Will the Real Pro-Lifer Please Stand Up?
by Cristina Page, Moderator, OnCommonGround
January 22, 2010 - 10:30am (Print)
And so the O'Connor nominating committee's decisions to honor Bush as a hero of its cause tells us a lot about the crisis now facing the pro-life movement. According to the committee, Bush's roll back of funding for contraception worldwide and his attempts to redefine contraception as abortion made him their man. And yet, this wasn't exactly the playbook for making abortion less prevalent.
This brings us to some larger questions that it seems many pro-life Americans have on their minds these days. What does it mean to be pro-life? What measurement should be used to gauge success?
Clearly, the traditional pro-life establishment bases its goals on a set of unchangeable "values" rather than quantifiable results.
It's this decision to stick to rhetoric rather than results that has opened a chasm between the extreme pro-life establishment and the pro-life American public, which has long favored pragmatism. This relentless allegiance to "ideals" has created an opportunity for new voices to be heard, and particular those of a newly emergent, progressive pro-lifer, a far more threatening development to the traditional pro-life establishment than anything NARAL or Planned Parenthood could have dreamed up. The establishment has for years thought all it need do is hold up big graphic, gory protest signs to win the argument. The rise of the pro-life progressive, with their interest in attainable and measurable goals, has not only captivated a growing segment of the public, but shined a spotlight on the contradictions of the establishment, and also, just as important, at its overriding allegiance. It has long been a wing of the Republican party, at times more allegiant to partisan politics than pro-life goals.
The pro-life establishment clearly understands the threat of this emerging new voice within the movement it supposedly leads. And so traditional right wing pro-life groups have spent much of last year slandering their moderate brethren.
Let's take the 2009 experience of Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH). Like most pro-life Americans, he's pro-contraception. For the pro-life establishment, that's a disqualifier. As thanks for drafting a bill, the Ryan DeLauro Act, intended to reduce the need for abortion through greater access to contraception, strengthened supports for struggling families with wanted pregnancies, improved access to adoption, and sex education programs that are effective at reducing teen pregnancy rates, the pro-life movement booted Ryan from their ranks, branding him a "pro-life impersonator," and labeling his legislation "a fake pro-life abortion bill." As Rep. Ryan explained, "The new fault line is not between pro-life and pro-choice people. It's within the pro-life community. The question now is: 'are you pro-life and pro-contraception, therefore trying to reduce the need for abortions, or are you pro-life and against contraception and you hope that people's lives improve just by hoping it, wishing it so.'" Making Ryan out to be a fraud is essential for the right wing establishment. As Ryan explains, "We have an opportunity here to solve this problem and give pro-life members of Congress a common sense approach to reducing abortion and boy does it marginalize those people who have really beat the drum on the pro-life issue and have not provided any solution to it."
The pro-life drumbeaters continued their increasingly shrill campaign in Indiana last spring. In May, they popped their circus tent outside The University of Notre Dame to protest President Obama's commencement address and later launched a campaign to unseat Notre Dame's president, replacejenkins.com, simply for giving the President the setting to air his proposals on common ground and on reducing the need for abortion before an eager pro-life audience. The message was clear to all pro-life figures, stray from the right-wing Republican pro-life platform at your peril. When Notre Dame president Jenkins announced he would attend the March for Life, held today in D.C., right wing pro-lifers issued warnings. Jill Stanek, a popular pro-life blogger, wrote, "We'll join him alright, complete with cameras, microphones, and plenty of questions for the good reverend. First question: Why are you even here?"
Why should the pro-life establishment have a problem with pro-lifers who opt to try a different approach in pursuit of the same "pro-life" goal which is, theoretically, lowering the rate of abortion? This only makes sense if lowering the rate of abortion isn't the actual goal. The campaigns against progressive pro-lifers is not so much about "protecting the unborn" as it is about protecting their political co-conspirators, the GOP. And so, little threatens more than the rise of a pragmatic pro-life voice to champion strategies proven to reduce the need for abortion, like access to contraception and supports for struggling families with wanted pregnancies; traditionally Democratic policies. This is, after all, the approach that worked. During the Clinton years it resulted in the most dramatic decline in abortion rates in the history of our country.
And so, as the pro-life movement enters middle age, a threatening development looms: the discussion within its ranks of prevention and measurable pro-life results. When that's the focus, the gory sign, the shouted insistence on age-old rhetoric over real life accomplishments is their only reply, and one increasingly seen as hollow by a newly vocal pro-life majority.
"By most measurable standards, George Bush was possibly the most pro-abortion president we've ever had. During his two terms in office, he waged an attack on access to contraception so dogged it upstaged the Pope."
Please present your evidence showing that public policies that have the effect of reducing access to contraception increase the numbers of abortions. My analysis of the data produced a different conclusion.
"He also, not coincidentally, slowed the free-fall in abortion rates set in motion under Clinton."
The opposite happened in Minnesota. The abortion rate fell rapidly under GHW Bush, then rose consistently for much of the Clinton presidency, and then fell again during the GW Bush presidency. The only increases during the GW Bush presidency were 2001 and 2006. In 2006 Planned Parenthood ran an aggressive advertising campaign.
"Bush's legacy of financial ruin coupled with widespread hopelessness has led to a spike in abortion rates..."
Here is a quotation from that link. "In 2005, the last year for which data is available, the U.S. abortion rate fell to the lowest level since 1974, according to the Guttmacher Institute..." The article also provides some evidence that vasectomies became more common in the late Bush years and vasectomy reversals less common, which might suppress the abortion rate.
"And so the O'Connor nominating committee's decisions to honor Bush as a hero of its cause tells us a lot about the crisis now facing the pro-life movement."
The organization that issues the O'Connor Award is not a pro-life group. Instead, "...its mission has been to bring Catholic business leaders and their spouses together in a monthly forum that fosters personal spiritual growth." So I think the decision to honor Bush says little about the pro-life movement.
"According to the committee, Bush's roll back of funding for contraception worldwide and his attempts to redefine contraception as abortion made him their man."
According to the article, "Legatus cites his administration's opposition to embryonic stem cell research, an executive order barring federal funds from being used for abortion related projects abroad, the appointment of two pro-life Supreme Court Justices and a rule protecting federally funded health employees from taking part in abortion or practices that conflict with their faith as policies that Bush helped enact during his presidency."
The abortion rate fell rapidly under GHW Bush, then rose consistently for much of the Clinton presidency, and then fell again during the GW Bush presidency.
Nationally, the abortion rate has been going down steadily since 1981. It's gone down under Republican administrations and it's gone down under Democratic ones. I expect it to continue to decline under Obama and I expect it decline again whether we choose a liberal or a conservative to succeed him.
The presidency doesn't affect the abortion rate. The abortion rate is affected by the ongoing public conversation we've been having about the value of unborn life.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Don't get excited, Paul...but I'll grant you some props...
Prevention works...and outliers like us get the #3 kid earlier than expected, much wanted, despite the timing.
Nationally, the abortion rate has been going down steadily since 1981. It's gone down under Republican administrations and it's gone down under Democratic ones. I expect it to continue to decline under Obama and I expect it decline again whether we choose a liberal or a conservative to succeed him.
The abortion rate actually tracks pretty tightly with the availability and affordability of contraception and the amount of information people have about how to use it correctly.
The presidency doesn't affect the abortion rate.
Presidential POLICIES, however, can have an enormous effect, particularly when they limit the availabilty and affordability of contraception and the amount of information young people can access about using it correctly.
The abortion rate is affected by the ongoing public conversation we've been having about the value of unborn life.
I think you give the public conversation more credit than it deserves. Women make this choice on the basis of how workable a continued pregnancy is in their individual life circumstances without giving much credence to the opinions of activists, who mostly talk to each other. I'm sure all the propaganda about 'the value of unborn life' succeeds in convincing them that they as women have little value, that they should feel guilt and shame for not wanting to be pregnant, and that if they're smart they'll keep their abortion secret.
The abortion rate actually tracks pretty tightly with the availability
and affordability of contraception and the amount of information people
have about how to use it correctly.
Exactly crowepps...and we gotta be fair...Paul is all over access and prevention...
And Paul, as an outlier...that wet vaginal wink is not consent to pregnancy, competent prevention practices or not. One more time, I write from experience.
ahunt,
You remind me of how happy I am to be a member of our species. (...and what a species it is!)
As far as crowepps' assertion about the link between the availability of contraception and the abortion rate I'm more than inclined to believe her -- but I've never seen any numbers to back it up (or, for that matter, to dispute it). I do know that the abortion rate goes down every year. I don't even know how we could quantify the 'availability of contraception' in order to render a useful study.
It seems to me that both you and I draw a firm distinction between a woman's consent to coitus and her consent to pregnancy. You may not think much about this, but there is also a firm distinction between a man's consent to coitus and his consent to fatherhood. Neither of us, I'm quite sure, would grant a man 'veto power' over his partner's choice to give birth and neither of us would deny that he would be responsible to provide meaningful support to his child in the even that she should choose to complete the pregnancy.
Am I right it thinking that we agree?
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
I'm sure all the propaganda about 'the value of unborn life' succeeds in convincing them that they as women have little value, that they should feel guilt and shame for not wanting to be pregnant, and that if they're smart they'll keep their abortion secret.
crowepps,
I wish you would explain to me why you think it would be hard to simultaneously assert that women's lives have value, that a woman's (non pregnancy related) hopes and aspirations have value, and that the unborn have lives worthy of our regard.
An individual woman's decision about whether or not to abort isn't nearly as important (or interesting) to me as our collective attempt to assign a human value to fetal life. A woman can keep quiet about her pregnancy decisions, but the society needs to openly discuss the value of life.
Do you think that the woman who believes her unborn child's life is as valuable as her own would abort even in the event that the pregnancy seriously compromises her life goals?
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Do you think that the woman who believes her unborn child's life is as
valuable as her own would abort even in the event that the pregnancy
seriously compromises her life goals?
I think it's audacious for you to even ask that, especially not having been in the position of ever doing so yourself or without having spent a lot of -- or any -- real time in your life counseling women making these decisions. Or, to put it more accurately, audacious to ask what you did rather than asking women who have made reproductive choices what we consider and have considered, and then to listen and take us at our word instead of telling us what we do or don't believe or consider according to you. Or to go read the endless stories you can find even online from women who have done just that. Or to just earnestly listen to some of the women here you talk at more often than you talk with or seem to earnestly hear.
Yes, I do think that "the woman who believes her unborn child's life is as
valuable as her own would abort even in the event that the pregnancy
seriously compromises her life goals." I also know that. Been there myself, have talked with and read many other women who have, too. I'd say that the idea a child's life is valuable is often at the heart of many women's decisions to terminate, as a point of fact, just like it's often at the heart of any woman choosing to continue a pregnancy and do adoption or parenting. I have sat and listened to numerous women making this decision who chose to terminate a pregnancy they strongly felt would NOT be in the best interest of the child who could result's life were the pregnancy sustained, even when that woman herself felt continuing a pregnancy was what SHE emotionally wanted, for herself.
I think you seem to keep forgetting that for many, if not most, potential mothers, their lives and life goals are often implictly bound with a pregnancy and a child's life. This is another one of those things it seems you think can be easily compartmentalized, or compartmentalized at all, but that notion stands counter to many women's experiences of both pregnancy and motherhood.
I wish you would explain to me why you think it would be hard to simultaneously assert that women's lives have value, that a woman's (non pregnancy related) hopes and aspirations have value, and that the unborn have lives worthy of our regard.
As I recollect one of your previous posts, and I don't have the time today to go look it up so I can quote it precisely, you were talking to someone about how you value women and said (approximately) 'but once conception happens my focus moves to the new life'. That shift in focus places women second, AFTER the new life, and takes for granted that she is 'supposed to' contribute biologically to another whether she wants to or not. The difficulty is that your regard for the value of her life, health, hopes and aspirations is only maintained so long as there is no zygote and as soon as there MAY be one, your focus shifts.
An individual woman's decision about whether or not to abort isn't nearly as important (or interesting) to me as our collective attempt to assign a human value to fetal life. A woman can keep quiet about her pregnancy decisions, but the society needs to openly discuss the value of life.
I think a discussion about the value of life is vital to our society, but it certainly would be more productive if it included the value of life AFTER birth.
Do you think that the woman who believes her unborn child's life is as valuable as her own would abort even in the event that the pregnancy seriously compromises her life goals?
This is an excellent example of ideological circular reasoning -- starting with your personal theme that abortion is caused by not believing zygotes are 'valuable', then the fact that a woman has chosen an abortion demonstrates that she doesn't believe that the conceptus is 'valuable', as you define it, and therefore the 'problem' is her emotional investment or her selfishness in not wanting to 'compromise her life goals'.
