By now many have already seen this picture of a women in protesting the San Francisco Walk for Life of a pregnant women with her belly exposed and words on it saying "My baby is prochoice."
Seems to me like a rhetorical slip up. Shouldn’t that be My fetus is prochoice? And how can a tissue mass or product of conception have a moral position. A non-person can not hold a moral position. Though then again reason has never been a strong suit of those promoting abortion. For example this report from the anti-march.
Some sang "If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one” to the tune of "If You’re Happy and You Know It."
Others have made the rejoinder "If you don’t like slavery, don’t have a slave."
Of course they also use the language of rights but never tell us where rights come from. If from the government then they can simply be given or taken away. Of if from society again they can be given or taken away. It is really only in the context of God given rights that any argument about rights that can’t be taken away can make any sense. Randomness does not confer rights on it’s random creation. They are usually referring to rights that are inherent and can not be taken away, but somehow this "inalienable" right to abortion trumps the inalienable right to life.
I prefer this picture myself.
Don’t just sit there pray, Roe v. Wade just won’t go away.