* My great grandmother almost died from an illegal abortion. The family was very poor and she was afraid they would not be able to provide for the child. This nearly tore the family apart, as my great grandfather wanted the child.
* Failure to provide on the part of the poor is not the issue facing the majority of women today. There is a huge safety net to provide for them, and this is not a barrier to delivering a baby.
Would you like to return to those days?
* See above. A number of studies done on this issue point to pressure by the father of the child as being the primary reason many women chose an abortion. Strong women, or women in loving relationships, are far less likely to consider an abortion than those in casual or destructive relationships.
Is there some other way to deal with behavior that we find morally reprehensible because your current methods not only aren’t working, they’re backfiring and giving our enemies ammunition to use against us?
* Your question presumes facts not in evidence. What methods are you referring to, and what ammunition?
* Your question also presumes that changes in social mores and norms have had no direct impact on how abortion is perceived, but that the failure to stop abortions somehow rests solely on the pro-life movement. This is false.
* Moral relativists have tried repeatedly to diminish the moral impact of abortion (and other issues) by shifting the debate from "morality" to "legality." An entire generation has been reared with the belief that if it's not illegal, it's okay (or even, if it's illegal, but you don't get caught, it's okay).
* Moral relativists have already repeatedly shifted the debate by "dehumanizing" the unborn child. This tactic is very effective (and is used through the military) to make it easier to be the instrument of death for another human being.
* Bills such as this are the perfect tool to combat both, by not only drawing another legal barrier to abortion, but emphasizing the very human quality (experiencing pain) into the debate.
* Moreover, the frequency of abortions in the United States did not happen instantaneously following Roe V. Wade. First, the law changed; then hearts and minds. This is ultimately how the pro-life movement can swing the pendulum back towards the sanctity of life; by law, then hearts and minds.
” * Failure to provide on the part of the poor is not the issue facing the majority of women today. There is a huge safety net to provide for them, and this is not a barrier to delivering a baby.”
No argument. Not my point.
“A number of studies done on this issue point to pressure by the father of the child as being the primary reason many women chose an abortion. Strong women, or women in loving relationships, are far less likely to consider an abortion than those in casual or destructive relationships.”
Agreed.
“* Your question presumes facts not in evidence. What methods are you referring to, and what ammunition?”
When those on our side call names, throw blood, show horrible pictures, murder abortion doctors, blow up abortion clinics, etc., etc., etc., those who support abortion rights use that against us. Given that the media, education system, and entertainment industry are squarely on the side of abortion with no holds barred, I find the methods mentioned above to be counter-productive.
“* Your question also presumes that changes in social mores and norms have had no direct impact on how abortion is perceived, but that the failure to stop abortions somehow rests solely on the pro-life movement. This is false.”
Your presumption is incorrect. Of course changes in social mores have had a direct impact. But the issue for me is not failure to stop abortions but to achieve a goal that both sides should applaud - to get more people to make responsible choices, including abstinence. In other words, eliminate the need for abortion in the first place.
“* Moral relativists have tried repeatedly to diminish the moral impact of abortion (and other issues) by shifting the debate from “morality” to “legality.” An entire generation has been reared with the belief that if it’s not illegal, it’s okay (or even, if it’s illegal, but you don’t get caught, it’s okay).”
Not part of my argument at all.
“* Moral relativists have already repeatedly shifted the debate by “dehumanizing” the unborn child. This tactic is very effective (and is used through the military) to make it easier to be the instrument of death for another human being.”
Again, dehumanizing the unborn child was never part of my argument.
“* Bills such as this are the perfect tool to combat both, by not only drawing another legal barrier to abortion, but emphasizing the very human quality (experiencing pain) into the debate.”
Somewhere you’ll have to point out my opposition to the bill.
“* Moreover, the frequency of abortions in the United States did not happen instantaneously following Roe V. Wade. First, the law changed; then hearts and minds. This is ultimately how the pro-life movement can swing the pendulum back towards the sanctity of life; by law, then hearts and minds.”
Some hearts and minds were changed well in advance of the law, were they not?