The Pro-Life Movement's Problem With Morality

The Washington Dispatch ^ | June 6, 2003 | Cathryn Crawford

[Cathryn Crawford]

I didn't say the mainstream world. I said the pro-life movement. They rely more heavily on moral arguments instead of logical, physical arguments.

You're never going to change someone's mind with your morality.

[tbpiper]

Perhaps. It should certianly be a part of the argument.Perhaps, but a small part. If instinct is used as the basis of what is right or wrong there can be some ugly consequences. Consider 'aroused instinct' as a defense for date rape.

[patton]

Thank you. I will look for that book.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Holy cow! You admitted it! ;-)

[gcruse]

You are a liar and a fool!

You are one of those praying for cancer, aren't you?
What a pathetic distortion of religion.

[Cathryn Crawford]

He's not a liar and he's not a fool. He was just bringing a different issue for debate. So let's debate it, okay?

[jmc813]

Now, what did you think of the article?

I pretty much agree with it 100%. I'm pinging a FReeper who I remember to have posted several articles on the breast cancer connection in the past.

[Lazamataz]

From www.TheOnion.com:

By Jessica Linden

It comes down to one thing: It's my body. Not Uncle Sam's, not Trent Lott's, not Pat Robertson's. Mine. Congress can demand a portion of my income, it can tell me how fast to drive, it can kill killers and anyone else it thinks it must to preserve a free and civil society. But my body—the skin, bones and organs that comprise me—is where the line gets drawn.

The decision to have or not have a child is mine and mine alone. I am not cattle for the government to order about, demanding that I bring an unwanted child to term. Stripping me of the right to control my own destiny dehumanizes me, period. Anything less than my choice, on my terms, reduces me to property.

The right-wing anti-choice movement loves to preach its views from an idealistic, pie-in-the-sky universe where nothing uncomfortable ever has to happen to anyone, but that's not reality. Life is filled with pain and hard choices. Choices one may or may not regret later. But it's that individual's right to make the choice.

You think America is the land of the free? The last country on Earth that would ever oppress women? My grandmother remembers when women could not vote in this country. And, boy, do we have a lot more progress left to make.

One certainly has to wonder: How would things be different if men could get pregnant? It would certainly be fun to watch the patriarchal elite of Congress scramble to cover themselves if it all changed overnight.

And one more thing: Who would care for all the children born into a world that prohibits abortion? Who would be there to raise all those unwanted, abandoned children? It would certainly be a different world, full of orphanages jammed with parentless children, robbed of a fair chance to grow up in a stable environment because of what some politician deemed moral in some oak-walled chamber on Capitol Hill. To say nothing of the women maimed or even killed by barbaric, back-alley abortions because a bunch of rich, white men made the safe alternative unavailable to her.

Keep your laws off my body, America.

---

By Gen. William Patterson U.S. Army

To protect America's interests, it is sometimes necessary to mobilize and deploy a military force. We now stand on the brink of such a time.

The tactical importance of Jessica Linden's uterus to national security is twofold: First, with its rich, fertile walls, this uterus is a vital source of future Americans. Second, the uterus is situated in an extremely strategic location, leaving it vulnerable to a hostile foreign power. This uterus must be given top priority by the Pentagon. Establishing a strong U.S. military presence in Jessica Linden's uterine region is by far the most sensible course of action.

I propose that four U.S. Army divisions be deployed to Jessica Linden's uterus no later than midnight Friday. Once there, a reconnaissance force of 200 men will be stationed on her cervical perimeter, denying entrance to any unauthorized personnel or equipment. Another two battalions will be stationed inside the uterus itself, where they will set up camp and, if necessary, conduct armed patrols in force.

Remaining personnel will conduct amphibious patrol in the forward vaginal canal and as far back as the fallopian entrances, scouting for cervical dilation or other such activity. The entire operation will receive air support from a wing of Blackhawk helicopters, which will rotate in pairs patrolling the greater vaginal area. Our forces will constitute a impenetrable iron diaphragm, preventing any and all foreign elements from compromising uterine security.

