I am fascinated by the pro-choice groups who are determined to castigate pregnancy care centers, like MWC and others, for offering alternatives to abortion. While "choicers" proclaim choice and demand that everyone "trust women to decide for themselves how to manage their reproductive lives," they are horrified when women are offered the opportunity to explore choices other than abortion. If the choicers truly trust women to be smart and capable, then why do they think these smart and capable women will be irreparably damaged by a simple conversation about alternatives?
I am interested to know why the choicers blocked me from commenting on their Facebook page regarding the Lillith Concert charity controversy? They removed all my comments, even though I was asking honest questions about their view of choice. None of them have yet to accept my invitation to come to the Center for tea or a Coke so they can actually see what we do rather than painting all life-affirming centers with the same broad brush.
The scenario described in the "Socialist Worker" blog would not happen at MWC, and I venture to say that it would not happen at other centers of good reputation. Choicers hate it when life-affirming organization make sweeping generalizations about them, but it's OK when they do it because they are protecting women from harm. Can you say "paternalistic"? How can offering truth abut fetal development, truth about the possible medical possible risks of abortion, and truth about alternatives be harmful to a smart and capable woman? Could it be that choicers are really only about choice on their terms?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment