But sometimes I come across a pro-choicer who just doesn't make sense to me. Case in point:
Anastasia Blackwell is, according to her twitter profile, a "Proud Pro-Choice Advocate". Now, I don't know what "destroyed" means in abortion-land, but here in life-city it means:
1. Put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it. (Google Definitions)
2. Completely ruin or spoil (something). (Google Definitions)
Considering my name is "ProLife Girl" and pro-choice rhetoric often involves the intentionally vague phrase of "freedom of choice", can it really be so hard to understand exactly what I meant? Have I converted a pro-choice advocate, or has she twisted my words to somehow mean that a baby destroys his or her mother's life? If so, can this truly be considered a strong, rational argument for the freedom to choose abortion? After all, if that child is already born, an acceptable solution to the mother's hardship would not be to pull of the child's arms and legs and then crush his or her skull now would it?
I hope most of us would answer no. In that case, why should it be a solution of the child is still in the womb?
(Of course, Anastasia could be mistaken in her view of what an unborn child actually is, which is not such an unusual belief. Most pro-choicers I know would never support abortion if they thought a baby in the womb was a human being. Of course, if you are a pro-choicer, arguing about the hypothetical "destruction" of the mother's future life is not an effective way to convert a pro-lifer who believes that unborn children are persons deserving of rights. Pick a better talking point. They exist, I promise).