Posted on 01/22/2008 7:58:47 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Kate Michelman column sounds almost like a concession. Ping to Today show list.
White upper middle class eugenics femiNazi. Why would I care what she has to say?
Because it could be an important indicator of the state of the fight between pro-life and pro-choice forces.
As evidenced by my SIL who used to drive around with a pro-choice sticker on her car, (who would do that?), anyway she took it off this year, saying she was embarrassed, and did not want her clients to see it.
A small and silly story maybe, but shame is a wonderful thing sometimes.
Not small or silly at all: I’d say it’s very significant. The more I think of it the more amazing the Michelman column is. She does a wonderful job of making the pro-life argument and doesn’t come up with anything to refute it! Will we see some late-in-life conversion, like the woman who served as the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade?
At the very least, they did not succeed in shutting down the debate. That is gratifying.
Didn’t think so. Then they would have to realize their whole life was wasted on lie. It would be funny if their tragedy hadn’t affected the innocent.
Everyone is okay to convert but Mitt Romney (don’t we all know).
The pro-choice forces never had the moral high ground. With the ultrasound technology available today it is simply more obvious.
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.
I believe that the anti-life crowd has bee nhoisted on the petard of their own arguments. Lovely to see. But really, the best argument is the simplest one: if we must err, then why not err on the side of life?
My take on the pro-death crowd is that they are simply following the Marxist trope that individual lives mean nothing. To believe otherwise simply yanks the rug out from under their entire raison d'etre.
For some reason known only to PR types, the 'no longer pregnant' was released the entertainment media outlets. Perez had it on his site, and his readers can comment. And they did. I would guess it was about 90% calling out Anderson on the irony of promoting PETA yet 'killing her unborn child.' Its not a mass of cells, its a baby...abortion is murder...the commentary was stunningly pro-life. There were posters who related how they hated knowing their moms had abortions of their siblings...it was a sad commentary, yet for me (a Pro-Lifer) uplifting to know that alot (who you wouldn't think) 'get it.' For the record a few tried to state 'buts it legal' and they got smacked down too.
I know its anecdotal, but I really believe it to be a small glimpse of how abortion is now trully perceived.
and this is at a time when they have the greatest chance at getting a feminist president
Very telling. Thanks for relating this. I think there has been a sea change in the abortion issue. I see it with my daughter and her friends.
“...like the woman who served as the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I believe her name was Virginia McCorvey.
OK Kate, let's start with this: How is inflicting pain and death on an innocent, helpless human being for profit, moral?
When Scott Peterson murdered his pregnant wife, I recall the discomfort of pro-choice advocates regarding whether or not he should be charged with a double murder.
To me pro-choice has never been anything more than an opportunity to absolve oneself from responsibility...a position liberals love to find themselves in. It really should be called “anti-life” instead of pro-choice.
Anti-religion lest they be held accountable to moral conduct. Anti-school vouchers lest the school system be held accountable for poor performance. No criticism of the “less fortunate” lest they be exposed for their poor choices leading to their lesser fortune.
My offering in this battle for hearts and minds is a song called “A Dream A Lot Like Mine”. It can be heard by simply clicking the link http://www.myspace.com/emmettgrayson
It does get to people, especially the young. I hope many will listen. It involves no cost.
bump for a new tag line
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.