Where is the choice?

I know why abortion opponents call themselves “pro-life,” which makes sense because abortion takes life.
But I do not understand the reasoning behind why abortion supporters consider their movement “pro choice.” They say it is because they support a woman’s right to choose whether to go through with her pregnancy or terminate it.
Unfortunately, pro-choicers fail to explain why they support such “choice” that denies the unborn the right to choose whether or not to be born.
The pro-choice movement considers an unborn child as belonging to a woman as though he or she was property or an organ of the body essential for function.
Well, it’s evident that a baby is neither property nor an organ. But the abortion lobby rationalizes that a fetus is not really human while in the womb, but rather a mass or ball of flesh incapable of thought, being or realization of self. Forget the fact that a fetus develops into and becomes a human baby that eventually realizes itself, thinks and is. What matters to the pro-choicer is that here and now, a fetus does not look human. Therefore, it is not human and cannot be counted as human life.
But the bare truth is that a fetus is entirely human; perhaps not yet in form, but certainly in function and biology. The fetus is an unrealized individual with a beating heart and developing brain that will soon become just like the ones we have. It is flesh, blood and bone just like us. It feels and hurts just like us. In fact, a fetus is entirely autonomous and sentient in its ability to feel, perceive and think. A developing fetus is entirely conscious of itself and its needs. That's why it kicks in the womb when it's happy or excited; it moves around when uncomfortable in order to get comfortable; and it communicates to the mother through the umbilical cord when it is hungry.
Again, I ask, what choice does an unborn individual have with regard to his or her life? What say do they have in choosing whether to live or die?
The answer is none. Pro-choice, while an advocate for a woman’s “right” to choose, denies the right of choice to the unborn.
Furthermore, pro-choice denies the right of the people to choose.
The abortion lobby has manipulated the law and used the courts—including the United States Supreme Court, the nation’s highest court—to rule in its favor and establish abortion as the law of the land.
If being pro-choice really means favoring the individual’s rights to choose, then why don’t pro-choicers support the right of individual states to choose whether or not to allow abortion? The answer is because pro-choice isn’t really about choice at all. It’s about abortion and nothing else.
Why was the will of the people, through democratic process, subverted on the way to the Supreme Court in 1973? The reason is that pro-choicers knew then as they know now that the vast majority of the people support neither abortion nor the agenda of its lobby.
If the issue of abortion was left up to the people in each state, then most states would likely limit or restrict its practice. Then again, this is why the pro-choice movement went straight for the jugular. The abortion lobby appealed its case not to the American people, but before a panel of nine judges, the majority of whom have been sympathetic to the so-called “right to choose.”
Pro-choicers argue that abortion is a right by virtue of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which begins with “The right of the people to be secure in their persons…”
In return, we got Roe v. Wade and 35 years of taxpayer-funded abortion on demand in spite of what the majority may or may not have wanted.
Two hundred and thirty years ago, American colonists cried out against taxation without representation and called that tyranny.
If tyranny is measured by the lack of representation in the decisions of government, then abortion is oppression in its most fundamental form.
Roe v. Wade is not only an unjust law, but also an unconstitutional one that denies the rights of states to pass their own laws concerning abortion.
The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the last of the Bill of Rights dictates, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
This is written to mean that the people of individual states have the right to govern independently of the federal government. Congress is supposed to function within the bounds of the Constitution and let the people determine the course of their respective states.
I say, let’s put 35 years of ferocious debate over abortion finally to rest by bringing it up to a vote of the people. Let each state decide whether or not to legalize the practice and under what terms within its own borders.
If a woman wants an abortion that is prohibited in her state, then she can move to or cross the border into a state that allows the practice.
Why should an entire nation—a republic no less—be forced to suffer the foibles of a few zealots who have used abortion as a means of securing power for themselves?
When you get right down to where the rubber meets the road, that is exactly what pro-choice is all about: Giving power to those few with an agenda they want to push onto everyone else—including those of us who don’t want what they are selling.
Indeed, pro-choice offers perhaps the greatest contradiction in terms and action. While the choice of some is championed, the choice of many others—most notably the unborn—is scorned.
So to the pro-choicers, I ask, what exactly is the choice? It seems like we have no other choice but to accept theirs.