You have undoubtedly heard that statement, perhaps you've even made it. I feel it is inaccurate, and I believe I can best show why by reflecting on our nation's history.
Slavery was practiced in the United States of America
for almost a century before it was overturned. Abolitionist called for
it to be outlawed, while a larger number felt it was distasteful, but
had to be tolerated. (The Constitution had certainly made no move to
outlaw it!) They personally did not hold slaves, but it was a legal
practice and they would not join the fight to overcome it. How do we
judge them in hindsight? In their willingness to tolerate slavery, were
they not in fact perpetuating it? Today we say, "If you're not part of
the solution, you're part of the problem" Instead of calling
themselves "Pro-Choice" on the issue of slavery, they wrapped themselves
in the mantle of "States' Rights." Such a person could have said, "I'm
not personally for owning slaves - I find it appalling; but I'm not
going to tell a person in a Southern State that he doesn't have the right to do so. He has
that right under the law!" In truth, there was no functional
difference between being for "States' Rights" on slavery and being
Pro-Slavery; both resulted in one person being able to own another. (Note: There are of course legitimate rights of states, just as their are legitimate areas in which to exercise choice; in both the cases of slavery and abortion it is the morality, and resultant legality, of the practices to which I object.)
slave was not recognized as a citizen with rights of his or her own. They were regarded as chattle, property, that their master had rights over. That was
what the Supreme Court reaffirmed in Dred Scott v. Sanford.
Scott, an escaped slave, was not a citizen but property and had to be
returned to his master. The Court ignored the question of whether as a
human being he had inalienable rights that made mute an owner's claim to
his property. The legal injustice was not redressed until the passage
of the Thirteenth Fourteenth Amendments.
The same occurred in Roe v. Wade. The Court made no ruling on whether or not the child in the womb was or was not a human being.
The Court upheld a woman's right to privacy in decisions between her
and her doctor - the decision to procure an abortion falling under that
right to privacy. (Even then however, it was not understood to be an
unlimited right for she and her doctor to perform any procedure
whatsoever; there are limits.) But the question of the child's
humanity, and this new humanity's right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness have never been addressed! And 53 million children
have been legally terminated in our nation as a result. A person may
insist on being called "Pro-Choice" instead of "Pro-Abortion" but there
is no functional difference between the terms. By calling for the continued legality of a woman choosing to abort her child, even if personally opposed the "Pro-Choice" person is in favor of maintaining a mother's legal right to end the life of her unborn child.
"States' Rights" was a fiction allowing the continuation of slavery,
then so is "Pro-Choice" in the matter of abortion. Ultimately, evil is
evil. Saying that people have a right to choose evil is no reason for
it to be enshrined in our nation's laws.