This is not the reality of abortion. You demonstrate once again that you do not understand what women are thinking when they are faced with these decisions, even after women who have been involved in this kind of decision have attempted repeatedly to explain to you the process as those who are actually involved in it experience it. You blow off their explanations and their experience as 'denial' and go right back to your manta about 'value' because you just cannot conceive that other people do not think the same way that you think.
You are certain that there is only one correct way to think, yours, and there is only one set of correct conclusions to reach, yours, and there is only one set of moral values, yours, and that if women were 'thinking correctly', then they would be thinking like YOU, so that the fact that they make a decision you don't agree with is ipso facto evidence of their insanity, immorality, stupidity, etc. This is precisely why it is so frustrating attempting to talk to you and why the women on here why to shake you like a maraca sometimes -- you are so DENSE about the fact that women are not Just Like Paul.
you are so DENSE about the fact that women are not Just Like Paul.
crowepps,
We're not understanding each other, and I suspect that's because we're not listening to each other. Let me try to do my bit to do a better job of listening to you by asking you directly whether or not you believe it's possible for a society to maintain its stability if there are differences of opinion about who is to be treated like a human being and who (what?) may be treated like a thing.
I make it as clear as possible that I believe that the life of a fetus or an embryo or a blastocyst or a zygote has as much moral value as the life of President Obama. I can not remember you even weighing in on the question. What do you believe about the moral value of zygotes? I'm not even sure we agree that all born people have the same moral value. Do you believe that it is always wrong to take a (born) human life or do you think that some human lives lack sufficient value to be protected by moral precept?
There are people who believe that an eight week old fetus is no more valuable than a grain of rice and can be discarded with as little fanfare. Do you realize this? Do you agree with those people? I'm thinking that you're going to be reticent to even tell me what you think because you feel that everyone ought to be 'free' to decide this question for her/himself.
As you know, I don't usually quote the Bible. Humor me this once. I would like you to tell me how you respond to this passage:
At that time Joshua, turning back, captured Hazor and slew its king with the sword; for Hazor formerly was the chief of all those kingdoms. He also fulfilled the doom by putting every person there to the sword, till none was left alive. Hazor itself he burned.
Joshua, 12 10-11
I shall tell you that I have a serious disagreement with Joshua about the value of Hazorite life. If Joshua and the Hazorites were still with us I would probably be so DENSE as to want Joshua to think "Just Like Paul". If I were to exert efforts to change Joshua's thinking would you accuse me of looking for "ipso facto evidence of Joshua's insanity, immorality, stupidity, etc."? Would you lecture me about wanting to feel morally superior to Joshua or would you be willing to consider the idea that I honestly think that the lives of Hazorites have value?
Please share your thoughts with me.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
I'm thinking that you're going to be reticent to even tell me what you think because you feel that everyone ought to be 'free' to decide this question for her/himself. [emphasis added]The much larger ethical problem of Nature's Sexism and Society's Classism means that the problem of the systemic misogyny takes precidence over the ZBEFs. There are enough women who want to (attempt to) be mothers that society (and you) shouldn't try insert yourself into a private decision if you're not invited.
On the issue of when life begins and what that means, and the relative weight of a *potential life* represented by a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus.....
I'm thinking that you're going to be reticent to even tell me what you think because you feel that everyone ought to be 'free' to decide this question for her/himself. [emphasis added]
I am not the slightest bit reticent to say yes.....everyone *is* free to decide this for themselves. There are many layers of moral and ethical and scientific theory, issues, and thinking around this and many layers of belief. The reality is that the majority of us believe there is a primacy of a born woman's life over a zygote, yes, a blastocyst, an embryo and a fetus, and in rare circumstances over a viable fetus.
Unequivocally yes. I guess it still isn't evident to you that the majority--and the law recognizes this--do not consider potential possible, not yet existent beings to take precedence over actual, born extant ones. Just because you keep saying it over and over and over does not mean that you are correct, that your ethical or moral or religious theology is the *only right* one, or that we all need to believe the same thing.
This has absolutely nothing to do with extant human lives.
I make it as clear as possible that I believe that the life of a fetus or an embryo or a blastocyst or a zygote has as much moral value as the life of President Obama.
You make that very clear Paul, over and over. What is not clear to you is that neither my own moral/religious tradition, which I respect and value, agrees with you nor do I. Nor do the majority of others who've tried to point this out. You can continue to "make it clear" though we already know. but we simply do not agree.
Jodi
I guess it still isn't evident to you that the majority--and the law recognizes this--do not consider potential possible, not yet existent beings to take precedence over actual, born extant ones.
