Credit for inspiring the following article is owed to Steven Crowder, with the header image being taken from his show "OVERTURN Roe v. Wade! Huge SCOTUS Decision Incoming! | Guest Rand Paul | Louder with Crowder", streamed live December 2nd 2021. Steven Crowder is not associated with Bible Brain.
Every skilled deceiver knows that controlling language controls the discussion. By adjusting the language you use in your presentation, you can actually tell the truth and still have your audience believe a lie. Nowhere is this more exemplified than the issue of abortion.
Abortion is, without competition, the greatest evil of our time. Across the world, millions of innocent children have been brutally murdered in their own mothers' wombs. The numbers in the U.S. alone, since the famous Roe v. Wade case in 1973, overshadow the casualties of every brutal dictatorship of the 20th century. How is it that we are able to tolerate such a blight upon humanity? Simple: The so-called "pro-choice" lobby are firmly in control of the language being used, with the very term "pro-choice" (which I absolutely refuse to ever use outside of air quotes) being loaded with assumptions the audience automatically makes upon hearing it.
The opposing view, pro-life, is very well named. Pro-life is what we're named because life is what we stand for. We do not believe it is acceptable to kill an innocent human being, even if they are "out of sight, out of mind", in their mothers' womb. Indeed, this is where they most need protecting. It's not like they're bound and gagged in some concentration camp, they are in a place where they have never had the ability to speak for themselves. A child in the womb does not even know what is going on until it feels the pain of its brutal death. Most victims of abortion have not even developed their vocal chords. But as shown in the 1984 documentary "The Silent Scream", they are still quite capable of expressing their agony.
The opposite of life is not choice. The opposite of life is death. And it is a fact that a successful abortion will kill at least one person, with the main victims being literally the most innocent and defenceless human beings on this planet. To a pro-life person, which frankly should be the default human position, this is repugnant. The issue is very accurately described as life and death, with those opposed to abortion being accurately described as pro-life. Those who support abortion would be very accurately be described as pro-death.
But that immediately becomes a losing issue for the pro-death side. We do, after all, live in a society where even the death penalty (i.e. killing people who actually deserve it) is not very well supported. If abortionists were both blunt and honest about what they are in favor of, abortion would very quickly become taboo again.
So what's the solution? Adjust the language. The obvious term would indeed be "pro-choice". What's the opposite of choice? Restriction. By naming themselves "pro-choice", the abortion lobby are able to take the focus away from what they are doing, and even away from their actual victims, and instead turn this into a women's rights issue. By naming themselves "pro-choice", the abortion lobby can make the pro-life lobby sound very oppressive. They can push the narrative that pro-lifers are all ignorant men who believe a woman's only purpose is to stay home and squeeze out babies. They can make it sound like they're the ones in favor of liberty. Sure, they're in favor of a woman's right to be a mother if she so chooses, but what if she doesn't want to be a mother? She should also be allowed to choose that path, right?
But as it turns out, pro-lifers are often more pro-choice than abortionists. It's impossible to fit all abortionists into one box, but there is undoubtedly a trend among them. That trend being, generally speaking, the right to murder one's own offspring seems to be the only choice abortionists stand for. Should you have the choice to reject a Covid jab? Should you have the choice to own weapons for defence of your life, family, and home? Should you have the choice to home school your children? Abortionists tend to gravitate to political parties that say no. You have to take the jabs, you can't own effective defensive weaponry, you must surrender your children to the state to educate them. These are just three choices abortionists generally oppose. That's not to say there aren't any Conservatives who support abortion, but generally speaking, if someone supports abortion, you have a good chance of guessing where they stand on everything else.
But pro-lifers are generally very pro-choice, even when it comes to motherhood. As shown in the header image, there are actually 4 very easily accessible choices that do not require murder. These four choices are abstinence, contraception, motherhood, and adoption. A grand total of 0 lives are lost when these options are taken. Abortion may not be on that list of four excellent choices, but that's because abortion is not an excellent choice. It is, in fact, a very immoral, uncivilised choice. It is a choice that many women must be deceived into taking, and can often be talked out of taking using very simple reasoning. It is a choice that many women come to regret, and with good reason. It is a choice that many women actually do not get to make. Teenage mothers, disabled mothers, mothers in tyrannical countries, are often forced, be it by their families or their governments, to have abortions. The other four choices are far superior, both morally, and in consequence.
The first choice, abstinence, is very easy. It isn't hard to just not have sex. While obviously desirable, sex is not a need. It was designed to be enjoyed by a husband and wife in the privacy of their own marriage bed. You do not die if you don't have sex. You do not suffer if you don't have sex. Most relevant to this discussion, you do not make babies if you don't have sex. Babies don't just happen. When a woman gets pregnant, it is usually because she had sex with a man, without effective contraception, and he impregnated her. Of course, there are exceptions for IVF, but that is even more deliberate, so we can exclude that.
