Chanted at women’s rights marches, shouted during pro-choice rallies, and screeched in protest toward pro-life advocates is the epic 1970’s political anthem . . .
“My body! My choice!”
A popularized feminist slogan in support of a mother’s legal right to make life and death decisions of their unborn children. An alleged social issue which takes away one set of rights so another can choose to live free from parental responsibilities and maintain their free-from-adulting lifestyle.
For decades, pro-choice advocates have successfully manipulated U.S. lawmakers, Supreme Court justices, along with average citizens into believing abortion is both necessary and a woman’s rights issue.
However, it’s much more complex than that.
Both arguments, purposely, set aside the gruesome details and injustices carried out against the unborn.
We’re no longer in the dark about what point life inside a mother is considered a child.
Latest advancements in medical technology have confirmed life does, in fact, begin at conception. Yet, pro-choice advocates continue to ignore facts, instead shifting this controversial issue into a false moral debate of who’s rights are more important. One thing’s for certain, it’s certainly not about equality. If it were about equality, abortion would be illegal.
When comparing the context of, “My body! My choice!” to how abortion advocates apply it, the meaning isn’t really about freedom or choice. What may have initially begun as a movement for woman’s rights has gradually transitioned into a narcissistic preference to be free from consequences and responsibilities.
It’s become very evident, the cry for freedom is nothing more than a wolf of false narratives disguised to appear as a sheep of women’s right’s causes.
THE PRO-CHOICE STRATEGY
Much of the pro-choice strategy requires distorting the TRUTH.
It’s about denying the reality of what an abortion is and redefining constitutional rights.
Why do pro-choice supporters become so irate when pro-life protesters display images of aborted fetuses? If pro-choice advocates are so convinced their position was valid, why do those photos generate such outrage?
Photos of aborted fetuses are, agreeably, disturbing.
When questioning an abortion advocate how they can consciously support such a disgusting practice, it’s actually hard for many of them to answer. It becomes a struggle to dispute strong visual evidence so, instead, they change topics from defending murder into a deceptive moral right’s issue.
However, the real issue is not gruesome photos of dismembered fetuses, it’s the act which is responsible for it.
Abortion activists prefer to remain in the dark regarding the outcome of an abortion. Because, seriously, who could look at those images and justify abortion? It’s easier to go through an abortion when you’re oblivious to the reality of it.
Because what abortion does to an unborn fetus is difficult for even the most coldhearted liberal to defend.
The strategy behind pro-choice brainwashing is a mixture of dismissing science, creating alternate realities, and selective word choices.
Science is not a democracy.
Science is about facts. Conclusions and outcomes are not determined by how many are in support or opposed to an idea. The study of science consists of theories, hypotheses, and solid answers. Everyone knows theories and hypothesizes require research and experimentation to find conclusive answers.
Determining when life began used to be a tougher debate. Before the advancement of medical technology, answers were unclear and opinions were based on personal perspectives and religious reasons.
Yet today, science has confirmed life begins at conception.
Regardless, like children refusing to listen to reason, pro-choice advocates choose to cover their ears, close their eyes and sing out loud; holding on to out-dated arguments which have long been disproven.
Advocates for abortion still claim the only thing which exists at conception is a lifeless clump of cells. However, the cells in question are living cells with separate DNA. Meaning, a living being is in the process of development at conception.
The “clump of cells” is a fictional tale or alternate reality used as a coping mechanism to reduce guilt and long-term regrets.
False Narrative Claims Baby Is Part of Mother
The Right to Kill Your Equal
Create an Alternate Reality
Humans are naturally hardwired to internally validate bad decisions before and after they’re made.
The greater impact a decision has on ourselves or someone else, the greater need to focus on the good while blurring out the bad. Therefore, well-crafted narratives are necessary for those who choose abortion to help reduce feelings of guilt, remorse and a possible lifetime of regret.
When a woman consents to intercourse, she’s aware the only one who may get pregnant is her. And, no form of over-the-counter or medically prescribed birth control is 100% save. There’s always a chance pregnancy can happen even when various forms of protection are used.
At the present time, legalized abortion allow women to be much more promiscuous.
In this day and age, it’s easier to throw caution to the wind knowing, for a small fee, if something should unexpectedly find its way into her uterus, she can have it removed and go on with her life.
There are several selfish-justifying excuses liberals use to neutralize the severity of abortion.
One is by playing the victim. Pretend to feel conflicted about the decision, then admit they’re just not adequately equipped to raise a child. The false-victim narrative is a way to feel validated as a result of being . . .
• Unprepared to take on parental responsibilities
• Financially unstable
• Less likely to finish school or get a decent job
Basically, the child’s considered to be an injustice on her. Yet, by exercising her ‘right to choose,’ she chooses to carry out an injustice to another living being.