Jodi,
Your statement above is the closest statement I have been given to date by you or any of those who take me to task for asserting the humanity of the unborn that actually approximates a statement I've been hoping that somebody would have the frankness to state. That statement is, "I disagree with you Paul. I believe that a zygote is something other than a living human body. I believe that a zygote is something other than a human person." That's the 'in' I've been trying so hard to get but no one has given me.
I'm hoping to get into a conversation with someone who is willing to air a point of view that's different than the one I possess. I don't get that. I get people who state that women are 'real people' which is somthing that, to me, is so obvious that I can't imagine anyone questioning it. I get people telling me that I am wrong -- but no one,to date, has been willing to tell me what they think is right.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Blatocysts and zygotes are not people.
They are, under certain circumstances, potential people, pending many factors including spontaneous abortion/miscarriage, or induced abortion.
Zygotes do not equal people nor do they have the same rights as people.
I don't know why this has not been clear as I have stated this myself all along. Your faith and your personal beliefs bring you to consider zygotes as people, and please do not mistake this as other than a "belief." I respect and defend your right to hold these beliefs and to act upon them in your personal life. I do not defend the imposition of your beliefs on me or others, through law, policy, or coercion.
I think my own position--and that of many others here--on that has been extraordinarily clear.
Jodi
Blastocysts and zygotes are not people.
Jodi,
I mean this sincerely. It is an immense relief to me to hear someone come out and say what they think. What has bothered me very much is the thought that the viewpoint being expressed on this 'site was that every mother has the right to decide for herself whether the blastocyst (or embryo or fetus) inside her body is a person or not.
You and I do not agree whether zygotes are people. I am curious what you do believe. Do you believe embryos are people? Do you believe first trimester fetuses are people? Do you believe that second trimester fetuses are people? Do you believe that third trimester fetuses are people?
My frustration has not been around the idea that I couldn't get the people on this 'site to agree with me that the unborn, at every stage of development, are people. As far as I know, I have never even made an effort to get others to agree with me on that point. crowepps has accused me of using 'circular reasoning' to assert that zygotes are people. I haven't even used that much reasoning. All I have endeavored to do is to state, in as frank and simple a way as possible, what I believe about the humanity of the unborn and to ask people to respond to my frankness with frankness of their own.
I have honestly been getting the idea that frankness on my part has been met by coyness on your (you plural) side. It's as if people are saying to me, "I'm not willing to weigh in on the question of the humanity of the unborn. The only people who have a right to determine whether unborn life is fully human are the individual mothers of the unborn. Since you're a man, Paul, you have no right to assert any opinion whatsoever."
Agree with me, or disagree with me, but I have the right to make an assessment of my own life and my own identity and I am of the firm opinion that I was once a fetus and that that fetus was me. What I am I have always been.
What is your opinion? When did you become a person? I've gotten into a lot of trouble, here, by making assumptions but I assume that you consider yourself a person now. I also assume that you consider me a person. I also assume that you would be sympathetic to my insistence that everyone else consider me a person and not consider me, for example, one hundred and eighty pounds of food.
These are very important matters -- and they matter in ways that have nothing to do with a woman's private health care decisions.
I look forward to your response.
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
What has bothered me very much is the thought that the viewpoint being expressed on this 'site was that every mother has the right to decide for herself whether the blastocyst (or embryo or fetus) inside her body is a person or not.
That's called 'freedom on conscience', Paul, and while it does boggle those who are sure there is Only One Answer, it is a constitutionally protected right of all citizens. You certainly must have a terrible opinion of the morals and intelligence of the average woman if you are so terrified of their ability to make their own decisions.
I haven't even used that much reasoning. All I have endeavored to do is to state, in as frank and simple a way as possible, what I believe about the humanity of the unborn and to ask people to respond to my frankness with frankness of their own.
You certainly have not 'used that much reasoning'. That's my whole point. The purpose of this site is to discuss public policy, and while you certainly have every right to attempt to recruit converts to your personal emotional reaction (I was a blastocyst - it's outrageous anyone would think my mommy had any right to reject ME) it doesn't make for very interesting discussion when all your posts can be summed up as I THINK SO THEREFORE IT IS TRUE.
These are very important matters -- and they matter in ways that have nothing to do with a woman's private health care decisions.
