February 09, 2010
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| How to Talk to Democrats About Abortion: Five Strategies for Making the Pro-Life Case |
| by Eric Pavlat |
| 10/29/09 |
|
In the 1970s, when about 40 percent of Democratic congressmen were pro-life, the party had a seemingly insurmountable hold on the House of Representatives. Now, less than 15 percent are pro-life, and they're in an ever-shrinking House minority. Meanwhile, the big Democratic success stories from 2004 were the new representatives in Iowa, Missouri, and Michigan, as well as new Democratic governors in West Virginia and Louisiana. All of these victories were won by pro-life Democrats.
Some in the Democratic Party read the signs correctly; otherwise, they never could have elected a relative social moderate like Harry Reid (D-Nevada) as Senate minority leader. But many Democrats are not just pragmatic, wanting victory at any cost. Most Democrats I've spoken with seem to feel that maintaining legal abortion is actually the most compassionate course for a government to take, given the number of women facing crisis pregnancies. For them, criminalizing abortion is both sexist and heartless.
Many pro-lifers feel that arguing with such people is hopeless, especially when dealing with a liberal Democratic audience that has already made up its mind about abortion. And yet we're still called to evangelize. How, then, can we engage pro-choice Democrats in fruitful conversation? (Since Democrats prefer the term "pro-choice," I will use it here.)
First -- and most obvious -- is prayer. When Jesus calls us to pray for our enemies, we're to pray for mercy, forgiveness, and conversion. The more authentically we pray, the more love and compassion we feel for those with whom we fight in this culture war.
Beyond prayer, the key to any discussion is to locate the common ground you share with your conversation partner and work from there. This common ground need not involve abortion, at least initially. Finding one area where you agree with your interlocutor -- such as the war in Iraq, tax cuts, or the death penalty -- creates an openness to hearing your argument. Additionally, it precludes the possibility of his tuning you out solely on the basis of your membership in a certain political party.
Finally, it's important to lower your initial expectations. Due to the high emotions involved with the abortion debate, you may convince a person on an interior level and find that he nevertheless rejects your position outwardly. Your pressing for a concession early on may actually drive him away, making it that much harder to convince him down the road.
A far better tack is to make some concession on your side first -- such as rejecting anti-abortion violence, or promoting increased funding for women's health -- making the other person more likely to consider you "reasonable." Your having made a concession also helps him lower his own guard and gives him permission to admit to a change in his own attitude.
Strategy No. 1: Oppose Violence Against Women
Abortion was first aggregated to the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s when feminists, following up on the civil rights movement, advocated it as part of women's liberation. Unfortunately, the results have been anything but good for women.
According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, the leading cause of death for pregnant women in the United States is murder. The most frequent murderer of a pregnant woman is the father of her child. Connected to this startling statistic, we see that in post-abortive interviews, between 30 percent and 60 percent of abortions are described by the abortive mother as "coerced," most often by parents or, again, the child's father.
By legalizing abortion, our country has created an instant escape hatch for irresponsible males who aren't willing to accept the consequences of their actions and who pressure women into unwanted abortions. We have formed an expectation among males that if a "mistake" comes along, the woman has an obligation to "fix it." And they're often all too willing to enforce this decision with violence: Five years ago, the Washington Post reported that an estimated 295 pregnant women were murdered per year, with another 4 to 8 percent of pregnant women suffering physical violence at the hands of their husbands, boyfriends, or partners. While exact numbers are hard to obtain, it's probable that several thousand non-surgical abortions per year are performed by male partners who simply beat the abdomens of women until miscarriage occurs. This not only kills the child, it leaves the bereaved mother without the ability to prosecute the murderer (in most states, depending on the gestational age of the child) for any crime beyond simple assault and battery. The connection between abortion and domestic violence is unmistakable.
Threats and intimidation from male partners, as well as from parents, often play a role in a woman's choice to abort. In fact, according to a statistic in David C. Reardon's Aborted Women: Silent No More (Acorn Books, 2002), 80 percent of post-abortive women say that if they had received support instead of intimidation from their loved ones, they would have preferred to keep the baby. As it was, they felt that they had no choice but to abort.
Clearly, these statistics should be abhorrent to anyone on any side of the debate. Simply sharing the facts above often produces a startling effect. But this cannot be used merely as a bludgeon; it needs to be part of an overall pattern of authentic concern for the mother facing a surprise pregnancy. It might also be helpful to become familiar with the work of the crisis pregnancy centers in your area, especially those that provide shelter for threatened mothers.
Pro-life feminists Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton feared that women would be exploited and abused if abortion were to become legalized, and their predictions were proven correct. No solutions to the problem of intimidation and violence against pregnant women can be achieved without the dual solutions of removing the availability of abortion and taking additional steps to protect threatened women.
Strategy No. 2: Support Women Facing Crisis Pregnancies
Sympathy for the woman facing a crisis pregnancy needs to come in two ways. First, we must be compassionate and express solidarity with those who feel forced into an abortion. Post-abortive women, as well as their family and friends, are often extremely defensive. What they need is sympathy for their crisis, not judgment. Part of this involves avoiding inflammatory language. While it's absolutely true that abortion is no less than the killing of a baby, the post-abortive woman hears only judgment in that line of argument. Her mind will immediately close, and your chance to make a convincing case is gone.
Secondly, it's important to acknowledge that simply overturning abortion laws will not end the abortion crisis. Even if Roe v. Wade were reversed, abortion would still be legal in most of the United States (as such a decision would merely leave the question up to individual states). And even if abortion were made illegal on the state level, many abortions would continue on the black market.
We need a system in which no woman feels there's a need for abortion. In other words, we need to admit that the U.S. government isn't yet doing what it should to establish justice and promote the general welfare when it comes to pregnant women. While volunteer groups have bravely filled an important void in crisis pregnancy centers, the government should step up to the plate where volunteerism is overwhelmed.
What Democrats will recognize as "sympathy" for the pregnant woman is government intervention. Though Republicans are generally suspicious of big government programs, this may be a time to make some exceptions -- for example, support for a government subsidy of pre- and post-natal care for low-income and under-insured women, or a child-care tax credit (or stay-at-home parent tax credit). The question of coerced abortions could be addressed from a legal standpoint, perhaps by requiring clinics to screen for coercion or including coercion-to-abort clauses within domestic violence provisions. In some cases, even such a thing as raising the minimum wage becomes pro-life, in that it might encourage low-income families to feel more secure in their ability to care for a child. Simply by addressing the "demand" side of the equation, it's conceivable that certain pieces of legislation could reduce abortion without directly referring to the practice itself.
Strategy No. 3: Explain the Harmful Health Effects of Abortion
Democrats have always been on the forefront of issues related to women's health, but they've tragically grouped abortion under this umbrella issue, alleging discrimination against women when this "health" concern is not adequately addressed. However, abortion represents a grave threat to women's health.
New findings from a study in Finland show that abortion is more physically dangerous than previously believed -- substantially more dangerous than childbirth. (Finland is an excellent choice for such a study because its government provides socialized medical care with centralized records.) A 2004 article in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology relates how researchers from Finland's National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health looked at the death certificate records from 1987 to 2000 for all women ages 15 to 49 (i.e., of reproductive age). Their findings show that post-abortive women are 3.5 times more likely to die within twelve months after abortion than women after childbirth within the same period. In addition, abortion is a risk factor for future miscarriages and premature births, as well as for breast cancer.
Democrats also recognize that a person's body doesn't give the whole picture of a person's health; the person's mental state must be considered, too. But abortion, which is sometimes promoted as reducing women's stress, actually leads to increased rates of depression, alcoholism, drug abuse, and even psychiatric hospitalization (well-documented in the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association, the Clinical Psychological Review, and other peer-reviewed journals). In fact, according to the British Medical Journal, women who procured an abortion had an almost 500 percent greater suicide risk than women who had given birth -- as measured within the twelve months following either the abortion or the birth.
When all of this information is taken together, the pro-life position can be shown for what it really is: far more pro-woman than the pro-choice position. (For more information about the harmful effects of abortion on women's health, see "How Abortion Hurts Women: The Hard Proof," by Erika Bachiochi.)
Strategy No. 4: Emphasize the Inherent Discrimination of Abortion
Democrats were historically the party of the underdog. What Democrats need to see is that abortion is actually another form of discrimination against the weakest members of our society: unborn children.
The right to life is the fundamental human right, without which all others are meaningless. How will we practice the right to free speech, the right to follow any religion (or no religion), the right to assemble, the right to pursue happiness, if we don't first have the right to live? All other rights are secondary to and dependent upon the right to life.
There's also a strong parallel between abortion and slavery. The Supreme Court declared both slavery and abortion to be constitutional. Slavery denied the personhood of the African American; abortion denies the personhood of the extremely young. The defense of slavery rested on a person's right to do what he wants with his own "property," while the defense of abortion rests on a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body. The unsettling implications of that parallel are hard to ignore.
A final piece of evidence comes from the history of the pro-choice movement itself. Abortion in the United States was promoted partially to control the growth of socially undesirable people. PBS's American Experience quotes Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger as saying, "Birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit [and] of preventing the birth of defectives." Even today, Planned Parenthood's clinics are most common in inner cities. Thirty-five percent of all abortions are performed on black women, even though African Americans comprise only 12 percent of the United States' population. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, more African Americans' lives have been ended by abortion since 1973 than by AIDS, cancer, heart disease, accidents, and murder combined.
Strategy No. 5: Discuss the Science of Fetal Development
When it comes to scientific advances in the field of fetal development over the last 30 years, some pro-choice advocates are simply misinformed. Pro-choice groups like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW like to claim that the fetus is simply extra tissue in the woman's body that can be disposed of easily. However, any medical textbook on fetal development shows clearly that the fetus is obviously a distinct person from the mother:
· The fetus has unique DNA, different from the mother's, at the moment of conception.
· The fetus has a heartbeat 18 days after conception, which is usually before the woman even knows she's pregnant.
· The fetus often has a different blood type than the mother.
· The fetus has measurable brain activity less than 45 days after conception, well before most abortions in America take place.
Published material on fetal development that's neither politically nor religiously affiliated can be very useful educational tools, as are images from the new 3-D sonograms.
Democrats usually favor government involvement in scientific advances. Remind them that Democrats proposed our mission to the moon more than four decades ago, advocated for alternative energy sources, realized the importance of mental health to a person's overall well-being, and tried to repair the damage we've done to our environment. Now it's time for the Democratic Party to accept the science behind human development.
If a Democrat tries to argue (as I once did) that human personhood begins when brain waves exist, another helpful argument is the existence of anencephalic babies -- that is, children born without a brain who usually live outside of the womb for only a few hours. It's hard to argue that a nine-month-old baby with such a birth defect isn't a person. Point out that humans in a persistent vegetative state are still "persons" deserving of certain civil rights and governmental protection. The existence of brain waves isn't useful as a measuring stick for personhood.
Democrats for Life
It's necessary to drive home the point that being pro-life doesn't mean being Republican. Acknowledging the universal right to life can and should be distinct from any personal political preference. If you feel that your words have had an effect, encourage them to check out www.democratsforlife.org, a national organization for pro-life Democrats.
Most of all, stress that the Democratic Party has considered itself the party that speaks for and protects those who cannot protect themselves, the voice for the voiceless. The unborn are the ultimate example of the powerless. It's time for more Democrats to speak up.
Eric Pavlat is a convert from pro-choice agnosticism whose conversion story appears in Surprised by Truth 2 (Sophia Institute Press, 2000). He's also a board member of Democrats for Life of Maryland, Inc., and a blogger and columnist for InsideCatholic.com. This article originally appeared in the October 2005 issue of Crisis Magazine. Readers have left 26 comments. I was searching the archives for posts on a couple of particular topics earlier this week - and happened across this post. It is very good. I am happy to see it up on the front page again! Kamilla  Written by Kamilla I agree with all the arguments set forth in this article. But the reality is that these arguments, however, cogent/compelling they might be, convince very few people. How many of you who have used these arguments have ever convinced any pro-abortion Democratic politician or any other convinced pro-abortion person that their views are wrong and that, as a result, you have succeded in changing their minds? Tragically, human reason is easily clouded by self-interest (e.g. political ambition), guilt,fear (e.g. fear of overpopulation or some other bugaboo), hate (hate of Catholics especially), distorted notions of compassion. The list goes on. We are caught in a tragic impasse to be sure, one that will not be resolved by the rather naive assumption that sweet reason will somehow prevail. Written by Thomas S Strategy No. 4 changed my husband's mind, Thomas S. Now, he wasn't a "pro-abortion Democratic politician or any other convinced pro-abortion person", but he was a "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but..." person. And I think the majority of people think this way. At the very least, these strategies plant the seeds that sometimes bear fruit just as they did with my husband. Written by Cassandra Sadly, I know a Democrat atheist who not only argues that anencephalic babies are not persons, but actually advocates that their organs be harvested while they are still living... Written by Jenny Excuse me, please, but when will we be seeing "How to Talk to Republicans About Abortion: Five Strategies for Making the Pro-Life Case"? I wasn't aware that Republicans have exactly been the saviors of the unborn for the past few decades while they've held power the majority of the time. What should we say to Republicans to convince them to use their power to save the unborn the next time they have it? How do we convince Republicans to treat the unborn as their number one priority ahead of tax breaks for the wealthy, unjust and immoral wars of choice, and planning their post-government careers as "cashing in big time" conflict-of-interest lobbyists? Written by Harold Bench A better title for this article, I'm afraid, would be "How to Talk to Disinterested Democrats About Abortion." These strategies have the advantage of being rooted in truth, and thus can be effective when speaking to someone who has not formed an opinion on the matter, or has not given it much thought beyond reading the party platform. The pro-choice movement has long had sharp comebacks to all five of these strategies, though, packaged in handy one-liners (or close to it) for the consumption of the masses. If the Democrat you are talking to has paid any attention to his/her side on this issue, you should be ready for responses along these lines: Strat. 1 - The pro-choice conception of violence against a pregnant woman is forcing her to continue her pregnancy (complete with the occasional diatribe about how any pregnancy is a life-threatening condition). Rather than "coerced abortions," "coerced pregnancies" are the great problem they see--and they're not very receptive to the idea that the former can be rectified by "imposing" the latter. Strat. 2 - Reducing the need for abortion is a praiseworthy goal, and the efforts made in this direction are more than worthwhile...but it is implicitly understood, any time this is brought up in discussions by either side, that these efforts are to be made INSTEAD of working for legal restrictions on the practice. (Think "Safe, Legal, Rare.") As such, pro-choicers are more than happy to talk about this to the end of the world--it's an automatic win for their side. Strat. 3 - There is so much heated disagreement over contradictory studies dealing with the health effects of abortion, that this is essentially a non-starter with a pro-choicer. Any such study, by virtue of its finding, if not its source, is automatically suspect. (Think how advocates of carbon reduction to combat global warming react to any study that seems to say anything to the contrary--or how Democrats react to anything reported by Fox News.) Strat. 4 - This one, sadly, is tightly tied in to the reactions to Strategy 1--according to the pro-choicer, the one being discriminated against with regards to abortion is the pregnant woman, if she cannot abort. Argue against that, and not only are you unlikely to be successful, you'll end up looking like a bully in their eyes. (Tactically, it was a brilliant move. The Democratic Party is the natural home of the pro-life movement, for the reasons described in the article--but the pro-choice movement co-opted the party by claiming the mother as the "victim," and in so doing seized the high ground.) Strat. 5 - The catch phrase "potential person" was invented precisely so that the pro-choicer can wave away facts like these. (And if the fallout from the Terry Schiavo case is any indication, bringing up conditions such as a persistent vegetative state will do more harm than good.) Strategy 5 has the best chance of succeeding, if you push for specifics on why they believe those facts don't matter. "Success" in this case, though, isn't going to be much more than making them uncomfortable. This is an issue where both sides can't be right, and the one in the wrong (whichever side that may be) is the spiritual descendant of some very unsavory groups--and anyone who's given the matter much thought knows it. They'll be very reluctant to admit they were in the wrong, even if they realize it. That's why prayer is the most important part of our work. Written by LV Very good points here, and I think you are going in the right direction. However, in my experience, the problem lies in the definition of "pro-life". IN GENERAL conservatives define pro-life as opposing abortion, to the exclusion of other issues. Democrats see pro-life as everyone who is already born. It would be nice to see each side acknowledge the other's positive initiatives, and then start with constructive criticism, instead of bashing and fear-mongering as the first line of defense/offense. Written by Melissa Democrats are pro-abortion because it buys them votes so that they can be elected and write earmarks for their supporters, the sanctity of life be damned. Please consider the following. The MAJOR constitutional problem with abortion is this. Given that the federal Constitution is silent about abortion, the 10th Amendment automatically reserves government power to regulate abortion to the states, not the Oval Office and Congress. So the USSC wrongly ignored state sovereignty in deciding Roe v. Wade, IMO. In fact, consider that while corrupt justices wrongly usurped 10th A. protected state power to regulate abortion to legalize abortion, the Court chose not to interfere in the Terri Schiavo case, citing the Founder's division of federal and state government powers. So corrupt justices are unwittingly practicing double-standards with respect to arbitrarily respecting state sovereignty as evidenced by its inconsistent recognition of state sovereignty, IMO. Getting back to abortion, the USSC "found" abortion rights in the "wild card" 9th Amendment, applying them to the states via the 14th Amendment. But the problem with doing so is this. John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, had clarified that the 14th A. applied only constitutionally enumerated privileges and immunities to the states. See for yourselves. "Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution." --John Bingham, Congressional Globe (1871) http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n So based on Bingham's words, the only way that the USSC could have applied abortion rights to the states through the 14th A. is if the states had amended the Constitution prior to Roe v. Wade to expressly protect abortion rights, IMO. Also, note that when Bingham officially clarified the scope and purpose of the 14th A. for the HoR, he read only the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing rights which the 14th applied to the states, ignoring the 9th Amendment. See the first eight amendments (middle column) in Bingham's discussion of the 14th A. at the following link, a page from the congressional record. http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n So the USSC's "right" to an abortion is an example of a phony constitutional right, IMO, established by judicial fiat as opposed to by state legislative powers to ratify amendments to the Constitution. Written by B. Johnson Though you grind a fool in a mortar, grinding him like grain with a pestle, you will not remove his folly from him. Don't forget your are dealing with those hard-core swooners for Hope and Change from a non-Messiah. Written by Ted ...Perhaps you would do well to remember that the Democrats obstruct anything that will negatively affect Planned Parenthood and its "business." Politics is the art of the possible as it has been said. Couple that with Republicans who are not with the Pro-Life cause, and you have limited options. I have my own criticisms of the GOP, but in fairness President Bush faced a Democratic Party and large swaths of the media that were determined to sink his presidency at any cost, so he had to tread lightly. I find it amusing that Democrats can feign shock and dismay at Republican tactics when their own cronies had no qualms about attacking Bush at every turn and insinuating all manner of negativity. The joke was made by another pundit and I will echo it... WWW.WHATIFBUSHHADDONETHAT.COM needs to become reality. Written by D.B. CLEAR AWAY ALL THE HAZE---IT IS THE HOLT SPIRIT WHO CONVINCES INDIVIDUALS OF THEIR SINS, THEIR NEED TO TURN TO OBEDIENCE TO JESUS, AND THE COMING TERRIBLE JUDGMENT IF THEY FAIL TO TURN--- WE MUST CONFRONT ABORTION ADVOCATES AND SINNERS OF ALL ILKS WITH THE GOSPEL SO THAT IF ONE HAS A SEARCHING HEART THEY MAY YIELD TO THE WOOING OF THE SPIRIT AND COME TO A HATRED OF SIN AND LOVE FOR JESUS AND OBEDIENCE TO HIM. I AM YOUR SERVANT---DR. VB Written by DR. VANCE BRADFORD CLEAR AWAY ALL THE HAZE---IT IS THE HOLT SPIRIT WHO CONVINCES — DR. VANCE BRADFORDINDIVIDUALS OF THEIR SINS, THEIR NEED TO TURN TO OBEDIENCE TO JESUS, AND THE COMING TERRIBLE JUDGMENT IF THEY FAIL TO TURN--- WE MUST CONFRONT ABORTION ADVOCATES AND SINNERS OF ALL ILKS WITH THE GOSPEL SO THAT IF ONE HAS A SEARCHING HEART THEY MAY YIELD TO THE WOOING OF THE SPIRIT AND COME TO A HATRED OF SIN AND LOVE FOR JESUS AND OBEDIENCE TO HIM. I AM YOUR SERVANT---DR. VB Dr. Bradford, Please turn off your Caps-Lock. It looks like you're shouting, which is annoying to all who read. Thanks. Written by Administrator Although it may have been possible to argue that a fetus was not a seperate human being in 1972(it was not true but perhaps arguable), technology now proves without a doubt that the fetus is a unique individual. People who refuse to accept this are equal to flat-earthers. I'm not sure it's possible to convince those who won't accept scientific facts, of this truth. Prayer is our only hope to save the millions of babies slaughtered every year by Americans, that or some new Charlemagne to emerge and save the west. Written by Richard I like this article a good deal -- and I don't want to underestimate the effectiveness of these strategies. If they work, more power to them. But the big old gorilla in the room, the one that nobody wants to acknowledge, is the sexual revolution -- without which there is no such thing as contemporary feminism, and no such thing as the entrenched welfare state. Too many people cannot possibly imagine actually teaching young people that their bodies are holy, and that they should not pretend to be married when they are not married; and teaching everybody, young and old, that a vow is a vow, and that vowbreakers will come under judgment by the people, should the offended spouse choose to divorce. A question: how many people would be out of work, if people kept their clothes on until they were married, and then if married people acted responsibly toward one another? The answer to that question should go far toward determining who will be opposed to any protection afforded the unborn. Written by Tony Esolen There are many of us who feel that our government is corrupt, or evil, or just incompetent. I’m sure that many of us feel that our government is all three. Perhaps we should keep in mind the reality: our government is us, and our politics is our communication. The Congress that we complain so bitterly about is elected by us, and the Supreme Court is selected by those who are elected by us. The genius of the American people is in our ability to compromise, but also in our willingness to fire our elected leaders who do not do good work. I’m not referring to Barack Obama – it’s too early to judge his performance, despite our best efforts to cast him in a negative light. When we’re done with the breathless rhetoric and dark insinuations about the Democrats, we’re going to have to face the reality that George Bush and the Republicans took our money and support and mismanaged the government to such a degree that they got fired. Now those who are tasked with governing our country are the same people whose views, in some areas, are diametrically opposed to ours. The Republicans lost the initiative in our government many years ago, and they never regained it. They ignored the growing corrosion in our health care system over the past eight years, mouthing platitudes about “letting the markets work” and “minimizing government.” If they had worked on sensible evolutions of governmental programs such as health care, they could have addressed some of the massive waste in the system while protecting the meager gains they had made in limiting abortion. They’d still be in charge as well. We might stamp our feet and make ridiculous claims about corrupt Supreme Court justices or communism, Satanism, or worse in the Democratic Party, but we have to eventually accept responsibility for the Democrats being in power. Because we never required Republicans to do anything more than to say nice things about family values. Written by GW I have often felt a sense of despair about the abortion issue. I live in California. One of the few things that both conservatives and liberals seem to agree upon here is that abortion is the issue that can never be discussed. It is simply an absolute, to pretty much everyone that I know that abortion cannot be discussed, must be left legal and that anyone who feels to the contrary is a fanatic. I did not feel like this article helped much. If these arguments work, great, but, frankly, they give me no hope. My experience says that nothing like this can work. I think that Tony Esolen is the one person whose commentary is on point, at least to my experience. The real issue here is the sexual revolution. As far as I can tell, the real reason that abortion is non-negotiabe to some many people is that everyone understands that, unless you have abortion as the back-stop, then relatively casual sex just is not possible. I have struggled to understand the mind of those who are pro-choice. Here is what I see. They passionately want women to control their own lives, and to have the same freedom and choice that men have. A key part of that is the freedom to have sex, outside of the strict confines of marriage. The idea, as I follow it, is that sex is a key part of an adult life, and, if you have to get married to do it, then you are being deprived of freedom. Birth control, of course, is key to making this work, but you have to have abortion to back it up. Without abortion, then you simply have to admit that sex is a serious thing and can have serious consequences. Abortion is the way out. If abortion were again illegal, then much of the freedom of the sexual revolution will be lost. The issue is so hard, because abortion is the linchpin of the sexual revolution. Remove it, and everyone can see that the rules will have changed very dramatically. Most people I know do not want to roll back the sexual revolution. They feel very strongly that it is critical to women's freedom. They understand -- and they are right -- that if abortion were outlawed, they would lose a great deal of this freedom. How do we respond to this? I am honestly not sure. The best answer to a pro-choice person, of course, is to see a sonogram. Take a look at that, and then tell me that it is not a human being! But, we can't force people to look. I do not how to handle this issue. We have to keep testifying to the truth, but I see very little hope that our testimony will have any effect any time soon. Sorry to be so pessimistic, but that is what I have seen; I hope that I am wrong. Written by Rick Gibson I'll always been enamored with the reality of pro-choice liberals who want all our social problems solved (okay, I join that) -- but who allow the killing of potential leaders to solve these. Granted, many aborted babies will have difficult lives .... but in struggle, comes strenght. Did they eliminate the person who discovers a key cancer drug?, the person who becomes a senator and fights to the underprivledged?, the teacher who gives a hug to the suicidial teen? We'll never know ... will we? Written by Dave I see some good solutions, but we really have to change the culture. Starting with our own Church. The Catholic Church needs to radically stand up and start with the basics in every parish. Starting with Catholic schools, making them affordable and teach our children good morals and why its important to follow them. We need to learn good philosophy and theology. Start small and proclaim the truth unabashed. Our parishes need to start with getting men fired up, getting them to be leaders. The faith has become feminized, and we need the men to see the importance of their fatherhood. I have observed many different parishes, and I see much needed male leadership as all our women seem to run things. As a young man striving to be a priest, I want to start mens groups and men who have a vision of true manhood, beyond sitting and watching other men play silly games. Not that its bad to do so, but that its not as important as God in their lives. We need to be searching after the Truth! And once found we need to defend it. I mean this is a new form of World War II, but since our men and women barely see spiritual realities anymore or are more concerned with Bret Favre and the Vikings... Damn we need to get our priorities straight! Written by Michael Also, note that when Bingham officially clarified the scope and purpose of the 14th A. for the HoR, he read only the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing rights which the 14th applied to the states, ignoring the 9th Amendment. See the first eight amendments (middle column) in Bingham's discussion of the 14th A. at the following link, a page from the congressional record. http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n — B. JohnsonThe 14th Amendment was ratified to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the state and local governments. Whether it's by selective incorporation (which seems is what Rep. Bingham originally advocated) or by total incorporation is still up for debate. However, the 9th Amendment should not be ignored, I'm not for sure why people think it's a "wild card". The 9th Amendment was ratified to protect those rights, retained by citizens and humans beings, that are not enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, we have certain rights for being human that may not be enumerated in the Constitution. For example, every human being has the rights to free thought and conscience. Anyone can practice these rights without the existence of government. No where in the Constitution is there stated a right to conscience. But that's exactly what the 9th Amendment was enacted to resolve. SCOTUS's ruling in Roe v Wade was flawed because the high court were (and still are) not in a position to determine when life begins, thus should not have opined, ala Harry Blackmun, that viability is in the eyes of the individual. Written by KK Our present society is so self centered that they are uninterested in any moral or theological discussion of the abortion issue. This being the case, let's appeal to them on a level that is easily understood by all. It has often been stated that people vote their pocketbooks. The fact that since the ruling by our Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade, over 53 million Americans have been put to death by abortion. This matters to pro-choice folks very little until you start pointing out a few economic facts. For instance, as we all know, Social Security is slowly going broke. If these children had been allowed to live and become full productive citizens over 30 million of them would now be paying into Social Security. Hence, the present crisis could have been averted. These folks would also be consumers and available to purchase the goods and services that keep our so-called economy running. I know that these are shallow arguments but unfortunately they may be the only ones that resonate with a faithless society. If we ever again hope to be "one nation under God" we must get the attention of those who are either unwilling or unable to see the truth. Written by Chuck Although it may have been possible to argue that a fetus was not a seperate human being in 1972(it was not true but perhaps arguable), technology now proves without a doubt that the fetus is a unique individual. People who refuse to accept this are equal to flat-earthers. I'm not sure it's possible to convince those who won't accept scientific facts, of this truth. Prayer is our only hope to save the millions of babies slaughtered every year by Americans, that or some new Charlemagne to emerge and save the west. — RichardSome people who have never had the misfortune of living through a miscarriage will never know how symbiotic the fetus/mother relationship is. In fact there are no records of any babies surviving before 21 weeks of gestation. The baby can not survive outside the womb before this and most babies born between 21-24 weeks have a very low survival rate. When you make statements like this you look stupid. No pro-lifer I ever met takes this into account. You would rather spew you values and judge others. If you spent half as much time focusing your resources toward supporting mothers in crisis or adoption you might find that the frequency of abortion around the world would drop significantly. You would rather become a judge and jury for an action that only one entity has the right to judge. If you don't know what I am talking about then you really aren't a Christian and have not read the Gospel. It always amazes me how someone can be so quick to judge yet if they reflect on their own life they realize that they