Shouldn’t We Allow “Freedom of Choice” on Abortion?
“Freedom of Choice!”
Undoubtedly an ideal slogan.
Freedom is the basis upon which our nation was founded, and remains our fundamental guiding principle. Who but an ignorant bigot could possibly be against freedom, “choice,” and personal independence?
When we hear “Freedom of choice!,” we imagine tattered Old Glory waving over the battleground, the strains of “America the Beautiful” in the background, the smell of gunpowder over the field of battle, while our brave soldiers…
Oh….Excuse me. Got carried away there for a moment.
But that, of course, is exactly the purpose of this clever slogan ― to distract people and to divert attention away from the brutal killing of preborn children.
All of the dozens of pro-abortion slogans are specifically designed to make people think about anything except abortion. Many people consider themselves to be “ardently pro-choice,” but know absolutely nothing about the subject of abortion. They do not want to know about abortion and do not even want to think about abortion. The mind naturally flinches from thinking about certain evil things because they are evil.
Slogans like this one help them remain voluntarily ignorant.
In fact, pro-abortionists are very much aware of the utility in keeping people ignorant about the bloody particulars of the procedure. For example, in his “how-to” book Abortion Practice, late-term abortionist Warren Hern says, “Television interviews, in particular, should focus on the public issue involved (right to confidential and professional medical care, freedom of choice, and so forth) and not on the specific details of the abortion procedures.”1
Considering the indefensible nature of abortion (especially late-term convenience abortions on viable preborn babies), this is wise counsel indeed.
Origins of a Slogan
The originator of the “freedom of choice” slogan was reformed abortionist Bernard Nathanson, M.D., who helped develop the overall strategy for the abortion legalization movement in the late 1960s. Nathanson, Larry Lader, and the other leaders of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) did not really believe in the slogans, but instead recognized their incalculable value as marketing tools:
“Women must have control over their own bodies.”
“Safe and legal abortion is every woman’s right.”
“Who decides? You decide!”
“Freedom of choice ― a basic American right.”
I remember laughing when we made those slogans up. We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical.2
Lader said, “I don’t care if we have a Belfast and Dublin here in the U.S. We must have a direct conflict with the Catholic Church.” The minutes of this meeting record, “[NARAL’s] attack will be concentrated ― even to court cases ― against the Catholic Church and trying to make people believe that the Pope is trying to run the country, and that the Catholic Church is trying to take over Protestant Churches.”3
Other abortion-pushers quickly picked up on this slogan. As one important example, John D. Rockefeller III’s Report of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future used “the right to choose” to advocate for abortion and sterilization in 1972, and soon the slogan was in wide use.
Evil Expands Effortlessly
Entropy is a universal process which causes systems to tend towards disorganization. If we do not tend our gardens, they will be overrun by weeds. If we do not maintain our cars, they will become detuned and will rust. If we do not exercise and eat properly, our bodies will become ill and weak. Even relationships will disintegrate if they are not carefully nurtured. All systems will fall apart if not cared for.
One of the hallmarks of “spiritual entropy” is that evil expands effortlessly if it is not relentlessly opposed. The illegitimate “right to choose” is the central feature of this entropy, as events have shown us.
Soon after Dr. Nathanson and NARAL originated the “freedom of choice,” Nobel Prize winner Dr. James D. Watson claimed in Time Magazine, “If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice that only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so chose and save a lot of misery and suffering.”4
Today, the chorus for infanticide of “defective” newborns (or, as some call it, “after-birth abortion”) is growing ever louder. Some states are even passing laws that allow a baby to die of neglect or direct murder even if he or she is born healthy after a third trimester abortion.
Eventually, of course, “the right to choose” was expanded to include euthanasia. The National Organization for Women (NOW) issued a July 1991 Resolution entitled “The Right to Choose to Die — A Feminist Issue,” which reads:
WHEREAS, there is nothing more fundamental to American women than freedom of choice, and the U.S. Supreme Court, in Cruzan, has now established that there is a right to choose to die….THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Organization for Women affirms that the right to make appropriate and legal choices about dying is a feminist issue.
Predictably, homophiles emphasize the “freedom to choose” to marry whomever they want, even people of the same sex, and now routinely persecute anyone who disagrees with them.
Is the Right to Choose Legitimate?
The illicit “freedom of choice” is the perfect cover for conscience-impaired individuals. While appealing to the freedom-lover in all of us, it simultaneously attacks opponents by implying that they are somehow anti-freedom and anti-American; thus the epithet “anti-choice.”
However, this anti-life slogan promotes anarchy, not “choice.” If our nation took the slogan “Freedom of Choice” at face value, the “freedom to choose” would supersede all other freedoms. However, no freedom is absolute. All freedoms have limits on them, and for good reason. Unlimited personal freedom eventually means personal slavery.
The logical conclusion is that, in order to avoid total anarchy, all choices cannot be legal or protected as rights.
More importantly, we do not have a right to make evil decisions. This is a principle that the world simply does not comprehend.
An unfettered and indiscriminate “right to choose” not only violates the cardinal virtue of justice, but severs the human being from acting in the good of society, the good of others, and even his own good.
The encyclical Veritatis Splendor explains:
There is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the truth of others.…Freedom is not only the choice for one or another particular action; it is also, within that choice, a “decision about oneself” and a setting of one’s own life for or against the Good, for or against the Truth, and ultimately for or against God [¶33,65].
In other words, there is no “freedom to choose” to make decisions that are objectively evil. There is no splendor in lies ― just degradation, destruction and death.
 Abortionist Warren Hern. Abortion Practice [Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company], 1984, pages 14, 46, 145, 304, 317, 323 and 325.
 Reformed abortionist Bernard Nathanson, M.D., quoted in “‘Pro-Choice’ Co-Founder Rips Abortion Industry.” Whistleblower Magazine (WorldNetDaily), December 20, 2002.
 Excerpts as transcribed by a secretary from the minutes of the May 12, 1972 meeting of the executive board of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, later the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and then NARRAL, and then NARAL again, and then NARAL Pro-Choice America, and next week, who knows?
 Nobel Prize winner Dr. James D. Watson. Time Magazine, May 28, 1973, page 104. Also see “Children from the Laboratory.” Prism, May 1973, page 13.
Leave a Comment