I'm not sure how important DISCUSSION of these matters actually is, when at the same time that energy is invested in philosophical discussion about the 'value' of a blastocyst, worldwide there are hundreds of thousands of actual born babies, children and adults who die every year for lack of sufficient shelter, food and medical care. Is 'Life' valued? Oh, sure, in the abstract lots of people say so, but the most cursory scan of the news and the circumstances in which actual people have to live, actually, not much unless it's their own life or that of someone they personally know.
a statement I've been hoping that somebody would have the frankness to state. That statement is, "I disagree with you Paul. I believe that a zygote is something other than a living human body. I believe that a zygote is something other than a human person." That's the 'in' I've been trying so hard to get but no one has given me.
Perhaps that's because the statement is incoherent and people won't frankly state something that they don't believe.
Is the fetus 'human'? Yes, the great majority of the time, or it wouldn't have been able to develope that far.
Is the fetus 'living'? As much as anyone else on total life support systems for every bodily function.
Is the fetus a 'person'? Not until it survives birth.
I have said exactly these things in many other posts, but perhaps the reason your wait has been so lengthy is that there isn't anyone participating here that has ever stated the zygote is something other than 'human' or that it was not alive (unless, of course, it actually WAS dead as in the 25% which cannot divide).
I find it a little puzzling that you would assume that people who support respect for women's freedom of conscience to make personal decisions could be doing so only if the foundation for their position was that the zygote was non-human and/or dead. The zygote being a live human cell doesn't change anything Every OTHER cell in the woman is also a live human cell.
We're not understanding each other, and I suspect that's because we're not listening to each other.
Speak for yourself. I have been listening hard and believe I understand you very well.
Let me try to do my bit to do a better job of listening to you by asking you directly whether or not you believe it's possible for a society to maintain its stability if there are differences of opinion about who is to be treated like a human being and who (what?) may be treated like a thing.
Maintain its stability? Absolutely. The whole point of the 'back to the 1880's' movement among the conservatives is that back when women and Blacks and gays and minority religious believers understood anyone who wasn't part of the 'majority ruling class' had to 'know their place' as 'things' everything was far more 'stable' because the ruling class wasn't threatened by their uppityness.
I make it as clear as possible that I believe that the life of a fetus or an embryo or a blastocyst or a zygote has as much moral value as the life of President Obama. I can not remember you even weighing in on the question. What do you believe about the moral value of zygotes?
I don't think zygotes have any particular 'moral value' because they have more similarities to untested seeds than they do to people.
I'm not even sure we agree that all born people have the same moral value. Do you believe that it is always wrong to take a (born) human life or do you think that some human lives lack sufficient value to be protected by moral precept?
I believe that some human lives have more value to society in general than others. I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to 'value' Ted Bundy.
There are people who believe that an eight week old fetus is no more valuable than a grain of rice and can be discarded with as little fanfare. Do you realize this? Do you agree with those people? I'm thinking that you're going to be reticent to even tell me what you think because you feel that everyone ought to be 'free' to decide this question for her/himself.
You are finally getting the picture! I do indeed believe that people are entitled to freedom of conscience. I believe the value of an eight week old fetus, all one inch of it, depends on whether it is wanted. An unwanted fetus has little value because value is measured by "its importance to the possessor".
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-8-weeks
As you know, I don't usually quote the Bible. Humor me this once.
I'd just as soon not. Most of the Bible is a series of horror stories where humans act like humans (in a manner that ironically is called inhumanely even though it's typical) and then insist their actions were directed by God. Frankly, if you pointed out to Joshua that you felt his actions were wrong, the whole group would probably stone you as a blasphemer. It would be interesting to see if, knowing that, you'd still feel compelled to speak up to a bunch of men holding swords.
I had an abortion in 1997. It was the worst decision I have ever made. Yes, I consider myself pro-life now. Then, I didnt. If I had been told the truth and really been counseled on wheather an abortion was right for me, instead of sold too I might have not made that mistake. It is the right according to law for a woman to make her choice. But, She should be given the REAL medical and psycological facts before hand. I have found that alot of the women(not all of them by anymeans),that are pro choice have never had that experiance.
Thank You, Kristie
"Like most pro-life Americans, he's pro-contraception. For the pro-life establishment, that's a disqualifier."
Most mainline pro-life groups are neutral on abortion.
