Choice for WHOM?
The rhetoric from advocates of legalized abortion is that society must allow "freedom of choice." But this begs the question: WHO is entitled to choice?
Pharmacists: Some do not seem to want pharmacists to make CHOICES based on their conscience. They demand that pharmacists simply dispense abortion-causing pills and contraception. It is a serious sin in some religions to be an accomplice to someone else's grave sin. In states like Illinois and Wisconsin, government employees have tried to force pharmacists to act in violation of their religion. (This is despite the fact that we hear so much about "separation of church and state.") Obviously, "freedom of choice" does not apply to pharmacists.
Crisis Pregnancy Centers: A number of crisis pregnancy centers offer ultrasound to woman considering abortion. The rhetoric from some who favor legalized abortion is that the baby in the womb is merely a "blob of tissue" or "clump of cells." Ultrasound allows women to see the "clump of cells" which happens to have a head, two arms, two legs, etc. Some who favor legalized abortion object to this. In Illinois, the objection was based on an alleged concern for health of the baby. Logic would dictate that abortion is even more unhealthy for a baby than an ultrasound. Some claim that such pictures put "pressure" on women. Women are free to CHOOSE to request an ultrasound or avoid doing so. Nobody forces them to view the image. Attempts to interfere with crisis pregnany centers offering ultrasound is denial of choice on two fronts. First, the woman who would genuinely like to have a CHOICE to learn what a "blob of tissue" looks like is denied choice. Second, the crisis pregnancy center is denied the choice to offer this service. Obviously, "freedom of choice" does not apply to women seeking knowledge.
Parents of Teenagers: Advocates of legalized abortion typically do not want any law requiring parental notification of an abortion. The objection usually provided is that a girl's father may rape her. While the innocent baby should never be killed for an evil act of his or her father, the answer is simple: go to the police and file charges on the father in such circumstances. The vast majority of cases, however, do not involve such a situation. In at least one case, a mother was ARRESTED for trying to save her fourteen-year old daughter from having an abortion. The teenager's school allowed the girl to leave with someone other than her parents according to the linked article. Obviously, "freedom of choice" does not apply to parents of teenagers.
American Voters: On November 5, 2003, the President signed into law a bill passed by a majority of elected representatives in Congress. The new law banned the hideously evil practice of partial birth abortion. What did advocates of legalized abortion do? They took their case to the Federal courts, where unelected judges struck the law down. The government is responsible for safety of its citizens. By this legal action, the government was denied the ability to protect the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society. Obviously, "freedom of choice" does not apply to American voters when it comes to having their will reflected by the Congress on a pro-life issue.
Babies, including baby girls: The goal of an abortion is the death of an innocent baby in the womb. Therefore, that aborted human being is DENIED the right and ability to make any choices in his OR HER life. Obviously, "freedom of choice" does not apply to the most innocent and most vulnerable in our society.
Considering the above, it appears the "freedom of choice" that is so often talked about is not meant for large segments of society. Who IS allowed to have "freedom of choice"? It seems only those who want people to be able to slaughter innocent children in the womb are allowed "choice." The ironic part is that those who peacefully speak against this horrific evil are called "antichoice."