Think of all the mental gymnastics so-called “pro-choice” people have to use to justify abortion.
Time to hand them a Gatorade and a towel to soak up their sweat. They are surely getting a work out, at least mentally.
As they try to contort reality in such a way as to rationalize murder of the unborn, you can take pity on them. What an impossible position to take.
For many so-called “pro-choice” people, they explain away their ambivalence toward abortion by shifting the attention.
WHAT THEY OFTEN WON’T ASK
What they often will refuse to ask themselves is this simple question: “Is this a child?”
Instead, they redirect the debate to be about this question: “Can the mother keep this child?”
A not-so-subtle change in direction or emphasis, right?
The first question there is a necessary one. The answer, obvious to everyone, even to so-called “pro-choice people,” remains yes!
Because of this, many moral implications result. The parents of the child, being the primary caretakers for the child, have a moral obligation. They must provide for the well-being of this child. They are called to make sacrifices so as to provide for a bright future for their child.
Knowing such implications ride along with asking that question, many refuse to answer that one.
DEFLECTION IS THE NAME OF THE GAME
To rationalize murdering an unborn child, the so-called “pro-choice” person will often deflect the thought process to something, anything else.
Often, the previously-mentioned question of “Can I keep this child?” enters, seemingly to their rescue.
By redirecting the conversation to this other question, they think they can talk themselves into ending the life of their own child.
Financial restraints, school, and lack of support from the boyfriend, family, or friends are often cited. These are used as the rationale that answers the question of “Can I keep this child?”
“How can I keep this child if my boyfriend promises to leave me if I give birth?”
“How could I raise this baby when I have just two years left until I get my college degree?”
And so on.
THE PROBLEM WITH THE DEFLECTION
To be clear, the hitch in the so-called “pro-choice” person’s attempt to justify abortion should be obvious.
A person’s right to life trumps over all else.
Thus, the child in the womb has a right to exist by the virtue of his being a human being.
No human has the right to end the life of another who has committed no wrong. Yet, the so-called “pro-choice” person advocates for, or at least condones murdering a fellow human being for the “crime” of existing.
Undoubtedly, taking such a stance to justify abortion stands against moral reasoning. This is why the co-called “pro-choice” person continues to deflect or redirect the conversation away from the root of the matter.
Have you run into this diversion from so-called “pro-choice” people as they attempt to justify abortion?
How did you respond?
Please feel free to comment below!