What if pro-choicers wrote a column filled with well-articulated pro-life arguments . . . and never mustered a substantive response? Would it suggest they have effectively conceded defeat on one of the great moral issues of the day?
That "what if" becomes reality in Abortion's battle of messages in today's LA Times. As noteworthy as the column's substance is the identity of one of the co-authors: none other than leading pro-choice light Kate Michelman, past president of NARAL [and current John Edwards advisor].
Consider these excerpts, which with minor editing could just as easily have come from a Bill Buckley column.
- Twenty years ago, being pro-life was déclassé. Now it is a respectable point of view.
- Science facilitated the swing of the pendulum. Three-dimensional ultrasound images of babies in utero began to grace the family fridge. Fetuses underwent surgery. More premature babies survived and were healthier. They commanded our attention, and the question of what we owe them, if anything, could not be dismissed.
- These trends gave antiabortionists an advantage, and they made the best of it. Now, we rarely hear them talk about murdering babies. Instead, they present a sophisticated philosophical and political challenge. Caring societies, they say, seek to expand inclusion into "the human community." Those once excluded, such as women and minorities, are now equal. Why not welcome the fetus (who, after all, is us) into our community?
- Advocates of choice have had a hard time dealing with the increased visibility of the fetus. The preferred strategy is still to ignore it and try to shift the conversation back to women. At times, this makes us appear insensitive, a bit too pragmatic in a world where the desire to live more communitarian and "life-affirming" lives is palpable. To some people, pro-choice values seem to have been unaffected by the desire to save the whales and the trees, to respect animal life and to end violence at all levels. Pope John Paul II got that, and coined the term "culture of life." President Bush adopted it, and the slogan, as much as it pains us to admit it, moved some hearts and minds. Supporting abortion is tough to fit into this package.
- In recent years, the antiabortion movement successfully put the nitty-gritty details of abortion procedures on public display, increasing the belief that abortion is serious business and that some societal involvement is appropriate. Those who are pro-choice have not convinced America that we support a public discussion of the moral dimensions of abortion.
How do the authors go about refuting the litany of weighty pro-life arguments they present? Cue the cricket chirps. Rather than presenting a single substantive argument in defense of their position, they make a hand-wringing call for process:
If pro-choice values are to regain the moral high ground, genuine discussion about these challenges needs to take place within the movement. It is inadequate to try to message our way out of this problem. Our vigorous defense of the right to choose needs to be accompanied by greater openness regarding the real conflict between life and choice, between rights and responsibility. It is time for a serious reassessment of how to think about abortion in a world that is radically changed from 1973.
Not a substantive word about how the pro-choice movement could regain that moral high ground ceded to the pro-life movement.
What's the sound of a white flag waving? Will the MSM cover what might be a tectonic shift in the moral landscape? And how about a probing question on abortion from CNN at the Dem debate on January 31st?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I hope so...also I've been
January 22, 2008 - 12:16 ET by taterI hope so...also I've been seeing more commercials of women who had abortions and later regreted because of physical and/or emotional problems. Nothing gives the pro-life movement more weight than to have women courageously state they made a mistake and tell others not to do the same.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
Social Darwinism at work . . .
January 22, 2008 - 12:42 ET by WingletDriverWhat Michelman and other pro-abortion fanatics fail to realize is that their position is eroded by social Darwinism. Most folks grow up believing what their parents believe. If you grow up in a pro-life family, you are likely to be pro-life. If you grow up in an abortion-at-any-cost family, you'll probably be pro-abortion. But being pro-life is more socially fit because we don't kill our young.
Sadly, "liberal" procreation takes place because they control the MSM, movie studios, the music industry and schools at every level. On the bright side, in a very Hegelian way, conservatives are pushing back (although not hard enough yet).
What Michelman also fails to acknowledge is that her position is just plain wrong and morally reprehensible. She couches the arguments as if they are purely political. When she says, "Those who are pro-choice have not convinced America that we support a public discussion of the moral dimensions of abortion," she is being disingenuous. Pro-abortion folks have never wanted dialogue or a public discussion. Roe v Wade was not a legislative decision, but an exercise in raw judicial power--literally, a tyranny of 7 ensured that no public discussion could occur. 35 years later, now that America sees that, "Yes, this is human life!" and "Yes! Life is precious!", she wants us to believe that she supports a "public discussion of the moral dimensions of abortion." If a rabidly pro-abortion president is elected, I wonder how willing she will be to have this discussion?
