Posted on 08/12/2005 9:48:23 PM PDT by neverdem
My position on abortion has been, as politicians put it, evolving. I was once pro-choice and a contributor to Naral. Now I'm pro-choice but anti-Naral.
The group has a genius for alienating potential allies, as demonstrated by the television commercial it introduced this week and then hastily withdrew after a barrage of criticism. The ad, which featured footage of a bombed abortion clinic and a victim in a wheelchair, accused Judge John Roberts Jr. of siding with clinic bombers and having an ideology that would "excuse" their attacks.
What Mr. Roberts actually did, on behalf of the administration of the first President George Bush, was to write a brief supporting the right of people to protest at abortion clinics, not bomb them. His argument was not only reasonable, but also exposed a fundamental problem in the way Naral Pro-Choice America has framed the abortion issue.
The case involved a law forbidding conspiracies against a "class of persons," which was enacted during Reconstruction to protect blacks from the Ku Klux Klan. Mr. Roberts argued (and the Supreme Court agreed) that the law didn't apply to the protesters at abortion clinics because they weren't discriminating against all women, just the women seeking abortions.
If that argument sounds reactionary, it's only because Naral and other groups have worked so long to make abortion a civil rights issue, presenting it as women's fight for freedom against an oppressive patriarchy. The tactic makes for displays of solidarity like the March for Women's Lives, an occasion for denouncing male anti-abortion politicians and waving signs with that perennial slogan "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
It's true that pregnancy is a uniquely female burden and that most pro-life politicians are men - but then, so are most pro-choice politicians. There's no gender gap in...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The older I get, the more science advances, the closer up I see new life blossoming, the harder it becomes to defend the so-called pro-choice stance.
The fact that this guy is "Pro-choice but anti-NARAL" shows that the pro-choice movement has essentially become pro-abortion. They'll never admit it, but that's what they've become. "Pro-choice" is codespeak for "Pro-abortion." Just look a NARAL.
"Pro-choice", if the phrase actually meant what it was supposed to mean, would refer to those in the middle, who prefer neither banning nor promoting abortion. The President's stance fits that.
President's stance fits that.
Meaning what?
Well, tbird5, if the President doesn't throw himself in front of every woman entering a Planned Parenthood clinic, he just isn't dedicated enough to be truly pro-life.
All the lefties were running as fast and as far as they could from NARAL yesterday.
More like small "l" ludricrous moron
That's true.
Then again, I don't think there really is a 'pro choice' position that is an ethical and moral position when it comes to life. It's not a choice, it's a life. And when it's a life, you have no choice but to protect it unless it is guilty of a capital crime. Even then you have to protect life until it is taken through due process of law.
ha!
This man actually makes sense. He eloquently restates the case for kicking the issue back to the states and letting the people have their say.
He has more confidence in the opinion of his fellow americans than the feminazies. Most unusual for a liberal.
He has more confidence in the opinion of his fellow americans than the feminazies. Most unusual for a liberal.
Do you think a liberal would write, Recycling Is Garbage?
There are plenty of people who believe that things that are morally wrong do not of necessity have to be illegal.
It comes down to the best uses of force in our society - and the costs involved.
The President's stance is no abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or woman's life being in danger. That's fairly pro-choice. I think it is a sensible moderate position. That is truly pro-choice. Meanwhile, so called "pro-choicers" are radically pro-abortion, when you take into account their support of partial birth abortion and opposition to parental notification.
Liberals - champions of murder, treason and socialism.
"The President's stance is no abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or woman's life being in danger. That's fairly pro-choice."
Most people call that pro-life. VERY few people oppose abortion when the mother is likely to die; as for rape and incest, I disagree with those exceptions, but those are very commonly cited by people who consider themselves pro-life.
"Most unusual for a liberal."
He's not a liberal. He's a libertarian -- and even then, a libertarian who is thoughtful on cultural issues, as demonstrated in the piece above. Thumbs up to John Tierney.
Well put!
Feminists, "believe that life begins at conception" only when abortion is used by cultures that abort females so that they can have male offspring.
Otherwise, as far as feminists are concerned, life for an infant begins when its mother no longer "has issues".
Well said. "Issues" make me erect antennae.
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.