Posted on 07/13/2002 1:13:24 PM PDT by rhema
Recent letters to the Minneapolis Star Tribune have sounded apocalyptic warnings about the "extremism" of Republican candidates' views on "reproductive rights," the euphemism du jour of the pro-choice movement. Those letters are long on hyperbolic rhetoric, but they're lamentably short on facts. Who are the real abortion "extremists"?
Most abortion polls are notorious for shedding scant light on the subject they purport to measure. They typically ask mushy questions like "Do you believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances, prohibited in all circumstances, or legal only in certain circumstances [italics mine]?" The majority of Americans and Minnesotans, who immediately think of hard cases (rape, incest, or the imperiled life of the mother) that constitute a tiny percentage of all abortions, pick the latter, whereupon the media and pro-choicers triumphantly proclaim, "You see? The country is pro-choice! Pro-lifers are all extremists!" (Actually, that quote is slightly apocryphal; the media and pro-choicers sedulously avoid using the name by which pro-lifers designate themselves. It's always the Orwellian "anti-choice.")
When abortion polls ask the question they should ask, namely "For what reasons, if any, should abortions be permitted (or legal)?", America suddenly becomes awash in "extremists." In the first four months of 1989, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and Newsweek magazine (none of whom can be credibly accused of harboring pro-life sympathies) asked this kind of question in separate polls and destroyed some pro-choice shibboleths in the process. Poll respondents indicated the following approval percentages for specific instances of abortion:
1. Life/Health of Mother -- 90% approval
2. Rape/Incest -- 75% approval
3. Fetal Handicap -- 65% approval
4. Can't Afford -- 40% approval
5. Too Many Children -- 40% approval
6. Emotional Strain -- 35% approval
7. To Finish School -- 28% approval
8. Not Married -- 25% approval
9. As Birth Control -- 16% approval
10. Sex Selection -- 2% approval
Note that the reasons approved by a majority constitute possibly 3 percent of abortions; those disapproved constitute at least 97 percent of all abortions. Ironically and unconscionably, situations #9 and 10 are acceptable grounds for abortions under Doe v. Bolton's meaningless, bar-no-abortions "health" exception.
A mid-1998 poll by the ardently pro-choice Center for Gender Equality found that 53% of respondents said abortion should be illegal except for rape, incest, and saving a woman's life, or else forbidden in all cases. That percentage represented an 8 percent shift away from a pro-abortion position in a poll taken two years earlier. Those results mirrored a May 2002 Gallup poll, in which 53% of respondents (up from 45% in May 2001) viewed abortion as "morally wrong." No less a pro-choice icon than Faye Wattleton, president of the Center for Gender Equality and former president of Planned Parenthood, said of her organization's poll, "We find some of the findings very disturbing." Small wonder. There's an "extremist" everywhere she looks.
"Extremists" abound in Minnesota, too. In a February 2002 poll conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research of Washington, DC, Minnesotans were asked when abortion should be legal. Fifty-two percent responded either "never" or "only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother." A minute 6 percent said, "Abortion should be legal, with no restrictions during the first six months of a pregnancy." A tinier minority, only 5 percent of Minnesotans, checked this poll response: "Abortion should be legal, with no restrictions during the full nine months of a pregnancy" -- a position that reflects Minnesota's current abortion-on-demand policy, one that has been preserved through the tireless efforts of the likes of Minnesota Senate majority leader Roger Moe, governor Jesse Ventura, and U. S. Senator Paul Wellstone.
So one last time, who are the real abortion extremists? Are they not governors (Jesse Ventura), gubernatorial candidates (Roger Moe), Senators (Paul Wellstone), and Star Tribune letter writers (and staff editorialists) who have either never met an abortion they couldn't sanction or who, hiding behind morally bankrupt semantic subterfuge, never deign to address any specific limitations on abortion? Maybe as the elections draw nigh, Moe and Wellstone will explain -- eschewing the meaningless newspeak generalities that surfeit pro-choicers' letters to the Star Tribune -- why they've staked out abortion territory occupied by only 5 percent of Minnesotans.