LIFE, liberty, and the
January 22, 2008 - 12:49 ET by wiwfLIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can't get any better than the Constitution.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Pro-Life
January 22, 2008 - 13:00 ET by easygoerExactly, without life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness become a moot point
"What Michelman and other
January 22, 2008 - 14:07 ET by alamojb"What Michelman and other pro-abortion fanatics fail to realize is that their position is eroded by social Darwinism. Most folks grow up believing what their parents believe. If you grow up in a pro-life family, you are likely to be pro-life. If you grow up in an abortion-at-any-cost family, you'll probably be pro-abortion. But being pro-life is more socially fit because we don't kill our young.
Sadly, "liberal" procreation takes place because they control the MSM, movie studios, the music industry and schools at every level. On the bright side, in a very Hegelian way, conservatives are pushing back (although not hard enough yet). "
You falsly assume America is a closed system. It is not. There have been tens of millions of people come across the border the last few decades. Even if you argue many of them are personally social conservatives, it does not matter one bit if they vote en mass for Democrats for other reasons. I wonder how much the Univision crowd knows about Roe v Wade.
Of course, I could say some of the same things about long term American citizens that are conservative yet vote for the Democrats. Not that I am happy with the Republicans right now, either.
The poison of Multiculturalism has made people so that if the "Borg" of Star Trek were to show up saying "resistance is futile, you will be assimilated", half the Western World would call those of us who resisted "Bigots" and " xenophobes".
The justice that pro-abortionists want is an abortion itself.
January 22, 2008 - 14:44 ET by needle“If you grow up in an abortion-at-any-cost family, you'll
probably be pro-abortion. But being pro-life is more socially fit because we
don't kill our young.”
[Finishing this line of Darwinian logic] …and the pro-abortion
family is less like to have young because so often their young are aborted
(killed) and never even see the light of day.
(I imagine you were trying to be diplomatic by implying this, essentially
with an ellipsis, but the situation calls for brutal frankness.)
“She couches the arguments as if they are purely political. …
Pro-abortion folks have never wanted dialogue or a public discussion. Roe v
Wade was not a legislative decision, but an exercise in raw judicial power.”
The political part is to appoint judges who are ready and
willing to create statues out of thin air, essentially disconnected from the constitution
or its intent, and to “Bork” and block at all cost judges that want to abide by
and uphold the constitution. The justice
that pro-abortionists want is an abortion itself.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
smiley face:)!
January 22, 2008 - 12:53 ET by TruthMongersmiley face:)!
CSPAN this morning.
January 22, 2008 - 13:10 ET by dronetekIf you caught CSPAN this morning, they had a debate about abortion. A few
things really stood out at me concerning the pro-choice position.
1. They don’t acknowledge the CHOICE to have sex, which creates the baby in the
first place. It’s almost as if there is no choice, sex must be had at all
costs!
2. They don’t like the Pro-Life strategy of describing the procedures.
Several people called in to voice their disapproval of the descriptions. It
makes you wonder what’s going on mentally to a person who believes in abortion,
but is against any kind of detailed information to what it entails.
3. a few of the pro-choice callers referred to pregnancy as
"a parasitic invasion" It’s this attitude that really makes me
nervous about the pro-choice movement
4. They believe they have the right to decide the fate of a human based on
their ideas of what a good life is. It all sounds a little too much like the
3rd Reich to me.
drone... I caught part of
January 22, 2008 - 13:22 ET by bigtimerdrone...
I caught part of the debate on CSPAN too...what was never answered by the head of NOW was why just why do you deny the right of someone considering an abortion to see their ultra-sound?
Well, we all know the answer to that...Gandy can't wiggle her way out of that...although she tried....clumsily too.
Edwards is a fool to have Kate M. as one of his advisers...but then again when I heard this quite awhile back I knew he would lose....Edwards is a fool period.
dronetek, Excellent
January 23, 2008 - 00:45 ET by Svendronetek,
Excellent observations!
2. They don’t like the Pro-Life strategy of describing the procedures.
Several people called in to voice their disapproval of the descriptions. It
makes you wonder what’s going on mentally to a person who believes in abortion,
but is against any kind of detailed information to what it entails.
I believe these pro-death zealots fear average people knowing too much about these ghastly procedures...whether in discription or pictures. They know that when others (or maybe even themselves) see and hear about these abortion procedures, the barbarity of this act can't be hidden behind words like: "fetus", "a woman's right to choose"...blah, blah, blah! People see it for what it is...murdering an innocent child in the most cruel and evil way imaginable!
Hmmm, Most animals aren't this cruel!
Sounds like their
January 22, 2008 - 13:05 ET by Hero SquadSounds like their counterargument is the equivalent of, "We need to form a committee."
The problem they face is that all of the things mentioned that are benefitting the pro-life movement are being willfully chosen by people, and they can't stem that trend without, well, ironically enough, without coming up with ways to hamper that choice.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
The reality of aborticide
January 22, 2008 - 13:15 ET by Lame CherryI will note this as a Newsbuster exclusive again putting into play certain psychological responses I have witnessed in this aborticide fiasco which no one has ever linked before.
First, it should be noted that Americans are in a mass portion of the population sex addicts. I do not want people to gloss this over, but behold the pierced up, tramp stamped and whorish children which are now on display. These are all manifestations of the degrading of sex by people who are ruled by sexual self gratification.
In many cases the same coke snorter (Bill Clinton) is the same rapist or in vice versa the same liberal females like Lee Woodward, Bob Woodward's wife who thinks giving sexual perverts Penthouse will be a cure for them as they post on HuffPo or the same liberal women slapping around the women Bill Clinton attacked like Kathleen Willey.
All of these males and females grew up in environments where sex was not a matter of love, but a matter of a weapon, power and self gratification.........like lions on a kill.
Once one understands the psychopathy of a large portion of Americans, one can see how a profit and power segment of the Rockefeller (population reduction and aborticide is a huge profit industry) chose to prey on these females who were using sex to cover up psychological problems of father abandonment, molestation and lack of personal self worth.
Hugh Hefner preys on such women in Playboy. The women who built his empire were the army brats and children of divorce. These same females are the exact replica of the grouping who choose aborticide, but in the centerfold's cases they tended to be baby producers like Lisa Welch wanting the security of family.
The predation of women though who were selfish, terrified of child bearing is what the abortionists knew would be a political factor. Normally raised females in sound families have a nurturing and natural tendency to want to be mothers. For females in disjointed family conditions, the idea of having children is terrifying. The closeness of someone within them is something they want no part of with the addition that "THAT TISSUE" will stretch their body ugly (a body they are using to fill the void in them) and that child will cause the reforming of memories of being abandoned.
Add up all those factors and one has a ready made female who is using sex to get through in life and one who will abort a child every time.
Those are the facts which no one in this has studied nor has anyone dared bring to the light. This is a phobic response by women being preyed upon for political power and literal aborticide profits.
It really would be a wonderful thing if women would wake up to how they are being used and abused in this. This is a filthy disgusting, harmful and murderous occupation being foisted upon women.
These people should all be publically brought to shame for the things they have done and are doing.
agtG
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
"First, it should be noted
January 22, 2008 - 13:39 ET by Schnikeys"First, it should be noted that Americans are in a mass portion of the population sex addicts."
And what do we do with an addiction? We kick it. I believe that mental dependence is quite simply a sign of weakness and that, the longer we harbor that sort of mental dependence, the weaker we become, until we are conquerable by outside forces.
(signature):
You know, people ask me what I like to watch on TV, and I always tell them that I simply don't watch TV. And I really don't, because TV is a easy way for others to manipulate how you think. And I would rather not put up wi
Oh, would that this becomes mainstream pro-abortion standard
January 22, 2008 - 13:37 ET by c5thenThe reality is that the Pro-choice side cannot win the moral argument because their choice involves killing a baby. In a moral society there can be NO excuse for killing a child, especially when it's just about the wishes of the woman. Abortion has always been a narcisistic knee-jerk reaction to the sexual wontoness and glutony that was the 1960's and 1970's.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
No High Moral Ground to regain
January 22, 2008 - 13:39 ET by Ruths husband BenThe Pro-Choice movement has no high moral ground to regain. The thought that they did at one time is a self-delusion, just as in the early 1800's in England, it was believed that they had a moral ground for the slave trade. Once people gain the enlightenment to truly understand what abortion is there is no way to return to such a delusion.
