Jill Stanek: 'Common ground' vs. zodiac abortions

In his Jan. 22, 2009, proclamation lauding the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Obama wrote we must "reduce the need for abortion … [by] find[ng] common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information and preventative services."

A month ago, the pro-abortion website RH Reality Check, funded by Ted Turner, even launched an "On Common Ground" forum, inviting thinkers from both sides to publicly contemplate.

To date, of 15 contributors, only two are solidly pro-life – Kristen Day of Democrats for Life and Serrin Foster of Feminists for Life – and they have each only posted once.

The problem is pro-lifers fundamentally oppose every "common ground" plank Obama and pro-abortion strategists unilaterally established, which were, in English, widespread contraception distribution, comprehensive sex education and taxpayer funding of the "family planning " industry, i.e., Planned Parenthood.

The equivalent would have been for President Bush to say, "We must work to find common ground to stop government subsidizing of contraceptives, expand abstinence education and defund Planned Parenthood." Right.

But why are pro-aborts attempting this long-armed group hug with pro-lifers in the first place? Such a gesture can only be seen as a concession. Imagine if a pro-life president were to make such a pitch.

The problem for pro-lifers goes back to one question: is the fetus a human being? Most pro-lifers answer that question yes. So compromise for them is agreeing to end the life of a human being.

Pro-choicers dodge the question (”above my pay grade”). If they would answer that one question honestly, we could have an honest debate.

Is the fetus a human being?

... tough questions come up more frequently than they did in the first years after Roe, as more is known about the choices some women and couples make, and fetuses have become as visible as women.
Reason No. 1: Some of the reasons mothers abort, such as male gender preference, are becoming harder to defend, even among abortion proponents.
Reason No. 2: Post-abortive mothers who regret the choice they made are clarifying there is an aftermath.
Reason No. 3: The advancement of ultrasound imagery has gutted the pro-abort "blobs of tissue" line. Everyone now knows it is real babies who are suctioned, sliced, and diced when aborted.

Another excellent reason is that comprehensive legal protections for unwed mothers now exist that did not exist at the time Roe was passed. Some of the arguments used in suing for Roe were due to pregnancy being regarded then as an obstacle to employment. At that time,

* any pregnant woman, married or single, could be fired from a job, or dismissed from school or college,

* young women of childbearing age found it difficult to land a job or get equal pay, since they were expected to leave upon having a child,

* unmarried pregnant women faced a near-total social disapproval and rejection from parents, church and community members in a way that the impregnating male did not;

* teenage unwed mothers were sometimes thrown out of the house or beaten by their parent(s), and

* the impregnating boy or man could often deny paternity and/or elude having to pay support.

The timing of Roe coincided with the onset of civil rights suits for women's employment equality. Today, legislation is in place that provides legal remedies for all of these conditions. Hence, any survival rationale for terminating a pregnancy has been removed.

Obama wouldn’t dignify that question with an answer because he knows that the honest answer “placed an undue burden” on the mother and the attending physician.

Better to never recognize the rights of the individual (and when it is outside of the womb, breathing under his or her own lungpower, it is an individual) than compromise the culture of abortion.

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.