The 1970’s called – they want their arguments back
by Kelli
There has been quite a learning curve in the pro-life movement since 1973. At first, many abortion opponents were driven by anger.
Abortion was now legal and innocent babies were dying every day. Women were being viewed as murderers rather than secondary victims of abortion. Extremists were blowing up clinics and shooting abortionists rather than viewing them also as human beings with the right to life and potential to change and repent. Slowly but surely the pro-life movement has risen up to meet the needs and countered every argument that can be used to attempt to justify an abortion.
Although there are still some radicals out there, now more than ever, the unconditional love of our loud majority is blossoming, not only toward the women and children in need but also toward those who rally support for abortion rights and those who facilitate abortions….
There is not an argument out there today that is used to justify abortion… which we don’t have the means to remedy. Yet the radical feminists, political figures who support abortion, and those who profit financially from it are still using those same untrue arguments that were initially used to legalize abortion.
They are still screaming that women have no rights over their reproduction. The truth is that women have rights over their reproduction that they ought not to. No one should have the right to decide the date of death for another human being.
So next time you hear an abortion supporter proclaim that pro-lifers don’t care about women, you can let them know that we are here to offer real solutions to women and their children.
We are winning this fight and have overturned their arguments with real solutions and we will not rest until all human life is protected and viewed as having intrinsic value.
~ Meagan Weber, “The 1970’s Called – They Want Their Arguments Back,” The Guiding Star Project, January 19
[Photo of March for Life 2015 via The Daily Caller]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
This!
The pro-life movement has kept up-to-date with science, info-tech, culture, law, charity healthcare, and young people…. while the abortion-feminists are still waving their coat hangars.
Posts like this are the reason why Jill’s blog earned the Digital Pro-Life Pioneer Award.
Thanks, Kelli! Thanks, Jill!
Oh please, anti-choice rhetoric and platitudes 101.
Women were being viewed as murderers rather than secondary victims of abortion – both views are invalid.
those same untrue arguments that were initially used to legalize abortion. – not the ones that matter.
The truth is that women have rights over their reproduction that they ought not to. – so they should only have partial rights over their reproduction? Just some? That says it all. There is no justifiable basis whatsoever on which you can restrict womens rights over their reproduction
you can let them know that we are here to offer real solutions to women and their children. – well, the solutions you approve of anyway. The ones you would dictate.
We are winning this fight and have overturned their arguments with real solutions – your solutions =/= real solutions. Your solutions =/= the best solutions for others.
and we will not rest until all human life is protected and viewed as having intrinsic value. – oh well, at least you’re against the death penalty.
I always imagine Reality wears a leisure suit — like Disco Stu.
Nope, I don’t even own a suit Del.
I used to wear nice Italian suits for business but I donated the last couple to charity just recently.
Neat casual is my attire nowadays.
What about you?
…and at the finish line, the GOP comes through for pro-lifers again!
What are the odds of a veto Ex-GOP?
What was passed has a 99.9% chance of being vetoed.
If it did go into law, it would have a pretty high chance of being thrown out by the supremes.
The other part – the 20 week ban – who knows – the GOP scrapped it. If only they gave more money…
Well…the 20 week part is based on bad information. Maybe if they’d gone for 30 weeks, or maybe 28.
Sounds like the female republican politicians cost more than the males eh.
I’m sure GOPers are back right now figuring out how to take Women’s right to vote away so that this doesn’t happen again.
Meh, that’s easy. Just make it illegal for women to work and then state that only those who pay taxes can vote. Women and poor people – gone.
GOP is working hard on poor people and not voting. My guess is we’ll see a strong continuation of bills ‘limiting’ voting.
I enjoy the middle class tax proposals and how that’s making conservatives squirm. I got banned from Redstate simply for mentioning middle class help on a thread of the state of the union. Seriously.
I posted “Surprised that nobody has said the words ‘Middle Class” anywhere in this post or comments…does a buzzer sound off if a party pays attention to the middle class? Does something bad happen?
As somebody in the middle class – I’m interested to see more details.”
After a reply stating that taxing the rich will dry up investments and kill jobs, I posted this – which got be banned:
“Taxes have been higher – taxes have been lower – I think if conservatives continue to only believe the money of the rich has an impact – which is exactly what you’re doing – that conservatives are going to continue to become a smaller and smaller group.
I think it’s nice to see somebody pay attention to the middle class. The GOP ignore the middle for the rich. The Dems ignore the middle for the poor. Nice to see some good thoughts. I think the GOP is going to screw this one up.”
Democrats still support abortion, based on outmoded arguments that have not advanced in 42 years.
It is a shame Ex-GOP, that so many people seem to think that making the rich richer will improve things for the poor.