Women's rights and the rights of unborn babies can never truly be at odds any more than the rights of one race can truly be at odds with the rights of another. When it comes down to it, we are all in this adventure of life together and to brutalize one segment of our society is to brutalize all of society.
Disregard
January 22, 2008 - 14:15 ET by alamojbI found this site a while
January 22, 2008 - 14:18 ET by alamojbI found this site a while back. Best I have seen. Shows what abortion is and has the arguments against it as well.
( My link thing keeps linking back to this site, so I just paste the url below instead)
http://www.abort73.com/
Could it also be that the
January 22, 2008 - 14:24 ET by Chris NormanCould it also be that the radical feminist movement, which gave us abortion-on-demand, has just plain run out of steam? It looks like they can no longer muster the "outrage" to bully and bulldoze their demands by the intellectually/morally superior arguments for life. Their arguments for abortion-on-demand were, when boiled down, just a bratty demand for convenience - kind of hard to make a morally acceptable argument for that selfish position.
I think this is the case,
January 22, 2008 - 16:28 ET by tracheostomyI think this is the case, as at this point, they're making nutty arguments in favor of women being unable to control they're own ability to have sex to begin with.
I don't think feminists believe that self-control can actually be learned and demonstrated. If you can educate all this pro-choice propaganda, why not self-control?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
as a pro-CHOICE (no one is
January 22, 2008 - 15:35 ET by katleeas a pro-CHOICE (no one is PRO-ABORTION) woman, I believe abortion should be safe, available, legal and RARE --
you cannot condemn another until you walk in her shoes - and that goes double for all you men
Last I checked, no degree
January 22, 2008 - 15:53 ET by CortillaenLast I checked, no degree of inconveniance or hardship short of intentional threat of death could legitimize murder. Invented sexism has nothing to do with it.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
katlee...
January 22, 2008 - 15:52 ET by Clear thinkerDo you mean 'rare' as in 4,400 abortion murders per day like we have now?
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
she's
January 22, 2008 - 16:16 ET by TruthMongershe's pro-abortion...whattya expect...
men deserve equal rights too...
we must rise up, burn our bras, I am a father - hear me roar...
walk a mile in my male shoes, Katlee - this goes double for you women...
Correct TM. Her rhetoric
January 22, 2008 - 16:25 ET by tracheostomyCorrect TM. Her rhetoric is quite literally 30 years old now and doesn't even match with the progressive reasoning(s) of the blog above. Methinks the leadership is not only stalled out, but hiding a few talking points from the followers.
BTW, I seem to have misplaced my um, bra. . .so can I burn yours instead?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
What's all this about bras?
January 22, 2008 - 16:31 ET by CortillaenWhat's all this about bras? You should be burning jock straps! Bwahahaha!
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Is it the manziere or the
January 22, 2008 - 16:58 ET by Hero SquadIs it the manziere or the bro? I forget.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
only otto von titsling
January 22, 2008 - 18:25 ET by TruthMongeronly otto von titsling knows for sure:)
you can burn mine trach - how's about well done - to go with your steak?
I think a lot of rabid
January 22, 2008 - 16:34 ET by Chris NormanI think a lot of rabid feminists, especially the earlier ones, saw men, husbands, and children as the shackles that "held women down". I have no doubt that many of these harpies did, in fact, want women to have abortions - not just the choice. They probably advocated divorce too...
Hi Katlee, a few questions.
January 22, 2008 - 16:29 ET by tracheostomyHi Katlee, a few questions. . . =)
Why does it go double for us men?
Don't we have any responsibility (as men) to share in the initial conception, or are we just mindless sperm-donor animals?
Does it go double for virgin males as well as virgin females? So having a uterus is the equivalent of using it? That doesn't follow.
Oh, and last but not least, how are we condemning anyone here? Please demonstrate.
EDIT: Darn, it looks like she left some time ago. Now she can ignore my questions and further go on to assert than a man never asked them to begin with.
=(
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Dishonesty
January 23, 2008 - 09:22 ET by WingletDriver"as a pro-CHOICE (no one is PRO-ABORTION) woman" - katlee
This is such an intellectually indefensible and downright dishonest statement, you should be embarrassed. If nobody was pro-abortion why would there need to be such staunch defenders of that particular choice such as yourself? Obviously some people must be pro-abortion.
