[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.

[RAT Patrol]

Why does everyone treat morality like a bad thing?

[RAT Patrol]

Oh yeah, and it looks to me like everyone in politics has their own rooftop to shout from. We're not unique in that.

[k2blader]

... too much time is spent on arguing about why abortion is wrong morally instead of why abortion is wrong logically.

Stating that abortion is morally wrong is not logical?

It seems that the mainstream religious pro-life movement is not so clear when it comes to reasons not to have an abortion beyond the basic arguments that it’s a sin and you’ll go straight to hell.

Is it sinful to murder? Yes. Will one go to hell for it ("it" being murder or any other sin)? Depends on whether or not one has accepted Christ as personal Saviour.

... sometimes, despite the rightness of the intentions, morality has to be left out of the game. Morality doesn’t bind everyone together. The only thing that does that is humanness and the logic of protecting ourselves.

Emphatically disagree.

Morality is the foundation of the pro-Life argument. It is because abortion is immoral that negative consequences follow.

[Psalm 73]

"...foolish and ineffective for the pro-life movement to only use the morality argument to people who don’t share their morals."

Who does not share the view that murder (being the taking of an innocent human life) is wrong?
If we do not argue that murder is a moral wrong, then why is murder wrong?

[ModelBreaker]

Nice article. The argument from logic works when speaking to a particular woman about having an abortion. EG You will have an increase in breast cancer, suicide, and depression risk if you get an abortion.

But it carries little weight on the macro-level argument that abortion should be illegal. Without morality, abortion becomes just another choice where the risks (TO THE MOTHER, ONLY) are weighed against the benefits (TO THE MOTHER ONLY)--somewhat akin to a young woman deciding whether to use sunblock at the beach. Sure, her skin cancer risk goes up but, on the other hand, she will look great for her date next Friday with a tan.

Once morality is out of the equation, a life and death decision is trivialized. People who will not buy the moral argument will rarely weigh future risks very seriously and will weigh the immediate inconvenience of a baby very highly. These people are lost to society and God until the moral issue becomes important to them.

So the practical approach may save a few lives at the margin. But only the moral approach can stop the holocaust.

[RAT Patrol]

Perhaps I need the definition of "shouting from the rooftop."

[rhema]

What about the increased risk of breast cancer in women who have abortions? Why don’t we hear more about that? What about the risk of complications later in life with other pregnancies? You have to research to even find something mentioned about any of this. The pro-life movement should be front and center, shouting the statistics to the world. Instead, they use Biblical quotes and morality to argue their point.

Many of us pro-lifers are trying to get the news out, but there's a conspiracy of silence (the mainstream media; politicians --notably the Democrat party, which won't even link Democrats for Life on its web site; apostate churches that falsely bear the name of Christ) when it comes to disseminating articles like The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics Trumped Science and Informed Consent and Induced Abortion and Risk of Later Premature Births.

[Lorianne]

Good article Cathryn.

Have you heard of these groups? They make logic based non-religious (though not necessarily non-moral) arguments against abortion as well.

Feminists & Nonviolence Studies Association
http://www.fnsa.org/

Pro-Life athiests:
http://www.gurlpages.com/lifegurl/atheism.html
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

Gays and Lesbians for Life:
http://www.plagal.org/

Liberatarians for Life:
http://www.l4l.org/

Feminists for Life (I know you've hearf of this one)
http://www.feministsforlife.org/

[AnnaZ]

It seems that the mainstream religious pro-life movement is not so clear when it comes to reasons not to have an abortion beyond the basic arguments that it’s a sin and you’ll go straight to hell. Too much time is spent on the consequences of abortion and not enough time is spent convincing people why they shouldn’t have one in the first place.

 

I'm sorry, but I see this as a straw man argument, and do not agree with it all.

 

Even here on FR, where there are exceptionally passionate pro-life posters, I don't recall reading a "you'll go to hell" argument. The clarion call that I read far more often is the equating of abortion with murder -- which, if one wants to use logic solely, is incontrovertible, especially if less emotion-laden language is used. A life begun is ended. That's the big consequence.

 

The "it's a sin/you'll go to hell" argument is, in my experience, a phrase put into the mouths of pro-lifers by their detractors, mostly just to make them appear simple, dismissable. And while I will accept that that message has been blared on a sidewalk somewhere, I disagree that it is the most strident anti-abortion cry.

[BamaGirl]

Dear Cathryn,

You're a student? Wow, that is impressive -- I thought you were a professional from the quality of your articles! Good job! Please sign me up to your ping list.

