Words Too Big for Movements

Another summer is upon us and with it come the sounds of the season; children splashing in backyard pools, the sizzling of burgers on the grill and the nation's social fabric being hopelessly torn by the two misnamed sides of the abortion debate.

I'll humbly submit that there are more important issues facing this land. Given current federal deficit extrapolations, when many of these baby/appendages grow into taxpaying adults in about 2015 they will be very angry with those who did not abort them. It would serve our nation very well to channel the energy being expended in San Jose, Philadelphia and Jackson, Miss, towards the problems of those who can already see the light of day and the grim realities it brings.

Be that as it may, I realize that there are some who feel compelled to take to the streets over abortion time and again. This is, to some degree, legal and must be accepted as an onerous byproduct of a free society.

But those who do are extremists for the most part, consumed by a single issue to the point that they are willing to scream at, beat, and occasionally kill each other. They are one-issue activists, and they should be referred to accordingly. The use of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" must end, for those terms obscure the real issues here.

Let's face it; those who label themselves "pro-life" are no more or less fond of human life than the rest of us. They are nothing more than anti-abortion.

They opt to view human fetuses as valid forms of human life which are worth protecting. That is certainly within their rights as citizens of a country officially based on protecting the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

They also choose to "save lives" by trying to close some abortion clinics in a few mid-sized American cities.

But in no way does this given them exclusive rights to hold themselves up as defenders of the "sanctity of human life." We have yet to see any Winnebagos with Alabama plates bearing families of anti-abortionists past U.N. troop carriers near the besieged Bosnian town of Mostar. Yet when compared to the high-volume, state-of-the-art, blood-spattered Serbian killing machine, the unarmored Planned Parenthood is a bunch of amateurs. If these anti-abortionists truly cared about saving the largest number lives on the planet, they would have traded in their Bibles and K-Mart attire for guns and blue-helmeted U.N. uniforms long ago.

Nor did Operation Rescue try to stop the Gulf War, which came with a loss of life that most abortion clinics would find hard to top. Where are the "pro-lifers" in the Somalia fiasco? It's possible that they are filling sandbags in Bangladesh in hopes of lessening the human toll of the next great flood there, but I somehow doubt it.

Anti-abortionists are fond of saying that "abortion stops a beating heart", but what they leave out is that abortion ranks relatively low on the global list of things that end lives. In terms of volume, famine, pestilence, war and even heart disease are all far better equipped to truncate heartbeats than some quack with a knife and a vacuum tube.

There is a definite pattern to where these people find lives worth savings they are usually in the abdomens of women moving towards abortion clinics. This betrays their true agenda, which is one of anti-abortion activity. They should not be allowed to call it anything different.

The same holds true for self-styled "pro-choice" advocates. For a bunch of people who fancy themselves as advocates of the myriad possibilities that this world has to offer, their focus is extremely narrow.

The news rarely shows "pro-choice" groups picketing Cincinnati's cable companies because they don't carry the Playboy channel.

And Baskin-Robbins has been spared the fury of these extremists even though they don't offer Raspberry Peanut Crunch as a topping "choice."

Pro-abortionists usually do not devote a great deal of time to the "choice" that usually landed the woman in the middle of this circus, that being the choice to have sex. While there are cases of rape and incest, most abortions take place because someone neglected to take a pill or use a condom.

And if groups like NARAL and NOW are so in favor of "choice", why don't they call for the immediate reversal of Roe v. Wade and let each state choose its own policy on the matter? That would allow each citizen of this land more "choice" about whether or not abortion would be legal in his or her area.

What about adoption as a "choice?" I have yet to see "pro-choice" activists trying to convince frightened mothers-to-be (or not) to have the child and give it up for adoption. And the baby-in-progress is not being given much of a "choice." No one is polling fetuses ages -9 to-1 months on which abortion techniques they like best so they can have more "choice" and a more comfortable end.

The reason for these oversights is very simple. "Pro-choice" activists are only concerned with "choice" when it comes to abortion, and are only happy if that "choice" results in the continued allowance of abortion.

They should not be allowed to hide behind the term "pro-choice", for it does not adequately describe their goals.

So the next time you discuss abortion, be sure to use the proper terms. True, it's your life and you can choose to frame the matter however you wish. Make sure, however, that you're being honest with others--and with yourself--about what you believe when it comes to the abortion debate.