Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice

     Like last week's discussion on "Feminism," this isn't actually a post about politics—it's about what these words make you feel. As I'm sure you can guess, I have a very strong opinion about abortion, but I see no point in sharing it without articulating/defending it, and I see no point in the latter in this post. This is about words, not policies. Both sides obviously feel very strongly about their standpoint, and I don't think it's very easy to establish either view as anything other than right vs. wrong. There isn't much neutral territory in regard to a woman's right to choose an abortion or a fetus's right to life. My point, though, is the tactics that each side uses in an attempt to discredit (I might even say "demonize") the other—each does it, no way around it, whether you agree with their cause or not. It may be justified because of the seriousness of the issue, so I don't mean to say that they're wrong in doing this. But just look at the implications:
     "Pro-choice" advocates propose that a woman has a right to an abortion. But with such a title, they imply that any who disagree with them are not pro-choice, meaning that they must be pro-control, pro-slavery, pro-compulsion, and pro-bondage. Those who object to a pro-choice agenda will obviously disagree with that, but that's what it sounds like to anyone unfamiliar to the other side. Everyone loves choice and choosing. Everyone wants to be able to control their own lives. So labeling something so controversial with such a universal concept elicits empathy for the cause.
     "Pro-life" supporters argue that a fetus has a right to live and that the mother's choice about its presence passed when she chose to have sex and thus conceive him or her. While the mother certainly still has a choice about whether or not she will abort the baby, pro-lifers classify such as murder and demand that the mother receive the consequences of her choice. But to say that this standpoint is pro-life indicates that any other view is pro-death, pro-destruction, pro-murder, and pro-loss. Pro-choicers don't see it that way, but isn't that what the name suggests? Again, whichever conviction you hold on this issue (and I hold mine very strongly), you have to acknowledge the demonizing tactics at work here, whether each side deserves it or not.
     As I said, this post isn't about abortion—it's about the implications of the words we use against other, or the words we use in general. Obi-Wan taught me, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" (kinda sounds like an absolute, hypocrite!), and any time you lay down an absolute, you combine it with implications about those who disagree with you. It's easy to twist words.
     In the Book of Mormon, a wicked lawyer named Zeezrom challenges two preachers, Alma and Amulek, in their teachings of Christ. Zeezrom offers Amulek six onties of silver (essentially a month and a half's wages) to deny God. When Amulek won't do it, Zeezrom goes on rapid-fire, seeking to trap Amulek in his words and get him to contradict himself. He asks Amulek if there is a God, if God has a Son, and if the Son will come. Then look what happens: "And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word. Now Zeezrom said unto the people: See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not save his people—as though he had authority to command God" (Alma 11: 34-35). To make a long story short, Amulek catches Zeezrom in his lie and schools him, saying "And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins" (Alma 11:37). What was the difference? Doesn't Christ provide salvation and victory over sin? What was Amulek saying that Zeezrom twisted? Fifty years later, a prophet explained, "And remember also the words which Amulek spake unto Zeezrom, in the city of Ammonihah; for he said unto him that the Lord surely should come to redeem his people, but that he should not come to redeem them in their sins, but to redeem them from their sins" (Helaman 5:10, emphasis added). Zeezrom's wordplay was subtle, but he twisted one preposition to make it sound like Amulek was denying that Christ would redeem us. Tricky tricky.
     Satan does the same thing with us all the time, telling half truths and trying to back us into a corner. He takes our inherent desire to be free to choose for ourselves and twists it to mean that we should be able to take choices for other people. He takes our desire for life and twists it to mean that life should never be taken from anyone, even criminals who take life from others. Sadly, we too often fall for his lies.
     But just like with Amulek, if we rely on the Spirit of the Lord, we will not be deceived. The Spirit is the key to understanding God's truth (the truth) and to blocking out all of the voices that would lead us astray. God's greatest desire is to lead us home, and He has given us the means we need to get there: life, choice, and the Holy Spirit to guide us.

Listening to the Spirit takes practice, patience, and paying attention: