“I’m not certain we win ultimately by tossing around those terms in public. I think we need to win people to an affirmative position, a regard for human life from conception to death.”
I’m certain that we won’t win with those kinds of terms in general elections. I’d guess that “Abortion is murder” would poll somewhere in the 30s in agreement. Since a significant portion of woman above age 20 have had abortions (remember its a holocaust of 40 million so far, that’s 40 million *would be mothers who aborted their own children*), hillary could be out there telling women “I’m one of you, my opponent thinks a quarter of you are murderers. Who do you trust?”
On the other hand, we could the life argument wins hands down with a clear logical science-based argument that every abortion is the taking of a human life. Life is in the womb and it is destroyed. Far better to win on facts and let others come to a moral conclusion themselves than to be cast as ‘too judgmental’ by our anti-judgemental culture.
I’m prolife and I wouldn’t use the murder term, since it implies intentionality that may not be there. As the first martyr St Stephen said, “Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do.”
I agree with you and Saundra on using the term murder in public political debate. I won’t fault a candidate for saying it but something tells me that isn’t how we’ll increase respect for life issues. This business involves a lot more than hollering ‘murder’ and expecting the world to change instantly. We should never let up in our determination but we have to be patient and persuasive.