Thanks,
BamaGirl

[Lorianne]

Another I believe very compelling argument against abortion that is that it promotes inequality of women in society. Indeed this inequality was confirmed and ACCEPTED by feminists when they contend that having a child and having an occupation are mutually exclusive (and will always remain so). By accepting that bearing a child puts women in an unequal economic/social position (relative to men who have children) feminists are part of the "patriarchial" system they supposedly oppose.

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!

[William McKinley]

Interesting article. There are a few things at play here that deserve examination.

The crux of the issue is, how can the prolife movement more effectively convince others to agree with it? Or stated slightly differently, how can the prolife movement sell others on the value of prolife principles?

There is a general sales principle that says to speak the language of your target audience. If one wants to speak to a Frenchman, one should speak French. Even if the target understands more than one language, the target will be most accepting of arguments presented well in their native tongue. If one wants to convince those who are not currently part of the prolife movement, one should speak their language. Making religious arguments to an atheist or an agnostic is simply not going to work. That is common sense, which naturally means that too often it is not followed. Religious conservatives would be more effective prolife advocates if they kept this in mind.

There is another aspect of this, however, that can only be the onus of those in the prolife movement who are not Religious conservatives. Those who are prolife for reasons other than religion are going to be more naturally conversant in the other reasons for being prolife, since those are their reasons. Going back to the sales analogy, if a software shop wants to sell a web application solution to a customer, they will find the greatest chance of success sending someone who has a background in web applications than if they send someone who does not. The groups you identified outside of the religious prolifers need to have leaders step forward and become more forceful advocates. Religious prolifers can learn to speak the lingo of the non-religious, but they will always be faced with the handicap of being 'different' than those they are trying to sway. People are generally more succeptible to persuasion from their own than from outsiders.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Logically,

1. The baby in the womb is alive and meets all the medical and scientific terms of life.

2. The baby in the womb it is human, to argue otherwise is as stupid and illogical as to argue that the moon is made of green cheese.

3. The word "fetus" is a Latin word for child. It is not a medical term for an unborn blob of tissue.

4. To abort it requires that you kill it. If you kill a fetus you kill a child.

5. The intentional killing of a human with forethought and a completele disregard for life is 1st degree murder.

6. The Constitution protects the unborn. Just read it. right there at the top.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

7. Our posterity are those yet to be born. Therefore they have constitutional protection under the 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.

So, logically, killing an unborn baby is both illegal and unconstitutional.

[Tribune7]

I would think the first step is getting rid of Roe. All that requires is a respect for the Constitution. You can even believe that abortion should be legal.

I'll work with you and save the fight for the state legislature -- where it belongs.

[Ohioan]

You make some excellent points. My effort to teach the movement tactics may be explored at:

The Abortion Debate.

We are both, probably, wasting our time, however. I fear that too many on our side simply seek a feel good sense of their own moral superiority, to want to actually approach the issue tactically, as opposed to emotionally. (Maybe that is being unkind, but some of them sure do not understand the art of persuading the not already committed.)

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Sparta]

Thanks for this article. This is the first one of yours I've read. You nailed it. We have to rationally debate abortion and secure as many allies as we can to defeat the pro-aborts. Right now, the perception is the pro-aborts debate the issue logically and us pro-lifers are trying to shove our morality in society's collective face.

[Pro-Bush]

As long as there is a strong Pro-Bush movement the Pro-Life movement will thrive.

[Cultural Jihad]

It is so essential that the right-to-life movement in America galvanize behind the idea the logic, not morality, will be what wins the day in this fight, because sometimes, despite the rightness of the intentions, morality has to be left out of the game. Morality doesn’t bind everyone together.

Everyone is obligated to adhere to the kindness of religious morality, regardless of their beliefs. Why not advocate that people not use beliefs when arguing against murder or rape or robbery? After all, not everyone agrees that murder or rape or robbery are wrong.

[Long Cut]

A good post, Ms. Crawford! Whilst pro-choice myself, I agree with much of what you wrote, as it applies to arguments and debates far beyond that of abortion.

It seems that too often in disagreements, one or the other side gives in to the temptation to paint a set of horns and a tail upon those on the other side they cannot convince, as we've seen on this thread. Liberals, as we all know, do this frequently, I.E., "How can you be soooo cold hearted, to make the elderly go without prscription drugs? You conservatives must be EEEEEEVVVIILLLL!"

I am a longtime conservative, military member (Active Duty), pro-gun rights, anti-tax, pro fiscal responsibility. Yet, because I do not share the zeal of those who would, along with the Left, regulate BEHAVIOR which harms no other, I regularly get hammered...by folks I agree with on most other things, and whom I regard as decent, caring people!

Sorry, but calling honest, decent debate adversaries "baby murderers" or "pro-serial killers" is in no way going to convince them to do anything but ignore you. So too is attacking with insulting, callous rhetoric and buzzwords those women who have had to make the sad, tragic choice of abortion.