"The [National Right to Life] Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense."
http://www.nrlc.org/Missionstatement.htm
"As Rep. Ryan explained, 'The new fault line is not between pro-life and pro-choice people. It's within the pro-life community. The question now is: are you pro-life and pro-contraception, therefore trying to reduce the need for abortions, or are you pro-life and against contraception and you hope that people's lives improve just by hoping it, wishing it so.'"
This statement is predicated on three false assumptions. First, the statement assumes that no government policy other than ones relating to contraception has the potential to affect the number of abortions. Many other policies have great potential for reducing the number of abortions. For example, the federal government could enact an amendment to an appropriations bill preventing the District of Columbia from subsidizing abortion- something Representative Ryan voted against. Second, the statement falsely assumes that all forms of contraception are not subject to error. Finally, the statement falsely assumes that all acts of coitus are inevitable.
"As Ryan explains, 'We have an opportunity here to solve this problem and give pro-life members of Congress a common sense approach to reducing abortion and boy does it marginalize those people who have really beat the drum on the pro-life issue and have not provided any solution to it.'"
If the bill is really such an opportunity, why did the representative fail to answer any of the questions that I asked when he presented his bill here on the RH Reality Check web site?
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/commonground/2009/08/25/my-plan-common-gro...
Most mainline pro-life groups are neutral on abortion.
Come again?
Seriously...if the goal is to reduce abortion, neutrality regarding availability and access to contraception is idiotic.
"The pro-life drumbeaters continued their increasingly shrill campaign in Indiana last spring."
What was the point of that paragraph? Were any major pro-life groups among the protesters?
"Why should the pro-life establishment have a problem with pro-lifers who opt to try a different approach in pursuit of the same 'pro-life' goal which is, theoretically, lowering the rate of abortion? This only makes sense if lowering the rate of abortion isn't the actual goal."
Lowering the rate of abortion has never been the goal of the right-to-life movement and never will be the goal. The goal is to stop all abortions. Every human being should be afforded dignity and an equal right to live.
"During the Clinton years it resulted in the most dramatic decline in abortion rates in the history of our country."
Source?
"It has long been a wing of the Republican party, at times more allegiant to partisan politics than pro-life goals."
I agree to some extent. However, I would suggest that expecting any one organization or group of organizations to fully represent all the concerns of a segment of society on an issue is irresponsible and unrealistic. In a democracy, we all have a responsibility to work to make our country great; expecting one set of people to bear the responsibility for finding solutions will not produce the optimal results.
The goal is to stop all abortions.
Cannot be done. Especially cannot be done now that chemical abortion is a reality. Legally or illegally, abortion is a "fact of life."
Why aren't abortionists like the late Tiller held up to the law?
Why are abortions allowed after the third month(or thereabout)?
It is cold-blooded killing at a certain point.
Tiller broke the law and was not held up to it until a brave man took the law into his own hands and ended Tiller's rampage.
The fact that our government allows for baby murder is no better than what happened in Germany to the Jews-LEGALLY!
Why aren't abortionists like the late Tiller held up to the law?
He was, actually. Numerous times---and found innocent of any wrongdoing every one.
Why are abortions allowed after the third month(or thereabout)?
For the same reasons that women sometimes need abortions after the third month (or thereabout). Hint: These do not include gratuitous procrastination.
It is cold-blooded killing at a certain point.
Yes, after birth. Which is why we call that infanticide, and generally frown upon it.
Tiller broke the law and was not held up to it until a brave man took the law into his own hands and ended Tiller's rampage.
Oh, I see. You're one of those pro-murder advocates.
The fact that our government allows for baby murder is no better than what happened in Germany to the Jews-LEGALLY!
Why wouldn't you be all for that? You're pro-murder, after all.
Do you even know why he aborted pregnancies late term? He did so because he KNEW that not all women with a fatally ill fetus can handle carrying to term, only to give birth to a dead or dying resulting child. He showed compassion and took care of these women and their feoti. To even say that he deserved to be gunned down in front of his own family is disgusting. And to even compare his services to the torture and murder of the jews makes me want to vomit. Those feoti he aborted NEVER suffered because he humanely euthanized them prior to aborting the pregnancy.
Try doing PROPER research before condemning a man who helped women.
It's pro-choice or NO choice.
What the hell? Review your history, and then come back and talk to the adults in the room.
I get it. I get it. Let's all work together to help reduce abortions and find common ground. Lovely concept. Except the goal of this new softer, more women friendly approach remains the exact same as the more extreme and conservative version. And, that is ending access to safe, affordable and accessible abortion services.
