FridayLife is a weekly opinion column which appears on the ProLife NZ blog every Friday morning.
A while back there was a small stoush between some pro-lifers and ex-ALRANZ president and abortionist Margaret Sparrow that played out in opinion pieces and letters to the editor in the Giborne Herald. The other day I came across Margaret Sparrow’s right of reply to one of the letters, in the form of a footnote, in which she made the following statement:
“As for terminology, I am definitely pro-choice, not pro-abortion.”
After reading that sentence I am still left scratching my head and wondering exactly what Sparrow actually believes one has to do to be considered ‘pro-abortion’.
Just consider for a moment some of the achievements listed on Margaret Sparrow’s abortion activism resume…
Firstly, she is the ex-head of the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand (ALRNZ), an organization which is dedicated, according to their website, to keeping abortion “safe and legal”. They also support the late term abortions of disabled babies (the February 2007 Newsletter that covered this, that we have linked to in previous posts, has conveniently been taken down from the ALRANZ website).
They are the public face of pro-abortion activism in New Zealand, and their very existence is dedicated to keeping abortion legal and available in this country.
They don’t offer crisis-pregnancy support to women so they can keep their babies.
They don’t offer adoption services.
They certainly don’t provide post-abortion counseling to women who have been hurt by abortion.
They only do one thing – lobby for abortion to be kept legal and easily accessible in this country.
Next on Sparrow’s resume is her work as an abortionist.
Yep, that’s right, she performed abortions for many years.
It’s one thing to feign a ‘pro-choice’ position, but it’s another thing altogether to do so after having actually engaged in the aborting of unborn babies as a professional career choice.
Third on her growing list of pro-abortion qualifications is Istar.
‘What is Istar?’, I hear you say.
Istar is the company founded by Sparrow, and a small group of associates, for the express purpose of importing the dangerous RU-486 abortion chemical into NZ, for use on unborn babies in this country.
According to her own statements about Istar, Sparrow and her cohort deliberately chose the name of the Babylonian god of love, war and fertility because it had “the appropriate attributes for our venture”.
Considering that abortion is the ultimate weapon of war against female fertility, it seems maniacally appropriate that Sparrow chose such a moniker for this phase of her activism against the unborn.
Finally, a couple of years ago, when Margaret Sparrow was interviewed on Newstalk ZB, about the new Victorian laws which prevent doctors from conscientiously objecting to abortion, she proclaimed that she supported the introduction of similar legislation here in New Zealand.
That’s right – this self-proclaimed proponent of ‘pro-choice’ doesn’t actually support the right of doctors to choose whether or not they will become involved in the killing of unborn human beings.
I think by now you’re probably getting the message – Sparrow’s claim that she is not pro-abortion, but instead it ‘pro-choice’ is nothing but a public relations scam, designed to lull the media fed masses into thinking that she’s really the defender of all that is good and true in the debate about abortion.
‘Pro-choice’ sounds so much more palatable than ‘pro-abortion’, or ‘pro-the choice to kill an unborn baby’.
And that’s what this pernicious little deception is really all about; the misuse of language in order to hide the true reality of exactly what it is that Margaret Sparrow embraces as her ideological preference.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, the term ‘pro-choice’ is, at best, nothing more than a cowardly cop-out, and at worst, it is a deceit most foul.
The pro-choice ideology expects someone to be opposed to something, yet at the same time completely in favour of that very same act.
Being ‘pro-choice’ means being supportive of someone else choosing to kill an unborn baby, even if you’re supposedly opposed to the killing of unborn babies yourself.
It’s nothing more than a farcical lie, for one cannot be both opposed to something, and at the same time totally supportive of it taking place.
Can one be opposed to open cast mining, but at the same time be ‘pro-choice’ about another person’s decision to engage in open cast mining?
Can one be opposed to racial genocide and rape, but at the same time be ‘pro-choice’ about another person’s decision to engage in racial mass murder and sexual assault?
One simply cannot be ‘pro-choice’ without also being ‘pro-abortion’, precisely because of what is being chosen in the ‘pro-choice’ ideology.
If you’re ‘pro-choice’, then you are pro people having the legal ability to choose the brutal killing of an innocent unborn baby via an abortion.
To be ‘pro-choice’ you have to be ‘pro-abortion’, there is no middle ground, because if you don’t support abortion, then there can be no ‘choice’, which, in turn, means that there cannot be any being ‘pro-choice’.
So Sparrow’s attempt to throw off her pro-abortion mantle fails at both a fundamental level, and at a public relations level, because her actions are clearly the actions of someone who is passionately committed to ensuring that abortion remains accessible and legal in NZ.
Thus, Margaret Sparrow is, and cannot be, anything other than ‘pro-abortion’.
You might also notice, as I did, that Sparrow didn’t even mention the fact that, in previous letters, the pro-lifers offered to make themselves available to publicly debate with her about the issue of abortion.
Even though she seems to have ignored it, that offer still stands.
Somehow I get the feeling though that she has no desire to have her pro-abortion ideology exposed to the cold hard light of reality, so don’t go holding your breath for an RSVP anytime soon.