Pro Choice does not mean Pro Abortion. It means allowing a woman to make her own choice about abortion. Or so I've been told on more then one occasion. It sounds good to those who say it. To them it implies that they are giving someone an option, a choice, to make a decision that, while different from what they would like to see, they will allow the other person to make. The interesting thing to me is that some many people who support the right of a woman to choice abortion deny choice in other of the controversial issues of the day. That is what this essay is about

For example, self defense. Many in the pro choice camp are as in favor of gun control as they are of abortion. Not the same thing you say? I disagree. Gun control is all about giving people the choice to defend themselves and the means to that end. Most gun control laws boil down to a denial of a persons right to choice to use a gun to defend themselves. This may be the ultimate intrusion on a person's civil liberties. These same people would claim that it is the governments role to protect its citizens. In the United States the courts have repeatedly ruled that the government, in the form of the police, do not have a responsibility to protect. Their responsibility is to apprehend and punish those who steal, hurt, and kill not to prevent.

Now of course most police take their responsibilities more seriously then what the courts require. The motto "To Serve and Protect" that adorns may patrol cars really does mean something to most police officers. however, the fact remains that they can not be everywhere and there are times when people find themselves threatened. The New Hampshire Constitution explicitly states a right to carry arms for the protection of self, family and property. So do the Constitutions of other states. At the Federal level we are seeing an unfortunate trend towards removing this choice. And this threat comes most often from those who label themselves pro choice.

A second area where choice comes into play is in the issue of school choice. Do parents have the right to choose where to send their children to school? If they choose something other than the public schools, especially if that choice is a religious school should they receive government assistance? Most pro choice (on abortion) activists seem to be opposed to school choice. It's interesting that many of these people who think the government should have no say in if a woman has a child believe that once the child is born the government has every right to control its education.

Now to be fair, some pro choice (on abortion) people favor public school choice. And they are graciously willing to allow children to go to religious schools as long as no government money goes with them. They claim that people are allowed the choice to attend non government schools. However, it is interesting to note that many of these same people would claim that the government must fund abortions for poor women are they are denied their choice. Is not the same of school choice? Does a poor mother really have a choice to a private school if they barely have enough money for food, clothing and shelter? Obviously a consistent pro choice philosophy requires support for public funding of private, even religious, education.

We see similar questions of choice in many areas of government regulation. Zoning laws for example. Does one have a right to choice over what their house looks like? Not in some areas.

I personally feel that the government has already limited our choices too much. But I oppose abortion which some may see as a contradiction. I do not for the simple reason that I believe that the unborn baby is a person with a right to make their own choices. The mother has made her choice. I didn't tell her she could not get pregnant. Nor did I tell her that she must. She choose (in all but cases of rape) to have sex. Sex carries the risk of pregnancy but having accepted that risk a woman, and a man, have an obligation to accept the consequences.