[ggekko]

This article reads like a sophmore's college term paper, which it might be. There are a number of problems with this analysis; these problems are described below:

*The feminist wing of the Democratic party
has turned support for abortion into an
unquestionable secular sacrement for any
Democratic politician. Any Democratic
politician who deviates from a commitment to
legal abortion is "ex-communicated" from the
the church of Roe vs. Wade; ask former PA.
Governor Bob Casey. On a national level it is
therefore almost impossible to build pro-life
coalitions with Democrats.

*The side effects of abortion are serious and
all women should be given access to this
health information about these side-effects;
on another level, however, this argument about
the side-effects of abortion begs the
question. Other activities generate
significant negative side-effects but their
essential legitimacy and utility are seriously
questioned. Automobiles accidents kill about
50,000 people per year in the US and auto
travel is a significant source of air
pollution. The side effects of abortion are
tolerated by the general culture because it
is one mechanism that facilitates an
atmosphere of sexual license.


*American history is replete with examples
of the politcal process being driven and
reformed by a vision of transcendent Christian
morality on of the more recent instances
of which is the 1960s Civil Rights Movement.

In my opinion, the pro-life movement has been somewhat inneffective because of a psycological inability to accept the finality of the Roe vs. Wade decision. Significant progress for the pro-life movement has only happened when they have accepted the constraints imposed by and then worked around these constraints.

[independentmind]

This article reads like a sophmore's college term paper, which it might be.

Perhaps you should ask Ms. Crawford exactly what grade she is in. I presumed she was a freshman.

[Mudbug]

In my opinion, the pro-life movement has been somewhat inneffective because of a psycological inability to accept the finality of the Roe vs. Wade decision.

Both medical science and public opinion have changed since 1973. Why should Roe v Wade be considered final? Are you saying that, having lost that battle, pro-lifers should give up the war?

[Cathryn Crawford]

Significant progress for the pro-life movement has only happened when they have accepted the constraints imposed by and then worked around these constraints.

Explain to me how they have failed to work around these constraints, please.