What’s In a Name?

The “Women’s March” took place this past weekend.  I wish they wouldn’t call it that.  It was not a march for women but a march for abortion rights.  It advertised itself as a “Rally for Abortion Justice.” It took clear political positions on both the Texas abortion law and on Roe v. Wade.  Whether women’s rights include abortion rights is a divisive political question and one cannot necessarily call a march for one a march for the other.

Calling this a “women’s march” implies that it represents and is for all women.  Yet it does not and is not.  Not all women think (or march) in lock step.  Women are individuals capable of their own thought and of a vast diversity of views.  That includes views about abortion.  If the march is going to take only one position on abortion, then it cannot possibly also be an all-inclusive “women’s march.”

               Reproductive Rights

The women’s march, like many who are pro-abortion, likes to couch its arguments in terms of women’s reproductive rights.  But they assume that all women agree on the definition of “reproductive rights” and that those rights must include the right to terminate a separate and unique individual that is, based upon basic human biology, implanted within a female womb for approximately 9 months of its life.   I am unaware of where, other than in the arguments of pro-abortionists, it has been unquestionably established that a woman unequivocally has the right to terminate the life of that other being, or, if she does, that the right is somehow part of her own reproductive rights.

“Reproduction” is defined as “the production of offspring by a sexual or asexual process” and is further explained as “the combination of reproductive cells from two individuals.”  Now, just on its face, “reproduction” does not include the termination of something already reproduced, so how exactly is abortion a part of a woman’s reproductive rights?

A woman’s capability of participating in the creation of a child certainly involves a woman’s reproductive health.  Reproductive health, or sexual health, denotes the health of a woman’s reproductive system during all her life stages.”  This is the woman’s reproductive system.  It has nothing to do with the separate life of the unborn child. 

               The Science

Current science tells us that from the moment of conception a unique individual exists with a specific and unique genetic structure that is different from the mother, the father, and all other individuals.  Science also tells us this unique individual is a human because of the chromosomal makeup and that this individual is a life form because its cells grow.

The American College of Pediatrics states: “The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.  At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature.”

               The “Right to Choose”

If the “right to choose” is to choose an abortion, then abortion is being equated with birth control.  But there is a key difference:  a woman who uses birth control is making a decision about her own body and her own reproductive health, including whether or not to put herself in a position where she might become pregnant; in contrast, a woman who chooses an abortion is making a choice not only about her own life but about the life of a separate and innocent human being.

Let’s look at some basic biology.  The female of our species becomes impregnated when the sperm of a male unites with the egg of the female.  This can occur via a sexual act or via some form of artificial insemination.  An adult female who engages in sexual activity with a male can understand that one of the consequences of that act is that she might become pregnant.  She can try to avoid this consequence by using various forms of birth control up to and including abstinence. 

So how does this fit in with the woman’s “right to choose”?  She certainly has the right to choose what to do with her own body, including her own reproductive system.  Putting aside such things as rape and incest which present separate questions in the abortion debate, a woman has the right to choose to engage in sex.  And, just as when we are faced with any choice, the woman has the responsibility to understand and accept the possible consequences of her actions, one of which is that she may find herself pregnant and responsible for a new and unique life for at least the approximately 9 months that it lives in her womb.

Women can understand these things.  They are capable of making an informed decision about their own body and the consequences that engaging in sex may have upon that body and their lifestyle.  But that right does not necessarily extend to the right to make life or death decisions for the unborn child.

One either does or does not accept that women can make choices and handle consequences.  One who does not accept that has very little respect for women.

I do not believe women are so helpless or naïve that they cannot make a decision pre-abortion (and pre-sex) that would negate any need for an abortion.  Those who agree that women are strong and capable of making clear choices related to their own reproductive health and see abortion as nonetheless a necessary option are equating abortion with birth control.