Of course, you attempt to bring a certain air of sophistication to your position by claiming that nobody (including yourself) is pro-abortion but that you wouldn't impede someone who chooses abortion. However, being "pro-choice" doesn't mean that you haven't made a moral judgement. It means that you have made the moral judgement that abortion must be morally good or at least morally acceptable. In this way you are pro-abortion. Please lay your semantic salve aside. Stand up and proclaim yourself pro-abortion because, ugly titles aside, that is what you are.
"Now, we rarely hear them
January 22, 2008 - 15:49 ET by Cortillaen"Now, we rarely hear them talk about murdering babies. Instead, they
present a sophisticated philosophical and political challenge." Anyone else notice to implication that being against the murder of innocent children is unsohpisticated? Apparently, if your argument is unaccompanied by plenty of lingual gymnastics, it can't possibly be a good one.
Anyway, everyone (who counts) understands that the premeditated, willful destruction of a human being's life is 1st degree murder. The primary argument in abortion is at what point does a bundle of organic matter suddenly become human being. Frankly, the whole argument is idiotic. Babies develop over months, and people are constantly trying to set an arbitrary point in that process as the instant the entity suddenly becomes a human being. The exact moment in time when the heart, lungs, or brain become functional is completely irrelevant, and denying a child humanity just because it hasn't reached that point is an atrocity. That kind of thought process is the same as denying someone humanity because their brain is not devoloped enough to support speech or even (get ready for it) because their skin is a different color. Yes, I'm equating abortion mentality to racism. However, there is a unique diference between killing an unborn child and killing a mute: Given time, the baby would devolop whatever biological function is deemed necessary to be human. Not only do abortionists kill unborn children because of an uncontrollable biological difference, that difference is only temporary.
Imagine a woman visiting her son in the hospital after he had broken a leg. As she walks in the room, she pulls out a knife and stabs the boy to death. The police ask her why she would do such a thing, and she replies that her son was a liability to her, and her family had always held the belief that someone who can't walk isn't really human. When the astonished officer points out that he would have been able to walk in a couple months when the cast came off, her only response is, "He didn't have two usable legs right then, so he wasn't really a human being. It's not murder; I was just getting rid of baggage."
Right about now, people dead-set on considering unborn children inhuman until proven otherwise would probably ask what I consider to be the feature defining an entity as a human being, and why is my answer any less arbitrary than theirs. The answer: DNA. The instant an egg is fertilized, it is a living entity with a DNA code identifying it as both human and unique from the mother and the father. The only trait that exists equally within all humans is the section of our DNA identifying us as homo sapiens. Our species is biologically defined by that code. Remove any part of a normal human, lungs, heart, brain, skin, anything, and you'll still have a human; likely a dead human with missing parts, but still a human. This section of DNA cannot be removed and cannot be changed without rendering an entity another creature altogether.
Of course, using DNA as the defining feature for a human being is problematic for abortionists since it reflexively defines a child as human at the moment of conception. In their minds, the emotional impact of parenting hardships outweighs the (emotionally unimpressive) only biological absolute available, so they continue to argue for one arbitrary point in time or development after another to keep from having to acknowledge the gravity of their actions: Murder in the first degree.
So, Ms. Michelman, was that sufficiently "sophisticated" for you? I know there weren't any deep, philosophical meanderings about relative morality, but, to be blunt, I prefer to deal in reality.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
EDIT: I occasionally wonder exactly for whom I write things like this... If reading it caused any sort of brain activity for you, there's the answer. ;)
well the
January 22, 2008 - 16:18 ET by TruthMongerwell the successful extermination of over 1,000,000 innocent babies every year does require quite a bit of sophistication when you get down to it...
But Katlee
January 22, 2008 - 18:02 ET by candanceYou just don't understand how hard it is for a slave holder whose business will fold without the free labor! You cannot judge a slave holder until you've been in his shoes...and that goes double for the slaves!!
Slavery should be safe, legal, and rare.
Abortion really is all about the money and convienence, after all. Women put a price tag on a child's head and decide they can't afford it.
→ Safe, legal, rare
January 23, 2008 - 09:28 ET by Cool ArrowYeah, and the same goes for waterboarding
Thankfully, HIV/AIDS has now become a chronic disease - Hillary Clinton