No Del, democrats support women. The core arguments, the arguments that matter, are far from outmoded. They are still relevant.
Abortion makes abortionists richer. And the Democrats want to keep giving our money to the abortion industry.
And the rich class, for the most part, support the Democrats.
The American public have elected Republicans. We hope they will do a better job for the poor and the middle class than Democrats have.
Funny how all this discourse reminds me of some of the arguments happening during the fight for the end of the slave trade in Wilberforce’s day.
So much callousness by so many while innocent people’s lives are at stake.
“Middle class.” “Taxes.” “Republicans.” “Democrats.” All inconsequential stuff, I’d imagine, if it were my life, or your life, immediately on the line.
Thankful for real people, who go to the front lines every day, to offer real help to women. Not through tax breaks or the government, but by offering help personally to those in need – the moms and dads and their children, born and preborn. That’s the kind of thing hopefully everyone can get behind.
Abortion makes abortionists richer. – and dentistry makes dentists richer. People get paid for working and professionals usually make good money. What’s new.
And the Democrats want to keep giving our money to the abortion industry. – both sides give money to groups that not everyone thinks they should. Big deal.
And the rich class, for the most part, support the Democrats. – I think you are mistaken.
The American public have elected Republicans. We hope they will do a better job for the poor and the middle class than Democrats have. – don’t hold your breath.
The only argument is the one that says “women have the right to control their bodies and their decision trumps everything.”. That’s it. It’s that simple.
Wrong Del – the rich are more conservative then the general public:
http://www.russellsage.org/blog/politics-wealthy-americans
The American public elected Republicans in the last election – the 46 Dems in the senate got 20 million more votes than the 54 GOPers.
“women have the right to control their bodies”
Jimmy, I agree with this 100%. The best way for a woman to control her own body if she doesn’t want a child is to be a responsible human being, either with birth control or abstinence.
The kicker is this — the baby in the womb is not the woman’s own body! If we were talking about a kidney or a lung or any other bona fide part of a woman’s body, I could agree with you. But we’re not.
Each baby has a body of his or her own, with his or her own DNA, his or her own fingerprints, his or her own blood type, and much much more. They are little people, the offspring of their parents.
Since your name is “Jimmy”, I assume you’re a man who has never carried a child in your body.
If you were a woman, you would know that each child is a separate human being.
the rich are more conservative then the general public
I don’t believe this. There are zillions of rich liberals, including George Soros, Bill Gates, the Apple people, the Clintons, the guys and gals who run the Ivy League colleges, and on and on and on and on. Check out Nancy Pelosi’s and Harry Reid’s bank accounts. Oh, and don’t forget Barak Obama.
Rich liberals tend to be extremely influential too, in media and Hollywood and other areas of society — much more so than conservatives.
Claire –
I’m okay with you going by gut feelings.
I’ll go by stats and facts.
LOL, ex-Gop — good try, but you missed. My real-life observations are not based on gut feelings. As one who has spent the majority of my life in academia, I am well aware that not only Ivy League colleges and universities are extremely liberal, but so are most other colleges and universities. There is little to no true academic freedom – political correctness reigns supreme.
You may not know this, but recent studies have shown that one reason college education has become so expensive is that colleges and universities have been steadily hiring more and more administrative positions. On many (perhaps most) campuses, administrators now outnumber students.
I find it very hard to believe that you did not already know that rich and uber-rich liberals are extremely influential in media and Hollywood and other areas of society — much more so than conservatives. Please don’t expect me to believe otherwise.
Blogs often give false and/or skewed info. That’s nothing new.
On many (perhaps most) campuses, administrators now outnumber students. – you’ll have some data to demonstrate that then? It couldn’t be difficult to produce.
I find it very hard to believe that you did not already know that rich and uber-rich liberals are extremely influential in media and Hollywood and other areas of society — much more so than conservatives. Please don’t expect me to believe otherwise. – so, gut feeling as Ex-GOP said.
Claire –
Lots of words – that’s great and stuff – but I posted an actual study – actual facts – actual information.
That wins over your gut feeling every day of the week. It just does. No question. It simply does.
Facts > Your gut feeling
Ex-Gop, your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking. What I wrote has nothing to do with “gut feelings”, and you know it.
Rich and uber-rich liberals are extremely influential in media and Hollywood and other areas of society — much more so than conservatives.
FACT, not gut feeling.
One reason college education has become so expensive is that colleges and universities have been steadily hiring more and more administrative positions. On many (perhaps most) campuses, administrators now outnumber students.
This came out in a large metro newspaper this past Sunday, January 25.
Claire
You summed up your argument that entertainment people are rich, and mostly liberal. That is the sum of what you think are facts.