Should we encounter a foreign power disputing our claim upon the Linden uterus and surrounding vagina, we will be prepared to engage its forces in armed conflict. We will consider the nation's safety our number one priority, regardless of Ms. Linden's unwillingness to cooperate.

The Pentagon will consider a full-scale invasion of Jessica Linden's ovaries only as a last resort, after all other options have been exhausted. We recognize in principle Jessica Linden's sovereignty over the ovarian territory, but to prevent the loss of the reproductive system to a hostile power, we are prepared to do what we must, even if that means conducting a firebombing and strafing campaign that may result in full military hysterectomy. If we must destroy the uterus in order to save it, so be it.

If U.S. uterine occupation extends into the second week of October, we will install an irrigation and drainage system in anticipation of Miss Linden's menstrual cycle. This will not only benefit her, but provide our troops with a cleaner, more navigable terrain on which to conduct their military maneuvers.

I will further recommend that Congress establish a new Military Medal of Valor, to be called The Distinguished Cervix Cross For Courage In The Uterine Theatre. Naval soldiers may also request a burial within Miss Linden in the event of loss of life.

The U.S. must and will defend its interests in Jessica Linden's uterus, no matter what the costs.

[DeathfromBelow]

Golly billy, them sounds just like DemoRat talking points.

They are too vague and can be interpreted to mean whatever they want them to.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Nice argument, but some of us are old enough and lived when abortions were illegal in America.

That's not the point, the fallacy that illegal abortion causing an inordinate amount of deaths was the main reasoning for abortion on demand as FEDERAL LAW is crap. It’s a state’s rights issue and if all the state’s banned it then Canada is fine.

[colorado tanker]

I have made it my methodology to never appeal against abortion on demand from a religious perspective, yet I am constantly being accused of trying to force my religious beliefs upon those who don't agree with 'my religious beliefs'.

Debating with a liberal is like trying to nail jello to a wall. As soon as you defeat one argument they shift to another, oblivious that they've just lost one argument. Then when you defeat all the arguments, they retreat to the line, "your just trying to impose your beliefs on me."

The fact is the pro-aborts cannot justify their position with reason and fact - they're taking a lot more on blind faith than we are.

[Colofornian]

However, I follow the ancient rule about abortions: When the baby starts to kick, then it is has become an individual and his/her life should be protected. My own daughter is in this situation. Once that baby started to kick, abortion is no longer an option. If she dared to have an abortion, I would never speak to her again.

"Ancient": I'm glad you admit you base life and death choices upon the dark ages. So glad you've insulated your morals and ethics from scientifically enlightened postures likes ultrasounds and basic human fetal development.

So, if you're a blind mom of a 1-week old...and if she's never initiated a kick or touch w/ya, I guess she's fair game for the garbage heap: See no baby, hear no baby, feel no baby=is no baby, eh?

Nice arbitrary standards in place. I can imagine it now, you having a convo w/your 13 yr old grand(son/daughter) {baby mentioned by you}: "Yup, I told your Mom that once she felt you kick, you were worth loving. But up until then, well, Chip, I just wanted you to know that I subcribe to a theory of A.M.T. (arbitrary magical transformation). You see, you weren't really Chip until you were strong enough to kick so that your Mom could feel you."

[patton]

No, you're not. But you do ignore your friends, sometimes.

[Lazamataz]

Holy cow! You admitted it! ;-)

Admit it, hell. It's part of my charm.

[gcruse]

LOL

[Cathryn Crawford]

My personal belief about abortion stemmed, in the beginning, from my moral beliefs. As I got older, however, (and older is a relative statement considering my age) I realized that not everyone will be convinced by my morality. Therefore, pragmatism has to play a role.

You will not convince people of an argument based solely on morality.

[Clint N. Suhks]

You are one of those praying for cancer, aren't you? What a pathetic distortion of religion.

Yep...liar and fool still applies.

[Mr. Silverback]

Not=Note

[Cathryn Crawford]

LMAO

[Cathryn Crawford]

Wherefore charm?