The most strident defenders of abortion have always tried to cover over the gruesome nature of the procedure through euphemisms.
They weren’t pro-abortion, they were pro-choice, splitting hairs between the act of willfully terminating a pregnancy and the right to do so.
The term “pro-choice,” though, does not appear to be sufficient any longer for those who wish to cloud over their position. An increasingly common term being used at rallies, such as those held this weekend in Jackson and elsewhere in defense of abortion, is “reproductive justice.” The movement asserts that abortion not only has to be legal but it has to be accessible, convenient and of modest cost. Otherwise, it denies a woman of her right to control her own body and decide how many, if any, children she will bear. It is, in other words, “unjust” to not have abortion readily available to everyone.
That is a perversion of the concept of justice, which is supposed to uphold what is morally right or good.
There is nothing morally right about ending the life of an unborn, defenseless child, especially when that termination is motivated by a desire to not be inconvenienced by a pregnancy. People can rationalize their defense of abortion, but most of their arguments, if carried to their logical extreme, would not only countenance the ending of a child’s life within the womb but also a child’s life outside of it.
If anyone is crying for justice, it is hundreds of thousands of unborn children whose life is ended against their will every year in the United States.
The pro-choice crowd fears that the U.S. Supreme Court is heading toward allowing the states to determine whether they want to allow abortion and under what circumstances. If that is indeed where the high court is headed, it will not curtail abortion everywhere. It will only curtail it in those states, such as Mississippi, where the majority believes human life deserves protection in the womb because it is the just thing to do.
- The Greenwood Commonwealth