Democrats for Life is onboard. A group that refuses to admit their goal is to criminalize abortion while every action on their homepage works to reduce womens abortion rights. A group that aligns with conservadems such as Ben Nelso, Bart Stupak, and Max Baucus as their friends, all of whom significantly weakened the health reform legislation. And, not just with their abortion funding restrictions, but the whole of health care reform. These mens affliations to corporate health insurance and other corporate health care industries are well known and dangerous. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the work of Democrats for Life is weakening the democratic parties ability to truly represent the most vulnerable populations in this country, as the actual politicians they elect break with the party on more then choice. The majority of the big tent party is becoming one that stands for little more then representation of corporate welfare and the politicians that are supported by Democrats for Life are the worst culprits. But, is that surprising?
And, here is Feministss for Life, a group who is dedicated to co-opting historical feminist leaders to their anti-choice cause. Susan B Anthony Birthplace Museum now under the control of Feminists Choosing Life of New York & Feminists for Life of America, our first lady female suffragist (and I have the notes from the newsletters gals, so don't try the single owner bs line I have received from so many of your boardmembers). And, they are cherry picking history, utilizing unattributable documents, and taking information out of context to cast Susan B as they want her to be. Objective evidence and historical context be damned (thankfully collegiate research historican from some of the country's most noted academic institutions are on this and there altered version of history will be discredited). Still, here we have an organization that is literally rewriting feminist history, both recent and 19th C to fit their perspective, and they are allowed to misrepresent on this site.
Here I break with this website. These groups that will work to criminalize abortion (not stop abortion, abortion will continue to exist whether it is legal or not, a fact that is often overlooked in these 'debates' & women will be physically maimend and perhpas killed, if we go back to the days before abortion's legalization). These groups need to be exposed for their anti-women intent. We do not need to join hands with people who will utilize our outreach to manipulate the dialogue, misrepresent history, and utilize our good will to advance their goal to criminalize abortion. Why are you giving them a forum for outreach? Why are you providing links to their sites of disinformation and lies? Why are you allowing them to write profiles about their individual members that do not represent the reality of their work? Bipartisanship is a myth in politics. Obama & the dems use this term to justify their support of legislative policies that are not in the people's best interests. It is a justification for weakness in governance and the excuse to allow the worst of the corporate state to impinge upon our humanity. The common ground issue is myth as well. As long as the anti-choice movement central goal is to criminalize abortion, they do not stand with us or with the health and best interest of women and their families. Their actions continue to cause harm to women, marginalization of women, disempowerment of women. They are not our allies.
Why should the pro-life establishment have a problem with pro-lifers who opt to try a different approach in pursuit of the same "pro-life" goal which is, theoretically, lowering the rate of abortion? This only makes sense if lowering the rate of abortion isn't the actual goal. The campaigns against progressive pro-lifers is not so much about "protecting the unborn" as it is about protecting their political co-conspirators, the GOP.
Cristina,
You've made an astute observation and I agree completely.
The ascent of the Pro-Life progressive, or Pro-Life pragmatist is good news for the unborn and very, very bad news for the Republicans.
I get loads of grief at Jill Stanek's 'site from traditional Pro-Lifers just as I get loads of grief at this 'site from traditional Pro-Choicers. Of course, since PLCC has no desire to promote any restrictions to abortion access, I'm left questioning whether or not 'choice' is the issue. Is it possible that people here are uncomfortable with those of us who support the right of choice but seek to challenge the assumptions many women bring to their decision to choose?
Paul Bradford
Pro-Life Catholics for Choice
Is it possible that people here are uncomfortable with those of us who support the right of choice but seek to challenge the assumptions many women bring to their decision to choose?
Frankly, Paul, you have yet to present a challenge to any of my positions based on anything except your personal beliefs and emotional reactions, so, no, I'm not made uncomfortable because you 'challenge my assumptions'.
You get a lot of grief from me because too often you make vast, sweeping statements that don't acknowledge the actual facts of reproduction and pregnancy and I just can't resist supplying those facts. Too often your reaction makes it clear that you prefer to cling to your simplistic ideology and prefer it uncontaminated by facts.
You certainly have as much right as any other obsessive zealot to tout your One Big Idea (Zygotes Are People) but then the flip side of 'free speech' is that everyone else has the exact same free speech right to tell you they think your idea ignores reality and they don't agree.