Posted on 06/06/2003 10:32:33 AM PDT by Cathryn Crawford
I think you need both avenues of persuasion, Cathryn. Most Christians, I'd hope, take their cues from Jesus, who never shied away from frankly pointing out what's right and what's wrong. Rightly understood, the moral imperatives of the Bible help steer people away from shipwrecked lives, rather than put caprious constraints on them. As it was in Jesus' day, some people will have ears to hear that kind of message; some won't.
On the other hand, let's also publish every scintilla of hard evidence that demonstrates abortion's devastating effects on women, children, and society. I get about two to five letters published every year in our two dailies, and I'm constantly sending my friends/family/colleagues the URLs of articles like those in #141.
As opposed to now when they can walk right up to an abortion clinic in broad daylight and die from an abortion.
More women die from botched abortions now than did then.
But then, for you to have known more than one woman dying from an abortion in a particular high school would be quite exceptional. Unbelievably exceptional.
Well, if you're trying to argue from a point of logic only - then lay out all of the scientific evidence (medical, genetic, biological) that proves, from a purely logical point, that what we are talking about is an actual human life - distinct and seperate from it's life-support system.
Yes, just like black people in the 1800's and Jews in the 1930's - real human beings.
And this is NOT an emotional argument - it is pure logic, cold hard science.
Was adoption not even an option?
Yeah, but chastising conservatives for liberal accusations makes you feel sooo sophisticated.
No argument here. Truth is truth, be it medical or spiritual. Since Christianity is predicated on truth, founded by him to claimed to be Truth embodied [ Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."], we Christians ought to be spreading as much truth as we can.
But we will still try to be faithful to the Great Commission, recognizing that [paraphrasing the Good Book] "what does it profit a woman if she is saved from an abortion, yet loses her soul?"
"You're a model of how not to act when you're trying to persuade someone."
Clint... wasn't I telling you just the other day that even people who side with your position find you distasteful?
You won't believe me, but take a hint from someone else.
Yeah, I remember all those "tough on crime" liberal lawmakers and judges during the 80's...
Many people (sadly, including many pro-Life people) simply ACCEPT the premise of diminshed social/educational/economic prospects for women if they are parents (relative to men who are parents) without question! Even our SC Justices accepted this as their basic premise for upholing Roe v. Wade! So in a sense, many pro-Life persons operate on the same basic premis as the SC Justice who upheld abortion!
I submit the following very enlightening article for proof of this premise:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/scotus/art icles/061693ginsburg-roe.html
Judge Ginsburg's critique of Roe v. Wade is twofold. First, she said in the New York University lecture, as she has written for years, the right to abortion might have been more secure had it been grounded in the concept of women's right to equality rather than in the right to privacy. "The Roe decision might have been less of a storm center," she said, had it "homed in more precisely on the women's-equality dimension of the issue."
..... the equality argument for abortion rights -- essentially the notion that women cannot participate in society equally with men without the ability to control their reproductive lives -- was in fact part of the abortion-rights movement from its earliest years. An equality argument was among the arguments presented to the Court in Roe v. Wade.
It was the Supreme Court itself that revived the equality basis for abortion rights in its ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Pennsylvania case in which the Court reaffirmed the right to abortion.
Among the reasons that Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy and David H. Souter gave in their opinion for adhering to the "core" of Roe v. Wade was a sentence that could have been written by Judge Ginsburg:
"The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives."
So there you have it! The Justices themselves have said that abortion is crucial to women being treated equally in society. And many women have bought into this deception. We COULD as a society instead demand that women who procreate are treated the same as men who procreate. But we don't choose to do so. Instead we sweep equal treatment under the rug and tell women that their ability to particpate equally is dependent on abortion. Our own SC Justice have declared it! In other words, equality for women who procreate is CONDITIONAL on them un-procreating after the fact. This is a fundemental inequality which is NEVER adressed. Men's equality in society is not conditional on their parental status. But women's is virtually decreed conditional by the US Supreme Court!
Men are not asked by society to choose between equal treatment and their child's existence. Women are.
I blame pro-Choicers for enthusiastically accepting this Faustian deal in the first place and for allowing it to continue. I especially blame pro-choice feminists who won't even consider the larger ramifications of women for continueing to take this 'deal' over demanding true equality instead. And I blame all of us (including many pro-Lifers) for continueing to uphold this double standard in so many large and small ways. Pro-Lifers are not guiltless in accepting the fundemental premise of women's inequal opportunities if they are parents.
To put it another way, can you imagine that black people would have taken a deal to end inequity and discrimination against them in exchange for the "right" to kill their children? Yet this is essentially the deal that has been offered and accepted by pro-Choicers! They ACCEPT inequality of women parents as an immutable fact!
I’m so pleased that you chose to make that point in the disarming form of a question. Your point is such a good and important one.
Arguments framed in terms of morality are great for persuading others who share our moral views and who are therefore more or less predisposed to agree with us anyway. Much of the time, though, “preaching to the choir” just doesn’t gain enough supporters to carry the day.
And the reality is that it’s next to impossible, by repetitive recitation of our moral views alone, to persuade those people who do not themselves share those views. Attempting to pummel people or trying to shame them into “agreement” is usually a complete (and very ugly) waste of time and energy. Like you say, it becomes necessary at that point to find some other common ground (like logic and reason) upon which an appeal to those particular people can be based.
Another great column, Cathryn. Keep up the good work. ;-)
Again, was adoption not an option?
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.