What about the baby’s choice?
I propose we all come to an agreement to add the term “Inigo Montoya” to the common vernacular. It would be a verb, defined as the act of quoting Inigo Montoya AT someone (rather than TO them). For example, one could say “I totally Inigo Montoya-ed that guy with ‘you killed my father, prepare to die.’”
The reason I bring this up is that, about a squillion times a day, I get the urge to Inigo Montoya the pro-lifers on Twitter. This urge comes on strongest when the oh-so-insightful question “but what about the baby’s choice?” is posed by a pro-lifer who thinks he or she is being terribly clever.
I want to tell them this: “Choice. You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Inigo Montoya-ed!
Let’s assume for a moment that we live in a magical fairyland wherein blastulas, zygotes, embryos and fetuses all have the power of reason and speech. Let’s also assume that a particular magical, creepy talking fetus (no, Judy, not you) has a fatal disease which will condemn her to an extremely short life full of suffering. What if, in this alternate pro-life fantasy, that sentient fetus made the CHOICE to not be born? What if she decided she’d rather die now, pre-suffering, than after a few days, weeks or months of agony? Would the pro-lifers be so rabid in their defense of that baby’s choice? Given the pro-life stance on euthanasia, I’m going with “hell to the no.”
So even if a fetus were capable of making choices, pro-lifers would only allow he or she to choose to be born, making it not a choice at all. They’re all for choice as long as you can only choose the outcome they approve of. To call an action a “choice,” there must be at least two options involved. If you do something because you have no other option, that is not a choice. That is the opposite of choice.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Choice is no choice. Orwell would be proud.
November 6th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Hmm…not a very good argument, if you ask me. Here’s why:
What if a pro-lifer said, “OK, Miss DubiouslyGreat, let’s ONLY allow abortion if the baby is certain to die ‘after a few days, weeks or months of agony.’ BUT, in cases where the baby is healthy, abortion will not be an option.”
Now would DubiouslyGreat support this? I have a sneaking suspicion that she would not, but correct me if I’m wrong.
Also, your argument fails on this ground:
“…has a fatal disease which will condemn her to an extremely short life full of suffering.”
You know, there are plenty of people in hospitals around the country who are in this very situation. So should we have the ‘choice’ to sentence them to death (like we do in abortion)?
Furthermore, your whole argument is kinda silly because you ask, “What about the baby’s choice?” and then YOU choose for the baby!?!?
C’mon now, what kinda nonsense is that?
November 6th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
As usual, you absolutely missed the point. The point is not WHAT the baby chooses, or why. It’s that the definition of choice is having TWO options, not one. If the baby could somehow make decisions and chose not to be born just for the hell of it, would you allow that? The reasoning behind the choice is irrelevant.
November 7th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Umm…do you even know what you’re talking about here? Seriously, you’re one of the smartest libs I’ve met on Twitter, but your argument makes no sense at all.
First, you say:
“The point is not WHAT the baby chooses, or why.”
And then two sentences later, you ask:
“If the baby could somehow make decisions and chose not to be born just for the hell of it, would you allow that?”
That’s pretty interesting. You pose a question, and if/when a person answers, you say that it doesn’t matter because they’re still wrong…
Sounds like ‘dubious’ logic to me
November 7th, 2009 at 5:54 am
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by dubiouslygreat: @laghid Ah ha. I just wrote a blog post about that very topic. http://is.gd/4PdOt #prochoice #abortion…
November 8th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
BTW, read this account from Abby Johnson, former Planned Parenthood executive director: “I saw the probe going into the woman’s uterus. And at that moment, I saw the baby moving and trying to get away from the probe. … And I thought, ‘It’s fighting for its life.’”
Hmm…doesn’t sound to me like that baby was rejecting life…
November 12th, 2009 at 7:27 am
In essence, choice supersedes life? Is that your point?
Saying that there are no other choices, is false.
There was a choice before, and there are choices after the fact.
November 12th, 2009 at 11:46 am
No, that was not my point. The sole purpose of this post was to point out that when pro-lifers use the word “choice,” they don’t actually mean choice. They mean “choice, but only if your choice is the one I’m forcing you to pick.” Which isn’t choice at all.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Sure, that is the whole idea.. anti-abortion/pro-life.
