“I’m not pro-abortion; I’m pro-choice.”

You hear that statement, or something resembling it, all the time from those promoting abortion on demand for any reason or no reason at all.

That’s just a statement of fact.

It’s also a statement of fact, not opinion, that abortion advocates are not “pro-choice.”

How?

Because 99.9 percent of abortion advocates support some form of taxpayer subsidy for abortion. That’s when their notion of “choice” actually means coercion – forcing those with moral and religious objections to the killing of the unborn to pay for it.

Let me expand on this idea so even the women in the

pink pussyhats can understand it.

I believe most abortions represent the wanton killing of a helpless, vulnerable, innocent human being. That’s why I don’t think I should be forced to pay for them. It’s a violation of my own moral conscience, not to mention a way for forcing me to become part of something I believe is sinful in God’s eyes.

Most radical feminists would disagree. They contend that it’s an absolute right for any woman to do whatever she wants with her own body – even though another body, another heart, another brain and another soul is involved.

Likewise, I feel the same way about being forced to pay for the voluntary mutilation of one’s body because a person believes he or she feels more like a member of the opposite sex.

Most radical feminists and LGBT activists would disagree. They maintain it’s an absolute right for anyone to do whatever with their own body – and have you and me pay for it.

But just because people insist they have a right to do something does not make it so.

What is the definition of a “right”? America’s founders agreed that rights are unalienable – meaning they come from God, not government. If rights are bestowed by government, they can also be revoked by government. So the question becomes: Who bestowed the right to kill one’s unborn child to anyone? Who bestowed to humanity the right to change one’s sex through surgery and chemical processes?

These are ludicrous questions. No one has done so except a radical fringe feminist cadre and homosexual activist corps and those who want to exploit such desires for their own political gain. If I proclaim I have a right to go to the moon, it doesn’t make it so. And even if 1 billion people proclaim they have a right to go to the moon, it’s still not true.

These are matters of common sense – something in short supply in leftist circles today. There’s an old expression, “Your right ends where mine begin.”

Thus, if you compel me to pay for something you believe is your right, it can’t be your right. You’re just wrong about that.

Here’s another axiom for you: If abortion is a “private” choice, it should certainly not involve any public dollars.

How is that difficult to understand?

Shouldn’t that just simply end any debate over taxpayer funding of abortion and taxpayer funding of transgenderism?

And I haven’t even mentioned yet the Constitution’s strict limitations on the matters in which the federal government can involve itself.

The federal government never involved itself in the issue of abortion until the Supreme Court did so – ruling that it was a “right” established by the implied “right” to privacy – a right not actually ever mentioned in the Constitution, probably for good reason.

But if abortion becomes a man-made “right” because of “privacy,” then how can it involve “public” funding? It’s a total contradiction.

Even rights we all agree are unalienable don’t warrant public funding. For instance, you have the right to free speech, but you don’t have the right to demand public funding to broadcast your message to the whole world.

My point? Those who claim to be “pro-choice” are really only in favor of doing whatever they please at your expense.

That’s not freedom. That’s coercion.

That’s not “choice.” It’s the opposite.