The Poor Choice Movement
Suzanne had a great post at Big Blue Wave a few weeks ago on the death of reason and the death of man. It’s long, but thought provoking and important… however, I’m going to latch onto a totally irrelevant point: she refers to “pro-choicers” as “poor choicers,” and refers to the “abortion rights” movement as the “poor choice movement.” (I realize this isn’t new — it’s just the first time I’ve really noticed it.)
Now, I’ll usually call someone who supports legal abortion “pro-choice” — if that’s the term they’re using — in the interest of respectfully engaging in a dialogue, though it’s essential that we question what that choice is, and alternate terms are perfect for that. They call us “anti-choice” to make us sound negative and unreasonable. They focus on this rhetoric of “choice” while avoid the question of what that choice is. We had a sign at our demonstration that said, “some choices are wrong.”
I think it’s a fantastic play on words to point out that to be “pro-choice” is a poor choice.
By the way, check out the rest of her post (that’s not actually what it was about):
As we marked Remembrance Day this week, my attention turned towards the World War II era and I read up on the scientific racialism that fuelled the Nazis’ killing spree.
There is absolutely no sense of responsibility toward others.
Poor choicers will continue to argue against fetal personhood based on the possible negative consequences of according that status. The problem with consequence-based thinking is that it make truth dependent on whether or not you like the results.
That may be a politically viable strategy. But it’s not intellectually honest. After all, even if Blacks had banded together and taken over the US and sullied “white culture”, was that any reason to deny their civil rights? If Jews had been the cause of all of Germany’s ills, would that have justified the Nuremberg Laws?
Of course not.
When you worry too much about consequences, you tend to forget principles. This leads to a mentality of accepting that the ends justify the means.
A lot of the argument about abortion is just that. Poor choicers posit that if pregnant women aren’t allowed to abort, they will be arrested for smoking a cigarette and that will lead to the establishment of the Republic of Gilead.
Let’s just assume for the moment that’s the case.
What right does that give anyone the right to kill their unborn child?