The most perplexing aspect of the arguments surrounding abortion are the fundamental inconsistencies. After years of pushing for access to contraceptives and abortions, the proponents of the sexual revolution settled on the word, “choice” as their primary sales pitch. It seemed to be an excellent conversation stopper touting an indisputable value—one which couldn’t be countered in an equally pithy way. Certainly, no one likes being railroaded into a decision because of a lack of options, but explaining that we are only free to choose among moral options requires careful reasoning, especially when marginal and complex cases are thrown about to muddy the waters and draw sympathy.
So abortion proponents won the immediate verbal battle, having convinced most people that “choice” begins with how we view sexual relations. The Church’s explanation—that they were to be reserved for married couples and each conjugal act open to life—was widely rejected by the world, which insisted that nothing significant need be attached to such relations, especially when they could be easily rendered sterile.
Among the several dire [and vindicated] predictions Pope Paul VI made about universal access to contraception (and thus by necessity abortion) is the role that governments would inevitably play in such “choices.” The 1968 document Humanae Vitae posited: “Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty?” In essence, if the population has already adopted a contraceptive mentality, then how can a principled fight be waged against a government that demands as much of its citizens for a compelling reason.
This highlights the most glaring inconsistency of the anti-life movement, which shrugged its collective shoulders when China waged a draconian population control program—China even boasting that four hundred million Chinese children were “prevented” because of its family planning campaign. Since to achieve this they relied on coercive pregnancy monitoring, fines, and forced abortions, we discover that “choice” means choice—until it doesn’t. China seems to have taken the prediction in Humanae Vitae as its very playbook, the document warning that people who reject God’s law about conjugal love “may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.”
This is the brazen lie behind “choice,” and the wicked irony is that now China is changing course. With a deficit of 34 million girls compared to boys, and a birth-rate so low that it’s devastating local economies, the government is now limiting access to abortion and offering financial incentives for women to bear children. This coercive shift has likewise drawn no response from the “choice” crowd, betraying their indifference towards the real issue at hand, which is the external pressure exerted on what should be the “intimate responsibility of husband and wife.”
Ultimately, for all the euphemisms and catch phrases, there is a darker element at work—a malignant force that despises chastity, innocence, and authentic freedom. Whatever weakens the marital bond and family ties benefits those who prefer to replace the free and fundamental unit of society with a toxic social construct, one that glorifies the individual as an independent agent—independent of both divine and natural law, offering instead the opportunity to live by the law of the jungle. Despite its allure, that’s a horrific choice through which we all suffer.
Mrs. Kineke is a parishioner of Our Lady of Mercy in East Greenwich, and can be found online at feminine-genius.com.