The Lie of “Choice”

“Pro-choice” is one of the most dishonest euphemisms in modern discourse. It sounds noble—freedom, autonomy, empowerment. But what, precisely, is being chosen? Not education. Not healthcare. Not whether or not to start a family. The “choice” in question is the deliberate killing of an unborn human being. The language of “choice” is meant to conceal this truth. It is a linguistic smokescreen, designed to disguise moral horror in the language of personal liberty.

When one strips away the euphemisms and the marketing slogans, the ideology ceases to be about “choice” at all. It is, at its core, the defense of death as a solution to inconvenience. Whether the inconvenience is economic, social, or emotional, the argument reduces to this: some lives are less worth living, and therefore less worth protecting.

If we extend this principle honestly, the absurdity and horror of it become immediately clear. If it is acceptable to kill the unborn child because their existence is “inconvenient,” then why stop there? Why not end the lives of the elderly, the disabled, the poor, the unwanted? Once we decouple human worth from intrinsic dignity and tie it to situational convenience, there is no moral floor left. Every atrocity in history has rested on that same logic: that one life can be disposed of for the comfort or progress of another.

Thus, “pro-choice” is not an argument for freedom. It is an argument for the supremacy of self-interest over the sanctity of life. It exalts autonomy over duty, preference over protection, and comfort over compassion.

“Pro-life” is not merely one side of a debate—it is the only philosophically coherent, morally defensible position. It asserts a simple, universal truth: that human life possesses inherent dignity from conception to natural death, regardless of circumstance, ability, or stage of development. This principle is consistent; it does not change based on personal comfort or political expediency.

To be pro-life is to affirm that rights do not depend on power, that the strong have a duty to protect the weak, and that civilization itself depends on our refusal to kill the innocent for the sake of convenience.

The modern age excels at reversing meanings. We call the destruction of a child “healthcare.” We call moral cowardice “compassion.” We call infanticide “choice.” Orwell warned us of this inversion of language—when words are stripped of meaning, morality collapses with them.

“Pro-choice” is not a moral position; it is a linguistic trick designed to soothe the conscience of a culture that worships the self. It asks us to believe that ending a life is empowerment, that killing is kindness, and that the greatest evil can be disguised as an act of mercy.

But the conscience, no matter how buried, still knows. Beneath the slogans and the hashtags lies the quiet, inescapable truth: that the deliberate killing of the innocent is wrong. Always. Everywhere.

There is no moral “middle ground” between life and death, between protecting the innocent and destroying them. The so-called “pro-choice” movement does not defend freedom—it defends the right to kill. Call it what it is: pro-death or, more honestly still, convenience killing.

The truly courageous, the truly compassionate, the truly human stance is—and has always been—pro-life.