This is where abortionists might be tempted to bring up rape. There are many tangents we could go off on here, such as the fact that a person's value does not go down based on how they were conceived. Rape is evil, but you can't shoot a guy in the head because he was conceived by rape, so why should you be allowed to crush his skull and suck his body through a vacuum? But the easiest response to the rape example is simple: Rape accounts for about 1% of abortions. Let's even be generous to the abortionist and multiply that by 10. Let's pretend an extremely unrealistic 10% of abortions are rape victims. If we granted that exception, but outlawed all others, abortion would drop by 90%. Is this acceptable to you? If your answer is yes, then ok, let's discuss why rape is not an acceptable reason to murder babies. But if your answer is no, how dare you cheapen rape by using its victims as pawns for your selfish agenda? You're a disgrace. You don't care about rape, you care about abortion, and you're using victims of a heinous crime to further that agenda. Woe betide you.
With that out of the way, of course, abstinence is not very popular outside of religious circles. This is why we say it is an option. Obviously, as a Christian, I believe extra-marital sex is a sin. If you have sex with someone you're not married to, that is a very bad thing. It's a choice, but it's a wrong choice. Nevertheless, it is God who will judge you for it when you die, not I who will judge you for it while you live. So we come to the next option: Contraception.
Obviously, it's simply not fair to expect a married couple to avoid sex. And apparently, some people are so enslaved by their sexual desires that they simply can't wait to get married before doing it. No, I need to sleep with at least 100 people before I'm mature enough to commit to just one... Well, ok, did you know there are ways to have sex without producing children? Obviously, be an adult and pay for it yourself, but there are, for example, things like condoms. These not only prevent sperm from meeting eggs, they're also somewhat effective at stopping sexually transmitted diseases and infections from being transmitted. So, even to the most promiscuous people, this should be a "win win". There's a ridiculously low chance of unwanted pregnancy, and you can even sleep with a diseased person and not catch what they have. Quite frankly, if you're running around having a lot of sex and not using contraception, all consequences are on your own head.
But let's suppose you've taken every contraceptive measure you can, and you still end up getting pregnant. Fear not, there are two valid options that don't require you to stain your hands with the blood of your own offspring! The first, of course, is to take responsibility for them. Motherhood is actually very rewarding, and with so many pro-life charities out there, there are plenty of places to which you can turn for support! Even if the father is an absolute deadbeat who will never be there for the child, no mother has to go through an unwanted pregnancy alone. There are organisations out there who can, and will, support single mothers with various aids.
But perhaps you just really aren't up to that task. Guess what? You can put your child up for adoption. If a mother does not kill her child, it will only take 9 months of pregnancy, and then she can give the child to someone who is willing and able to look after it. Many women cannot have children, yet want to. They are willing to adopt. Many women can have children, but are still willing to adopt anyway. Pro-life women especially may have this mentality.
Abortionists often object to this by saying that some kids may not get adopted and will just have a horrible life in orphanages. To this I say "then let's kill those kids too". Does that sound like a moral answer? It should sound disgusting, because it is. You don't get to kill someone because they're having a bad life. Well, guess what? The child in the womb is exactly as alive as the 12 year old who was never picked for adoption. You can't just arbitrarily decide "ok, now they're too old to kill, but this one here is young enough."
So there you have it. No less than four valid choices pro-lifers generally accept that do not require murder. So, why should abortionists be allowed to call themselves "pro-choice"? Let them bring forth their case: Why should abortion even be considered a valid choice? There are so many non-violent choices, why should any civilised person consider bloodshed a choice? Much less a choice so worth taking that people who strongly oppose it should be forced to support it with their tax money! Abortion is such a black mark against our species, and yet not only is it legal, but in many countries, that legality is backed up by a portion of the governmental budget! Think about that. A pro-life mother, who prays outside abortion clinics, who saves lives and supports mothers who, when they considered abortion, chose life, is indirectly being forced to pay for a modern day Holocaust. This sorry state of affairs, currently taking place on a global scale, needs to very swiftly end on a global scale.
Every child lost to the abomination that is abortion is a tragedy, and this despicable practice stands as testimony that humanity really has gone astray. The thoughts of man really are evil continually from our youth, and we really have all turned aside to our own way. But even while this monstrosity continues to tear our species apart, there is wonderful news: We are being observed not by a God of wrath, but of mercy. You could be having sex with 20 strangers a week, you could have had 100 abortions in your lifetime, you could even be a so-called doctor who has killed 10,000 babies in your career, there is grace to be received.
We are all sinners. From the white liar to the mass murderer, every one of us has offended God, the penalty for which is death. Death in this life, the separation of the spirit from the body, and the second death: Eternal torment in Hell, separated from God and His blessings. But that debt has been paid in full. 2,000 years ago, the Son of God became flesh, and suffered the death penalty, nailed to a cross until He died. Not for His own wrongdoing, but for ours.
No matter what you've done in the past, you can have a fully restored relationship with God, with all your sins, past, present, and even future, completely forgiven. The sole condition is faith. If you confess Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you will be welcomed into His family as His son or daughter. You will even rejoice in His eternal Kingdom with the victims of abortion, including any you may have sent there yourself. Therefore, confess your sin, repent of them, and turn to the God who loves you.