really can’t stand themselves. Judging others makes them feel better about the kinds of people they truly are. I bet you secretly backed the Iraq war. Never mind the more than 8k US and Coalition soldiers and 100k innocent citizens killed because our government chose to impose our views on others (who had nothing to do with 9/11). ![[smiley=angry]](http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/components/com_jreactions/custom/templates/blog/smileys/smiley_angry.gif) Written by Scott Henderson I am pro-life and use this example. When a woman finds she is pregnant she is giving a due date...which is some one's birthday. Should she miscarry this child the hospital and her family recognizes this loss as a life and in some cases memorials are held for the child. But if the same woman aborts the child all of a sudden it is her right to do so because it is not really a person? Give me a break. But we also have to figure out what to do for woman who find themselves pregnant and resort to aborting the baby themselves or go to places who did the abortions with no conditions which usually results in the death of the mother as well as the child. And the bottom line here for that decision was no support from the family or husband or boyfriend and the woman seems to have no choice. Money plays a part in this, frustrations of home life and just no hope.. This has to change! The men or boys usually get off scott free. And they are going to have to change their idea of what is right and wrong and that is the problem we cant dictate morality. We must change to embrace LIFE!! Written by M. S. Kimble Super article! So needed! A gentle reminder to those posting who still have to drag the Republicans into the tired old argument "why didn't they stop abortion while they were in power?" Answer: Because the Democrats will pull every trick possible to make sure abortion stays the law of the land. Yup. That includes payoffs, as the recent vote on Saturday shown once again. Second point: Another tired argument: Republicans only care about the rich and do nothing for the poor. Oh please! The Democrats have the Kennedys, George Soros, Michael Moore, Al Gore, and numerous other extremely wealthy individuals who keep funneling money into the abortion industry and related. It's a well known fact that conservatives outgive liberals when it comes to charity. This argument from the Left is simply a diversion tactic, and never has held any water whatsoever. Why is it the Democrats are so deadly afraid of not having abortions, won't support pregnant women who need help, except to push them towards abortion, and don't even want abstinence programs?? Why can't they admit the health dangers of both abortion and hormonal contraception? We will never be a united country until the Left starts to accept and live reality. Written by Margie The truth is out there. Pro-lifers are out there. And conversions take place every day in front of and inside abortion mills. But the Democratic Party as such? It is THE Communist Party in America. It is THE Fascist Party in America. It is THE Party and Church of Satan in America. Catholics should have been forbidden to belong to the Democratic Party the day after the 1972 Democratic Convention adopted its pro-abortion platform. Written by Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick Although it may have been possible to argue that a fetus was not a seperate human being in 1972(it was not true but perhaps arguable), technology now proves without a doubt that the fetus is a unique individual. People who refuse to accept this are equal to flat-earthers. I'm not sure it's possible to convince those who won't accept scientific facts, of this truth. Prayer is our only hope to save the millions of babies slaughtered every year by Americans, that or some new Charlemagne to emerge and save the west. — RichardSome people who have never had the misfortune of living through a miscarriage will never know how symbiotic the fetus/mother relationship is. In fact there are no records of any babies surviving before 21 weeks of gestation. The baby can not survive outside the womb before this and most babies born between 21-24 weeks have a very low survival rate. When you make statements like this you look stupid. No pro-lifer I ever met takes this into account. You would rather spew you values and judge others. If you spent half as much time focusing your resources toward supporting mothers in crisis or adoption you might find that the frequency of abortion around the world would drop significantly. You would rather become a judge and jury for an action that only one entity has the right to judge. If you don't know what I am talking about then you really aren't a Christian and have not read the Gospel. It always amazes me how someone can be so quick to judge yet if they reflect on their own life they realize that they really can’t stand themselves. Judging others makes them feel better about the kinds of people they truly are. I bet you secretly backed the Iraq war. Never mind the more than 8k US and Coalition soldiers and 100k innocent citizens killed because our government chose to impose our views on others (who had nothing to do with 9/11). I always get a kick out of those who spew insults, contempt, and venom at others--for being "judgmental." Written by Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick Nullification of Roe Vs Wade by the People: Abortion is NOT legal. Written by Nancy |
|
 |