But abortion is not just another form of birth control.  It is the termination of a separate human life.  An innocent life.  We usually call that murder.  A woman can choose what to put into her own body – food, medicine, a man’s penis.  But on what basis can this right extend to killing a separate individual that her own choices and human biology placed within her womb for the first months of its life? 

It is both hypocritical and demeaning to believe that a woman’s choice over her own body prior to impregnation is insufficient yet she must be given the choice of life or death for a new, separate, and unique individual that her own choices have placed in her care.

               It’s About the Unborn Child

If one be fair and honest one would acknowledge that this march, like the abortion debate generally, is not about women but is about the unborn.

Abortion is the termination of a human life.  Pro-abortionists would rather you not focus on that.  Hence the refocusing on “women’s rights.”  

Some women may believe that a woman whose choice resulted in her pregnancy should nonetheless be able to escape those consequences by killing the life inside her.  It is their right to hold that view and to argue that women should have that right.  But other women disagree.  Hence, the pro-abortion march is not a “women’s” march at all, but a march about the rights or lack thereof of an unborn child.

That new and unique life seems to get lost in the pro-abortion rhetoric.  It is an innocent human.  Who speaks for it?  Why do pro-abortionists believe it should be the woman alone who perhaps finds spending 9 months nurturing that new life to be inconvenient?  Who gives her the right to choose whether that new and innocent life lives or dies? (And by the way, this new life might very well be a female – a woman for whose rights a “women’s” march should be advocating.)

Science tells us that from conception there is a new human.  A human entitled to a healthy environment in which to grow.  For nine months that environment constitutes the womb.  That is the new human’s home until after birth when that human also has the right to continue to grow and develop.  The question is, why does the woman have the right to remove this living growing human from the only environment in which it can survive just because that environment happens to be within her female biology?

A Guardian ad Litem is often appointed in cases involving the rights and care of children or incapacitated individuals who cannot speak for themselves.  The Guardian’s job is to represent and speak for the child or the incapacitated, to look out for their best interests.  In the question of abortion, the mother (along with perhaps the father, doctor, or others) is asserting her desire and her rights – the actions that are in the mother’s best interest.  But where is the Guardian who will speak for the rights and life of the unborn child that the mother seeks to kill?  Who will speak for the best interests of the child?

 Not a Women’s March

The female of the species joins with a male in the reproductive act.  Human biology dictates that it is the female that carries a new child during the first nine months of its life.  Abortion is a way of ending that life.  While all women have the same role in those first 9 months of a child’s life, they do not all agree on the question of abortion, or the rights of the unborn child.

Certainly, some women can and do advocate for abortion along with abortion funding.  Some advocate for such rights up to and even shortly after birth.  Others would put more limitations on abortions.  

But many other women are anti-abortion.  And, like the pro-abortion advocates, those against abortion have varying views.  Some are against all abortion, some would allow or even favor it for cases of rape, incest, maternal health, or similar exceptions and some would only limit it after a certain time period in the pregnancy. 

Some women prefer to follow religious teachings, something that also varies among religions and denominations.  Some prefer to follow current science which tells us that the fetus is a unique human living in vitro.  Not all women see abortion as some form of birth control affecting only a woman’s reproductive system.

Women hold many diverse views about abortion.  If the Women’s March were really that – a women’s march and not a pro-abortion march, all the views would be welcome and represented.  It would acknowledge that women are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and that their ability to do so results in a number of diverse views about abortion.

The Women’s March is not that.  It is a Pro-Abortion March.  Perhaps the marchers believe they can be more successful in their cause if they claim it is for women.  But it is not.  If anything, it is anti the very equality of women that they would proclaim.  The rights advocated by the pro-abortionists both exclude and go beyond “women’s” rights while excluding consideration of the rights of the unborn child. 

The label “Women’s March” serves as a cover for the far more difficult issue of the rights of the unborn.  So please, stop calling it the “Women’s March.”  Be brave and honest enough to call it what it is:  a denial of the science that abortion is indeed the killing of a new and unique human being.