Abortion rights activists are in trouble. Their terminology is failing. While they have successfully fended off the "anti-life" labels from their enemies, their own "pro-choice" label is becoming increasingly limited. First, there is the counter-attack on conservative forces, attempting to label "pro-lifers" as "anti-choice." This is a mistake. It exposes the weakness of the word choice. "Anti-choice" and "pro-choice" are bland. While the "right to choose" sounds nice, it does not link to a moral. The opposing side, for example, has a powerful tool in "pro-life." They have linked their political stand to a moral: saving a life. Now, who doesn't want to save lives? Too simple you say? In the end, yes. But most people don't get that far. For a world ruled by headlines, they have the advantage. The right to make choices in the end must be limited by the right to life. For example, we should all agree that murder is wrong. So, when can you rationalize taking a life? Do you see how the contextualization weakens the pro-abortion side?

There we go again. Word choice. "Pro-choicers" don't like the term "pro-abortion," as many may or may not be actually for it, but just for the right to choose: something often linked to the woman's right to make choices about her own body. This entire discourse is becoming increasingly complicated as we try to define those "choices" and link them to morality. Incest, rape? Most agree that the metnal trauma of the events are enough without daily reminders of that violence, and so allow abortion in those circumstances. Perhaps the potential mother is too young, too irresponsible, and wants to wait until she is ready. Many concur with that logic. And what if the child is shown through testing to be mentally retarded or deaf, or if it would suffer from some other genetic abnormaility? Some would say of course. Others, perhaps might feel that is too much power. Too much choice.

But it is exactly at this point that both labels become problematic. Some might feel one is "playing god" not only if they have the right to choose when they want a baby, but which one. Some feel as if that is perhaps "genetic selection" or "eugenics": both dirty words. But here also is where the "pro-life" label fails. Morals are never absolute-there are always gradations. The promise of life is not enough. For example, if a higher power came down to you and said, your child will suffer horrible physical deformities all his life, and be depressed every day, struggling to find a way to be happy, but fail: only to die by his own hand after decades of torment for him and his family who had to helplessly watch him suffer. Can you really say he would be better off alive than dead under the mere supposition that life is a value that is precious by its mere existance, irregardless of the quality of that life? Conversely, should a 12-year old mother want to abort her incest caused pregnancy, but was told that the child would be happy always, and make the mother the more happy, and would do something great someday, don't you think the "right to choose" would be modified by the quality of the life? Of course the facts make both situations different.

So what "pro-choicers" must do is two-fold. They must A) tie their beliefs to a moral framework; and B) expose the short-comings of the absolute value placed on life. If they do not: they risk the quality of life for us all. Natural selection has been short-circuited by modern medicine and affluence. We can heal some and keep others alive when they provide no value to their society. It is for these reasons it is imperative that selective abortion is not only allowed but exercised. We have no natural way of weeding out flawed genetics and no capacity to fix such extant defects: therefore, we must as a species find the value in strong genetics and be willing to allow parents the right to ensure their children have every opportunity to live their lives in health and happiness. To do any less, would be inhuman .