The other deceptive belief some women use is convincing themselves they’re doing the child a favor through a mercy killing; a ridiculous thought process where the mother not only believes she’s sparing the child from a lifetime of hardship but also – narcissistically – believes she’s noble for doing it. If that was true, we could all justify murdering anyone with that logic.
There are also claims a child inside the womb is worthless.
Sadly, there are medical professionals who validate that claim (which proves even some medical professionals with PhD’s aren’t experts in ethics or morality).
With that line of reasoning, what criteria determines who has a purpose and who doesn’t?
If children in the womb are considered to be meaningless, can we also consider any elderly individual in need of around-the-clock care to be meaningless? At that point in their life, they are no contributing to society necessarily. If euthanasia was a legal practice, we could save taxpayer dollars used to support those in nursing homes and hospice facilities.
Why don’t we just do that? Because it’s inhumane, just like abortion.
Selective Word Choices
Words like ‘murder’ and ‘kill’ are considered insensitive by liberal orthodoxy.
Instead, more appealing terms like ‘abort’ and ‘terminate’ are preferred. Word choices which sound less convicting.
You can terminate a program. You can terminate an employee. You can abort a mission. You can abort a computer program. So, what do ‘abort’ and ‘terminate’ really have to do with sucking a human being into a vacuum or tearing it apart with surgical instruments?
Pro-choice is a term abortion advocates associate to ‘freedom’ and ‘rights’.
However, ironically, the phrase has been used throughout history to support many injustices.
Before slavery was abolished in 1865, pro-choice slavery implied a white man had the RIGHT to buy and sell slaves. It meant slave-owners should have the FREEDOM to own other human beings with no restrictions by the government (part of what set off the American Civil War).
Today, there’s no argument, African American human rights were violated.
A portion of abortion pro-choice supporters try to politically ride the fence, claiming, “I, personally, would not have an abortion, however, I’d support a woman’s right to choose.” A claim used to invoke a sense of moral high-ground, an attempt to seek acceptance on both sides of the debate.
Yet, what pro-choice supporters don’t understand, they’re either pro- or anti-abortion; they can’t be both. If you’re pro-choice, you’re pro-abortion.Or, if you claim, “I’d never do it myself” you’re actually against it.
Consider this, imagine an older gentleman claiming he was pro-choice when it came to rape.
He states, “I’d never rape someone myself yet I support the choice for another human being to rape another.” Would anyone – in their right mind – consider his position to be noble? Even after stating he wouldn’t do it himself? Not likely. The issue isn’t the fact he wouldn’t rape anyone, the issue is the absurdity he would even support rape. Therefore, knowing he supports rapists, it could be assumed he also would do it if he thought he could get away wth it.
Similar to slavery and rape, abortion is a violation of human rights. It’s about one human infringing on another’s rights for selfish gain.
Although liberals believe denying an abortion is an infringement on their rights, they overlook the fact it’s not a mother’s body which gets torn apart and disposed. Someone dies during an abortion procedure, and it’s not them.
It’s an act which doesn’t take the real victim’s human rights into consideration.
THE HIDDEN REASON YOU’RE NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW
So far, we know abortion activists reject scientific evidence.
To accept life begins at conception would discredit (which it does) what the pro-choice movement, supposedly, stands for which they claim is freedom.
However, as abortion advocates protest for the freedom to choose, the freedom they’re adamant about retaining is not only the right to legally end a child’s life, it’s more about WHY they want to end their child’s life. The real freedom they desire is the freedom from responsibilities.
Again, we’re in an age where women can be more promiscuous, with an available out if they should get pregnant.
Plus, with numerous false and self-serving narratives to neutralize the severity of abortion, more women today are feeling less and less guilty or ashamed following an abortion.
According to a study published by PLOS One, 95% of women they interviewed said they did not regret their decision. Hold on ! There’s an ‘however’.
However, the study also revealed the majority who claimed they didn’t regret their decision surrounded themselves with a good support group. They gravitated toward people who helped them create a justifiable narrative to have an abortion.
So, the question is, what would they’ve done if they had other people in their lives who supported a child’s right to life? What if pro-life supporters encouraged them to have their child and provided them the necessary physical and emotional support needed?
This falls under the “It’s not what you know (abortion to be physically and morally wrong), but who you know (to help you justify it and feel content with a decision which takes a human life).
The “My body! My choice!” delusion is unfortunately driven by a movement intent on defying responsibility and accountability for poor choices.
It’s a position which holds strongly to the denial of reality and false narratives.
Abortion should NEVER be an option. There are government programs which may need to be reformed to better serve single mothers. Programs which offer better resources to single moms and struggling families up to a certain point they can support themselves and their families.
Or, reform the adoption process to provide couples (who cannot have children) with a child if the biological mom feels unfit to raise a child.
These options are, unquestionably, significantly moral and just compared to taking the life of an unborn child and creatively thinking of false narratives to justify the decision.