"Forced Pregnancy Activists!"

Pro-choicers have many endearing terms for pro-lifers, the newest of which in my repertoire is "forced pregnancy activists", which I recently found at Feministing, a feminist website where the answer to everything is to tax everyone to a beatific 64% "for the children" and increasing the nanny state in everyone's life—not actual nannys, mind you, because that would involve actual children.

Isn't it amazing how the pro-life position—which is "don't kill babies"—is hoisted by the pro-choicers into "forced pregnancy"? I'm easily annoyed when pro-lifers drone on and on about the pro-choicers' use of the term "anti-choice", but the term "forced pregnancy activists" makes absolutely no sense at all.

Pro-life people don't have to be pro-pregnancy. Again, we believe that killing children is wrong. Janet Folger, in an attempt to simplify our position so even the most cracked-out pro-choicer could understand, framed it thus: "Live baby good, dead baby bad." Pro-choicers instantly filibustered, protesting the use of the words "baby" and "live", and the placement of the word "good".

I've said before that, when it comes down to it, the pro-choice position is about ageism. Pro-choicers are (generally) against ripping the arms and legs off of three year-olds. But not so for "fetuses". Only the really out-of-touch pro-choicers still use the "blob-of-tissue" argument, not getting the memo that it's all about the woman's right to abort now. So if the argument is "Yes, the fetus is a live human being, but we just don't care"—and if it's only the fetus whom they wish to slaughter at the whim of some 17 year-old high school dropout—it's simply ageism.

To label us as "forced pregnancy" paints the picture that we go around causing hundreds of thousands of teens to have pre-marital sex with each other in order to get them pregnant (in between sniping abortionists, of course). Just so the pro-choicers are aware: pro-lifers generally are against such pregnancies. We don't want girls who aren't ready to be having children. We don't want them to screw up their life by having babies at a young age. We just don't want them to murder a child either.

Also seemingly over the heads of pro-choicers is that, when you do have a situation of a girl getting pregnant, contraception ceases to be effective! So they can complain about the "anti-prevention" pro-lifers all they want. Contraception is not a magical cure for girls who are already pregnant. And that's what the pro-life movement generally orbits around: actual life in the womb—to be killed or not to be killed. Pro-choicers keep expecting us to finally "get it" about contraception, stop our ceaseless efforts to end abortion and start handing out Plan B at church. Because "prevention is the answer!"

The very idea of being against abortion "because it's wrong" seems to hit pro-choicers in the face and not even faze them. They're like cartoon characters who have fallen in love, staring straight ahead, while their pals wave their hands in front of their love-struck faces, slap them on the face, and eventually place a bowling-ball bomb in their hands. When the smoke settles, there they are with that same stupid expression on their face, so affixed upon their love that they noticed nothing. Either that or they simply pretend not to grasp our point.

So, just in case any pro-choicers were wondering, we are not for forced pregnancy. We just believe killing children is wrong. It's really as simple as that. The abortion debate does not have to be some long, philosophical discussion about "humanity", "personhood", "bodily integrity", "blood for oil", or anything other than: "What is 'it'?" "It" is a human child, being killed because his mother decided that she's not ready for a child after engaging in the most common activity known for producing children.