zeal for abortion is fueled by money.

We should never forget that abortion is a multi-million dollar industry.

With that kind of money at stake, it is easy to see why abortion proponents get so pumped up.

[14May07,, by Ken Connor ]