What's missing in the meaning of this term? The sanctity of the life ended! Pro-Choice is all about the woman and her rights: Women's Rights. Abortion isn't a word they like to use because it refers not to the woman and her right to choose what she can do with her own body, but with the helpless child inside who apparently has a total lack of rights. If they really believed that everyone has the "right" to "choose," they would be concerned also with the child's right to choose to live. Wouldn't they?
 
2. Redirecting the Focus

"Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness." - Exodus 23:1

Taking the abortion issue further, I often wonder how they can justify that a woman has a right to choose, yet her helpless unborn child does not? That's an argument they can't win, so they spend their time focusing on the woman who should have rights to choose what she does with her body.  How can you refuse her the right to do what she likes with her own body? You cad!

They further remove the focus off the innocent life by referring to the unborn baby not as a child, but as a lump of tissue. They don't call it "murder," they say "termination." It sounds so much better that way, unless you happen to be the target of that termination. This all takes the focus off the child and places it instead on what you have a hard time opposing: rights and choice!

3. Redefining the Words

"Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood." –Psalm 7:14

Words mean things. However, lately, words may not mean what they used to. In an effort to make their ideas sound more palatable, and even preferable, the left has redefined the meanings of several words. As we saw last time, one such word is intolerant.

Why is it that if a Christian speaks out against something that is against his or her beliefs they are labeled intolerant, but when someone speaks out against Biblical morality, they are not? Why is it that the Koran is allowed in the schools, but the Bible is not? Why is it that almost any obscure religious custom must be allowed in the name of tolerance of religious freedom, but many of the traditional customs of Christianity are suddenly offensive?

It seems that tolerance (noun: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own1 is something only Christians must possess.

Another word redefined is "progressive" (adjective: making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities2. Why would anyone want to stop new ideas or opportunities? This country became great because of new technology, new ideas, and opportunities for all! Anyone against progress, well . . . they must be silly or intolerant! Never mind that some of the now accepted alternative lifestyles are not new ideas, and never mind that not every new idea is a good one. Onward progress! There's no turning back now!

Another word redefined by the left is "rights" (noun: something to which one has a just claim: as the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled3. According to our forefathers, we are endowed by our creator with certain "inalienable rights" (incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred). Many of our rights are written right into our Constitution! We have the Bill of Rights, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness . . . and the right to remain silent! Is everyone entitled to anything they wish? Are there not limits to what we have a right to? When does your right trample on mine? These things take a back seat to the notion that everyone should have the right to do just about anything they like.

We have come a long way since the Founding Fathers declared that we had inalienable rights that were given to us by our Creator. Now we have "rights" to justify all sorts of things that are contrary to traditional morality--things the Founding Fathers would never have considered to be endowed by our Creator.