![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/blog-choice.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIf laws and customs were really \u201cpro-choice,\u201d then:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Any law enshrining the \u201cright\u201d of a pregnant woman to abortion would also enshrine the \u201cright\u201d of a pregnant woman to carry her pregnancy to term.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- Any law specifying the \u201cright\u201d of a dependent to have an abortion against the wishes of her parent or guardian would also unambiguously specify her \u201cright\u201d to carry a pregnancy to term against the wishes of her parent, guardian, or social worker.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- Any law or ruling giving a woman the \u201cright\u201d to abortion against her husband\u2019s will would also unambiguously give her the right to carry a pregnancy to term against her husband\u2019s will.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- Any law or ruling requiring doctors who refuse to abort to give women a list of doctors who will abort her baby would also require doctors who perform abortions or recommend abortion to give women a list of doctors who will support her carrying her pregnancy to term.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- Any law or ruling requiring crisis pregnancy centers to post lists of abortion facilities would also require abortion facilities to post lists of crisis pregnancy centers.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- All measures making things hard for crisis pregnancy centers would make things equivalently hard for abortion providers.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- Any law criminalizing (in some specific circumstances) trying to dissuade a woman from having an abortion would also criminalize (in equivalent circumstances) trying to pressure her to have an abortion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- Voluntarily carrying to term a pregnancy conceived by an enemy soldier in rape would not be considered treason.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- Treatment to reverse abortion pills would be legal, at least for woman who have been given that pill by fraud.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- Women and girls would not be given abortion pills or morning after pills without their informed consent. \u00a0Policy Analyst Leslie Corbly observes that \u201cprotecting broad open access to abortion pills\u201d protects not choice but coercion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- Schools, employers, and social service providers would not require women and girls to take morning after or abortion pills. Nor would they allow ridicule of those who refuse them.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- Preference in awards, job promotions, and job hirings would not be given to women who have had abortions and their spouses.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- Any policy providing free abortions would also provide free pre-natal care and free birth for those planning to spare their child’s life.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- Health care providers would not be allowed to electronically sign a woman\u2019s name requesting or agreeing to an abortion without the woman\u2019s knowledge and consent. At least once, when a woman refused to abort a \u201cflawed\u201d baby, an obstetrician called her in for an emergency appointment and presented her with documents agreeing to an abortion, with her signature already added to them, as a fait accompli.<\/a> (This has implications beyond the abortion issue. Adding signatures electronically without the signer\u2019s knowledge warrants an essay of its own.)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- Women would be able to place babies for adoption, without requiring permission from the biological father. And once finding out about the baby\u2019s birth, the biological father would not be able to get the adoption annulled<\/a> and make the woman take the baby back.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- Women would not be punished, sued, or criminally prosecuted for carrying pregnancies to term.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- \n
- There would be no laws or policies summarily condemning any group of babies to abortion (or infanticide). A September 2025 Google search ran into Artificial Intelligence (AI) claiming \u201cno government or legal system has a policy that forbids a person from carrying a pregnancy to term.\u201d Though this is encouraging, it is not clear if it meant only national central government, regardless of local governments.\u00a0 It is common knowledge that over the past half century, for varying periods of time, some countries had laws and policies against having more than a certain number of biological children or having deformed children.\u00a0 AI claims that (fortunately) maximum family size measures have been rescinded in specific Asian countries, but it acknowledges that some states in India deny or are considering denying government jobs to women who bear more than two children and husbands who stay married to them.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/1-blog-choice.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
In the US, no state (yet) has a law directly summarily condemning certain babies to abortion, but forced abortions occur on a case by case basis<\/a>.<\/p>\n
In addition, the policies of privately supplied essential programs and services can have feel de facto like laws.\u00a0 Furthermore, identity groups have their own acceptance policies.<\/p>\n
Moreover, social pressure is powerful.\u00a0\u00a0 Legalizing takes away stigma, and taking away stigma increases pressure. In Iceland, pre-natal screening \u201ctests are optional,\u201d but almost 100%<\/a> of babies found before birth to have Downs Syndrome are aborted.\u00a0 In Denmark, the percent is 98.\u00a0 In the United States, the percent has been reported as only 67% by one source and about 80% by another source, and that might be partially because non-conformity is tolerated more here.<\/p>\n
Whose choice do those calling themselves pro-choice want to prevail? The pregnant woman\u2019s always, when she wants to abort, but only sometimes, when she wants to carry the pregnancy to term? \u00a0Regardless of her financial status, abilities and disabilities, IQ, age, genes, medical needs, family members’ needs, number of already-born live children, and other demographics?\u00a0 Even if she cannot prove long-term devotion to a religious denomination that opposes abortion?\u00a0 Are there cases when they would go along with requiring the woman\u2019s significant others, the biological father, his significant others, social workers, sponsors, and guardians to approve before she can carry a pregnancy to term?<\/p>\n
Could the word “choice” be heading to mean the authority to condemn another individual to death?\u00a0 (Even if more than one person has the \u201cright of choice\u201d over the same individual?)\u00a0 The possibility is a reason to use the word cautiously.<\/p>\n
Rather than use the word “choice,” one should use more direct descriptions like: \u201cpro-abortion,\u201d “pro-abortion, but only if voluntary,” “pro voluntary and mandatory abortions,\u201d “pro-abortion only when mandated or expected,” “anti-abortion,” and \u201canti-abortion, while pro giving women support, to help them and raise their children.\u201d<\/p>\n
=========================================<\/p>\n
See more of our posts reflecting on the meaning of the word “choice”:<\/p>\n
When \u201cChoice\u201d Itself Hurts the Quality of Life\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n
No Combat Experience, No Opinion: Parallels in Pro-bombing and Pro-choice Rhetoric<\/a><\/p>\n
\u201cTrust Landlords\u201d: Pro-Choice Candidate Supports Eviction Rights<\/a><\/p>\n
Misleading and Distracting Language on Abortion<\/a><\/p>\n
Is an Embryo More Important than a Woman?<\/a>\u00a0\/<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
- There would be no laws or policies summarily condemning any group of babies to abortion (or infanticide). A September 2025 Google search ran into Artificial Intelligence (AI) claiming \u201cno government or legal system has a policy that forbids a person from carrying a pregnancy to term.\u201d Though this is encouraging, it is not clear if it meant only national central government, regardless of local governments.\u00a0 It is common knowledge that over the past half century, for varying periods of time, some countries had laws and policies against having more than a certain number of biological children or having deformed children.\u00a0 AI claims that (fortunately) maximum family size measures have been rescinded in specific Asian countries, but it acknowledges that some states in India deny or are considering denying government jobs to women who bear more than two children and husbands who stay married to them.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Women would not be punished, sued, or criminally prosecuted for carrying pregnancies to term.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Women would be able to place babies for adoption, without requiring permission from the biological father. And once finding out about the baby\u2019s birth, the biological father would not be able to get the adoption annulled<\/a> and make the woman take the baby back.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Health care providers would not be allowed to electronically sign a woman\u2019s name requesting or agreeing to an abortion without the woman\u2019s knowledge and consent. At least once, when a woman refused to abort a \u201cflawed\u201d baby, an obstetrician called her in for an emergency appointment and presented her with documents agreeing to an abortion, with her signature already added to them, as a fait accompli.<\/a> (This has implications beyond the abortion issue. Adding signatures electronically without the signer\u2019s knowledge warrants an essay of its own.)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Any policy providing free abortions would also provide free pre-natal care and free birth for those planning to spare their child’s life.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Preference in awards, job promotions, and job hirings would not be given to women who have had abortions and their spouses.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Schools, employers, and social service providers would not require women and girls to take morning after or abortion pills. Nor would they allow ridicule of those who refuse them.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Women and girls would not be given abortion pills or morning after pills without their informed consent. \u00a0Policy Analyst Leslie Corbly observes that \u201cprotecting broad open access to abortion pills\u201d protects not choice but coercion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Treatment to reverse abortion pills would be legal, at least for woman who have been given that pill by fraud.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Voluntarily carrying to term a pregnancy conceived by an enemy soldier in rape would not be considered treason.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Any law criminalizing (in some specific circumstances) trying to dissuade a woman from having an abortion would also criminalize (in equivalent circumstances) trying to pressure her to have an abortion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- All measures making things hard for crisis pregnancy centers would make things equivalently hard for abortion providers.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Any law or ruling requiring crisis pregnancy centers to post lists of abortion facilities would also require abortion facilities to post lists of crisis pregnancy centers.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Any law or ruling requiring doctors who refuse to abort to give women a list of doctors who will abort her baby would also require doctors who perform abortions or recommend abortion to give women a list of doctors who will support her carrying her pregnancy to term.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Any law or ruling giving a woman the \u201cright\u201d to abortion against her husband\u2019s will would also unambiguously give her the right to carry a pregnancy to term against her husband\u2019s will.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Any law specifying the \u201cright\u201d of a dependent to have an abortion against the wishes of her parent or guardian would also unambiguously specify her \u201cright\u201d to carry a pregnancy to term against the wishes of her parent, guardian, or social worker.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n