I know who the extremists are....they are the pro-aborts. They are the reason I "converted" away from liberalism.
Their lies and the lies of their media friends were too much to swallow. People only need to lie like that to support a political position if the position itself is a sham.
I read this study in 1985, but somehow I couldn't find it in any of their archives.
In such a world, those who believe in The God Who keeps His promises are labeled extremists, while those who find various ways to cull the human herd (by hook or by crook) are considered reasonable and prudent.
In order to give the impression that abortions are "okay," well worded liberal rhetoric that reflects the thinking of the editorial page will be published. Only poorly worded or badly thought-out pro-life arguments will normally find a place there.
Commentaries such as rhema's are of the type that is censored by PC newspapers like the Star Tribune. Such clear thoughts get in the way of this anti-human, anti-God campaign. The young women, and those who could influence them, might be persuaded to think too long about what it really is the elitists want them to do.
In the case of abortion, the object of the Mathusian misanthropes is to give a green light, and even a cachet, to abortion. The object: to convince young women to cut-off their own posterity, voluntarily.
This is the American Progressive's contribution to world ZPG. Young and foolish Americans are convinced to volunteer for what their Chinese counterparts are lethally forced to endure.
Only in America, where the gift of liberty is taken for granted could the meaning of freedom be so easily obscured.
In an irony that is clearly missed by many, for most of history, escaping death -- being able to have a posterity -- was freedom. In this light, those who claim to promote "Pro-Choice" are far more Orwellian (and worse) than you think.
Hopefully to me , this would mean an abortionist could be charged with murder , if the mother or someone else decided to press charges.
I'm no lawyer so this may be far fetched , but maybe these jerks have bit off more than they can chew and it's their turn.
Good job rhema.
If it depicts a murder, then it must be murder. I bet they wish they could take that one back.
This is one law that I hope keeps giving back and giving back.
I believe every now and then we are given a chance to do things right. I hope this is one of those times.
Peace
Abortion is legal in most countries. We have a problem, but there is no need to bash the U.S.
Also, there is motive. I've written comparisons and contrasts between the American and the ancient Roman Republic. Those who crave world domination, who want to "manage" the planet's population, would first wish to steal sovereignty from America -- and regression of her back to the Roman model would be a clever way to aid that. (Do you need more on this?)
Rhema's letter demonstrates that there's still tremendous decency in Americans. For the elitists it's gotta be maddening; to me, that's delightful! That America is so slow to sign onto the program as laid out in their premier utopian fantasy with the double-entendre title, Looking Backward. It's the elitists (ostensibly Malthusian driven -- but IMO really just not wanting to abandon their favorite excuse to be hateful and fearful of the less well-off masses) and their Godless, ever-more-vacuous media, who are the extremists.
Apparently 97% of Americans are not succumbing to that particular propaganda. Thanks again rhema.
However, as you can see from my last note, I think there are still too many who think we will actually overpopulate the planet. And while most of the rest want no part of international leadership's megalomania, they don't know what they could do to stop it. (That's where you could help if you were so inclined.)
Anyway, about my warning:
As Americans have the most freedom on earth, we have the most to lose. If and when we lose it, things will have gotten very horrible for the rest of the world. I believe we have an obligation to those who fought to gain and preserve our liberty to be grateful enough to preserve it for the generations to follow. With God's help, we will.
-Av
In other words, American Society is still willing to kill people who constitute an extreme hardship to their caretakers.
That's an Ethic with which I cannot possibly agree, but given that these are the only three cases to which the majority of Americans would agree to permit legal Abortion, it is a position from which I would be politically willing to start negotiation.
Signed, an "Extremist".
OP
Sorry for the delay, logos, but here's a PING.
** Action Alert ** Petition to Reverse Roe v. Wade !!
...To everyone on your list... We should be able to get a few thousand signatures on this one...
Click here to sign petition......
FReegards,
David
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.