Just because one choice is removed, or people are opposed to it does not mean the goal of contraception cannot be achieved.
I think its reasonable to deny or restrict that one choice in light of the many options out there. I think many people like me that see some choices as improper.
The whole idea of oppression from this lack of choice is just silly. In todays society, there is more freedom and acceptance.
November 13th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Again, this post is simply an attempt to clarify a word thrown around in the abortion debate and often misused. That’s it. Whether or not you think abortion is wrong, the definition of the word “choice” is pretty ironclad. Pro-choice is for it, and pro-life is against it. If you really think abortion is evil, admitting you oppose choice rather than advocate it should be a matter of pride, but I hear pro-lifers try to co-opt the word all the time. I don’t think it’s too much to ask pro-lifers to use words correctly.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:00 am
I get your “ironclad” meaning of choice.
So be it.. pro-lifers are for the removal some choice.
It is unreasonable to believe that its oppressive considering all the other choices out there. Or thats how I see it.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:27 pm
“There are two victims of an abortion: a dead baby and a dead conscience”-Mother Teresea. Well, the baby cannot talk so it should receive it’s right to life.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Did you even read the post?
November 23rd, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Let me make it into simpler terms for you: A child can certainly choose whether he/she wishes to be born but suicide wouldn’t be an option do to the fact that suicide is illegal.
November 9th, 2009 at 10:22 am
NOT. THE. POINT. This is not an argument for abortion; it is an argument defining the word CHOICE, which pro-lifers are attempting to muddy. You are dancing around the subject, and you STILL haven’t answered if you would let the baby choose not to be born.
To borrow a phrase from Barney Frank, trying to have a conversation with you is like arguing with a dining room table. I’m done.
(And I’m deleting that gigantic wall of text you posted. I don’t want it here.)
November 9th, 2009 at 10:43 am
“you STILL haven’t answered if you would let the baby choose not to be born.”
Why do you keep asking me this? Did you forget that you said this earlier:
“The point is not WHAT the baby chooses, or why.”
I’m disappointed that you’re resorting to personal attacks now (ie; “trying to have a conversation with you is like arguing with a dining room table”). I expected better from you.
“(And I’m deleting that gigantic wall of text you posted. I don’t want it here.)”
Personal attacks and now censorship?!?! There’s nothing offensive or obscene in the post. I mean, did you even READ it??? Censorship, wow…
(I’m just surprised that an intelligent liberal woman would substitute censorship for a valid argument. Sad…)
November 24th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
“A child can certainly choose whether he/she wishes to be born but suicide wouldn’t be an option do to the fact that suicide is illegal.” thats what I said. Read the first part carefully and come up with a more relevant response. But your saying, a woman has a choice, but the child doesn’t? Hypocritical! You want rights for all but yet you deny them for some.
November 9th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Are you being deliberately asinine? Those two quotes do not contradict each other. The point is not WHAT the baby would hypothetically choose, or why; it’s that pro-lifers only want the baby to have a choice if it chooses the option they agree with. Meaning pro-lifers actually do NOT care about the baby’s choice any more than they care about women’s choices. If only one option is allowed, it is NOT a choice.
Ugh, I can’t believe I’m still clarifying this for you, but I’ll say one more time: this blog is my private property. As a guest on my private property, you comment only at my discretion. If I were preventing you from saying what you want on YOUR private property, that would be censorship. But you have no right to say whatever you feel like saying here. Deleting stupid, long walls of text on my own damn blog is absolutely my right. Please stop whining about fake censorship, or you’ll be banned from commenting entirely. Which, I might add, is also absolutely my right.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
So abortion is wrong despite not being illegal, while suicide is wrong BECAUSE it’s illegal? Now who’s the hypocrite?
You clearly don’t think legality equates to morality, or else you’d be all for abortion. What I’m asking isn’t about legality but about morality, i.e. if you value the baby’s choice so much, would you allow it to make a choice you personally consider immoral? Or would you only allow it to make the “choice” you support? Let’s say in this scenario you’re a lawmaker (God forbid), so you get to decide what’s legal and what’s not.
It is absolutely not hypocritical to rank the choice of a person over the choice of a potential person. What IS hypocritical is to pretend to care about the fetus’ choice while in reality having no intention of supporting its power of choice (even if it were capable of making one).
And I think you mean “due to,” not “do to.”