“…that rich and uber-rich liberals are extremely influential in media and Hollywood and other areas of society…”
I don’t want to get into a facts vs opinions discussion here – we’re better than that.
But you’re going to need to do better than that. The rich in America are made up of more than hollywood folks. Go through yahoo finance for 10 minutes for me – look at CEO pay, and you’ll see who is rich in America – and then realize how many large companies are out there – and then realize that the scope of ‘the rich’ is a little beyond people who are on tv and movies.
Again – I”d like to comprehend some facts that you post – not your stories of watching the Globe Awards.
I just want to see the data showing that there are more administrators than students at colleges and universities. Where is it Claire?
Ex-Gop, your snotty attitude does not add any credence to your remarks.
How many movies and TV shows promote conservative values? That’s good for starters.
Do you not consider heads of movie studios and TV networks to be “CEO’s”? As well as heads of liberal college/universities, heads of liberal media companies, etc?
Reality -I’m interested as well. We hear the ratios quite often – and I’ve never heard anything like a 2:1 administrator to student ratio.
Every student gets their own administrator to pal around with!
Another issue relating to what I said about colleges/universities. The government is doing nothing to rein in such greed.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/why-top-students-are-being-rejected-by-in-state-colleges/
Claire
Facts.
Facts.
Come on – post a study.
I did.
You know what a fact is.
Please, for the love of logic.
I just don’t do well with this “I knew this guy from high school that got rich after getting hit by a UPS truck, and well, he seems to really like Obama…”
Come on – demand better arguments! Demand better logic!
I read articles in two large metro newspapers which said that the ratio was between twenty and fifty students per administrative person, depending on the curriculum and socio-economic mix of the educational establishment. Or was it three articles…
I went back and checked my emails (I regularly hear from friends, most of whom are also in academia, all over the country).
The newspaper which published the results of that study last Sunday, January 25, is the Atlanta Journal Constitution. That friend’s husband was transferred to that area last year.
I don’t have a link because one must be a subscriber to that newspaper to access such links, and I’m not one.
Non-existent then.
I hear the Kochs intend to spend $900M in 2016 after they summoned self-proclaimed contenders to sell themselves. Not that they’re powerful or anything.
RE: The 1970s Called: They want their arguments back
This is a great article. Many profound points were made.
A highly-educated and -esteemed OB/Gyn had a major part in creating those 1970s arguments. He and his NARAL cohort concocted them in the 1960s in an attempt to change the American public’s aversion to abortion. (They failed, which is why the SCOTUS handed down Roe V. Wade in January, 1973.)
That OB/Gyn, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, was chosen to head a major NYC hospital’s development of ultrasound technology during the early 1970s. By his own admission, he committed at least 75,000 abortions.
As he used the new ultrasound technology to guide him in committing abortions, his eyes were opened to the reality of the children in their mother’s wombs. He made a complete 180, becoming as passionate against abortion as he had been for it.
He authored and created the list of items below to reveal the full history of legalized abortion on demand in this country. I highly recommend them for anyone who wishes to be fully informed on this subject.
Aborting America, 1979, Doubleday & Company, Inc.: Garden City. ISBN 0-385-14461-X
The Silent Scream (1984 documentary)
The Abortion Papers: Inside the Abortion Mentality, 1984, with Adele Nathanson, Hawkes Publishing, Inc. ISBN 0-8119-0685-X
Eclipse of Reason, (1987 documentary)
The Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind, Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1996, ISBN 0-89526-463-3
The Kochs are not any wealthier than George Soros — perhaps less. Yet they get blamed for everything. More hypocrisy.
Did you get that from the same ‘source’ as your student/administrator ratio?
The Koch brothers are worth more than $100B, Soros $26.5B. David and Charles are each worth more than Soros.
Claire –
I too am interested in that administrator:student ratio.
Not non-existent at all. But it doesn’t matter what I say or how many links I post, you guys are pro-abortion, period. If either of you had carried a child in your body, you’d know better. I don’t expect to change your minds, and you’re certainly not going to change mine.
I’m not pro-abortion claire – I’m pro-life.
I’m also pro-stats – so are you saying that the admin:student ratio data you said existed doesn’t really exist?
But it doesn’t matter what I say or how many links I post, you guys are pro-abortion, period. – is that supposed to be the evidence supporting your student/admin ratio claim? Or what?
If either of you had carried a child in your body, you’d know better. – if we’d been pregnant that would prove your claims about administration numbers true? Or what?
I don’t expect to change your minds, and you’re certainly not going to change mine. – I’ll change my mind when the facts change. It’s your choice if you wish to ignore facts and cling on to what you prefer to believe.