I am new to the pro-life movement so I guess I can't really say on that end, though it was a success for converting me. I think we can do better, though. As I've explained numerous times.

pip *applause!*

I actually just got involved with Operation Outcry and am excited beyond belief over the pro life movement in 2007! The goal of Operation Outcry is to collect one million testimonies from women and men hurt by abortion. We are just getting started in 2008! Can you feel it?

"Can you feel it?"

No.

Read Andrew Sullivan's blog today about Juno...

Is Juno Pro Life?
Many dissents from Ross. Matt Zeitlin:

The reason Juno is able to go through with the pregnancy is the same reason she is able to openly contemplate abortion. It's because everyone close to her is incredibly supportive of whatever choices she makes.

Oliver Willis concurs. Publius makes a point I've long tried to emphasize:

If progressives were convinced that individuals would retain the freedom to make such complex and personal decisions themselves, they would be more open to the arguments of the 'lonely vigil.' Once progressives are convinced that teenagers will not be coerced by threat of prosecution to give birth against their will, I think pro-life advocates would be surprised how dramatically progressive attitudes would shift.

"If progressives were convinced that individuals would retain the freedom to make such complex and personal decisions themselves, they would be more open to the arguments of the 'lonely vigil.' Once progressives are convinced that teenagers will not be coerced by threat of prosecution to give birth against their will, I think pro-life advocates would be surprised how dramatically progressive attitudes would shift."

--------

HUH????? There is not one part of this that I understand. Hal...can you shed some light on what the point here is?

If someone wants to murder a child, even their own, then everyone around them including the government should NOT SUPPORT the murder of that child.

I hate with a hot hot heat those who say "I support you whatever you decide to do." HOW GROSSLY IMMORAL!!

We need to send the clear message that if someone murders their child that we will never support them doing such a vile thing and that we will have nothing to do with them ever again.

Carla,

Best of luck to you! I am very encouraged by the pro-life movement. Before any of us get too discouraged, keep in mind that the movement to abolish slavery in this country took decades of struggle, setbacks, disappointments, stagnation, and finally success. Did the abolitionists throw their hands up in despair? Thankfully no.
To show you how desperate abortion advocates are, the blog "campaign for free, safe, legal abortion" compiled a list of women who died from complications of illegal abortion, leaving behind children and loved ones. So help me Carla, its first entry predates the American Civil War! The last was the year prior to the assassination of President Kennedy. Just how desperate are these people? If women were dying by the thousands from illegal abortion prior to Roe v Wade, wouldn't they have more up to date names and not require the services of archeologists to find these women?
Someone should remind abortion advocates that in this era, people also routinely died of scarlett fever, diptheria, measles, pneumonia, childbirth, and ear infections. Dying of old age was rare, and surviving childhood was almost miraculous. PC people seem stuck in a medical time warp, unable to comprehend that one cannot compare the medical care of 150, 100, 50, or even 10 years ago to today.
Christina, who often posts here, posted a list of women who have died of legal abortion, many of whom also left behind children, families, and loved ones but who for some reason are not considered worthy of concern, and would not have been mentioned on this blog had it not been for Christina. Given their deaths have no political expediency for the PC movement, one can see why. And the children, families, and loved ones they left behind?

As long as abortino is legal in the USA then things are very bad, but when we look back the major turning point for reestablishing the sanctity of life will be seen to be the response to the PBA Ban by Colorado Right To Life and those who signed the open letter to Dobson and the beginning of American Right To Life which came from that group of amazing pro-life leaders (Enyart, Rohrbaugh, Keyes, Brown, etc.).

The negative response to the PBA ban is a turning point? How is opposing a ban on a gruesome three-day long abortion procedure that kills unborn babies helping the pro-life movement. The PBA ban was the first to stop a form of abortion, it resulted in excellent educational opportunities that solidified public perspective on the pro-life side, and led to many more laws that have alredy saved lives. The debate in the Senate alone caused one couple to choose life when Rick Santorum talked about how the abortion kills babies. If that was the ONLY thing the ban accomplished that's plenty.

I stand corrected. It was someone on Christina's blog, not Christina, who posted the list of women dead from legal abortion.

AB Laura, you can go to the Blog and read the whole thing in context (through the link at The Daily Dish). In my opinion he's saying if we (pro-choicers) were confident that abortion would never be outlawed, we would be much open to the "abortion is a bad thing" argument, and less antagonistic to efforts to talk women out of having abortions. Not entirely my view, but I thought it interesting. I have stated here in the past that if the Prolife position was "we don't want to make it illegal, but we would like to talk you out of it," I'd have few objections. It's the government prohibiting (and prosecuting) in the area of abortion that most offends me.

Hal,

If abortion was illegal, with no possibility of becoming legal, WE'D be more apt to sit down and "discuss" the reasons that you think it's right.

It works both ways.

Hal,
yeah, still don't get it. Last time I checked, abortion was legal & no one was prosecuted for having one, we would LOVE to talk people out of them, but look....still having them!

"Christina, who often posts here, posted a list of women who have died of legal abortion..."

Can you tell me what Christina's blog is? It's not that I'm interested in the names exactly, but I am interested in where the names are documented (for fact checking purposes).

Steven, excellent post about the PBA ban. Thank you.

your attempts to talk people out of abortion gets some people nervous (and angry) because they believe (correctly) that your ultimate goal is to make it illegal. We discussed this several months ago, when I wondered if any prolifers took the position that "abortion is wrong but should not be illegal." I learned that, at least here, no one thought that way.

All this guy was saying (If I understand him) is that people would be less defensive about a position that stated "abortion is wrong but should be legal" then they are about "abortion is wrong and should be illegal." Talk me out of it if you can, but don't take away my "right" to have an abortion if that's my decision at the end of our discussion. (I put "right" in quotation marks to avoid a fight over that issue at this time)

Steve: "How is opposing a ban on a gruesome three-day long abortion procedure that kills unborn babies helping the pro-life movement."

Steve, I agree with you. Yes, we should work toward the day when the unborn are protected by law, but in the meantime we have to do what we can do work from other end. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act said that if a child is born, she must be protected. Did that save many unborn children? Probably not, but it drew a line in the sand. Same thing with the PBA ban. It was a restriction on abortion....the first since Roe v. Wade. Now the court transcripts are on-line for the world to see not only how PBA is done, but also how the equally as horrific D&E is done as well. There wouldn't have been this evidence if we hadn't fought for the PBA ban. So let's use those transcripts and show the world the truth!

I guess that's my point: The PBA helped draw attention to late-term abortion, changed hearts against abortion, and helped shine a light on the dark deeds.

Hal: "your attempts to talk people out of abortion gets some people nervous (and angry)"

Kind of like how nervous and angry the slaveholders got when the abolitionists tried to persuade Americans against slavery?

probably similar Ellie, but of course I don't agree with the comparison. Got to run. Happy new year everyone.

Ellie,

If you go to www.operationrescue.org and scroll down to the second post(its about violence against a pro-life demonstrator) and click on the comments you will see a comment from Christina. Just click her name and it will take you to her blog. Scroll down and you will find the names as well as the link to cemetary of choice. I tried other ways to get to the blog and couldn't.

Bethany said:

"Steven, excellent post about the PBA ban. Thank you."

FALSE!!

Hey Steven, thanx for showing us that you still have yet to read the PBA Ban majority ruling.

The so-called ban which is actually an abortion manual that simply says that the abortionist must leave the baby around 4 more inches inside the mother when he kills the baby makes it clear that if the abortionist performs the "banned" procedure by mistake then there is no crime.

How can anyone know if he did it by mistake or not!?!? You can't know unless you are recording it what he does each time.

Its basicly the word of the abortionist against.....no one!

It was a horrendous waste of $250 million.

BOTTOM LINE:

The PBA Ban will not save one single baby from being aborted as Dobson came to realize after the open letter to him was published.

"Ending partial-birth abortion... does not save a single human life." - Dr. James Dobson

Ellie, you made some great points as well. :) Absolutely, we must do what we can, when we can. Eventually we will see abortion illegal again.

Mary, thanks for pointing me to the Christina's blog.

Bethany, thanks. :-)

Carla,

Best of luck to you! I am very encouraged by the pro-life movement. Before any of us get too discouraged, keep in mind that the movement to abolish slavery in this country took decades of struggle, setbacks, disappointments, stagnation, and finally success. Did the abolitionists throw their hands up in despair? Thankfully no.
To show you how desperate abortion advocates are, the blog "campaign for free, safe, legal abortion" compiled a list of women who died from complications of illegal abortion, leaving behind children and loved ones. So help me Carla, its first entry predates the American Civil War! The last was the year prior to the assassination of President Kennedy. Just how desperate are these people? If women were dying by the thousands from illegal abortion prior to Roe v Wade, wouldn't they have more up to date names and not require the services of archeologists to find these women?
Someone should remind abortion advocates that in this era, people also routinely died of scarlett fever, diptheria, measles, pneumonia, childbirth, and ear infections. Dying of old age was rare, and surviving childhood was almost miraculous. PC people seem stuck in a medical time warp, unable to comprehend that one cannot compare the medical care of 150, 100, 50, or even 10 years ago to today.
Christina, who often posts here, posted a list of women who have died of legal abortion, many of whom also left behind children, families, and loved ones but who for some reason are not considered worthy of concern, and would not have been mentioned on this blog had it not been for Christina. Given their deaths have no political expediency for the PC movement, one can see why. And the children, families, and loved ones they left behind?

Posted by: Mary at January 1, 2008 4:23 PM
...............................................................

Women died due to gestation by the droves. That was a given back in the good ol' days. That women were desperate enough to seek out illegal abortions speaks to the desperation of the times.
If you read your history, you will find that the emancipation of women and the women's movement was a direct and natural result of the Abolitionist movement. Women and children were legally non persons. In church, 'morally' non persons.

Medical doctors wrested away the work of midwives for profit with little regard to the women pregnant or their possible offspring. Ever wonder why medical science didn't concern themselves with fetii until women were at work? Or churches for that matter? Can you say the almighty dollar? How much does formula and diapers cost? Car seats, mommy and me 'classes'? Like women need men/government/churches to teach them how to be mothers. @@
Encouraging gestation is a big money maker. Both for the 'baby' industries and churches hoping for more financial contributers.

In your opinion, are the movement and innocent lives better off now than they were a year ago? Or worse off? Or perhaps you will only see good when abortion is made illegal.
...............................................

My issue is domestic violence. How do you believe that restricting women's rights to their own bodies will end the plague of hatred and violence directed towards women in this country?

Sally, 10:16pm

Yes I'm aware women died from gestation. They also died from diptheria, scarlett fever, and any number of diseases and injuries treatable today. Yes women were desperate enough to seek illegal abortions, but people have always been desperate enough to do any number of things that society cannot condone.
Yes Sally I have read my history. Our feminist foremothers played a very active role in abolishing slavery, promoting the rights of women, ending child labor exploitation and opposing abortion.

True, doctors did take over from midwives, and the maternal deathrate skyrocketed. That's because doctors went from the autopsy chambers into the maternity wards. I believe a doctor named Himmelweis(?)someone please correct me if I don't have the name quite right, was hounded to an asylum for suggesting that doctors wash their hands before attending deliveries. Doctors you see did not have germs and couldn't possibly spread infection.

As for profit, I understand the abortion industry has raked in anywhere from 500 million to one billion dollars a year.

Ellie, 9:53PM

You're very welcome.

"How do you believe that restricting women's rights to their own bodies will end the plague of hatred and violence directed towards women in this country?"

Give me a break, you're nuttier than a damn fruitcake Sally.

The PBA Ban will not save one single baby from being aborted as Dobson came to realize after the open letter to him was published.

"Ending partial-birth abortion... does not save a single human life." - Dr. James Dobson

:: laughing :: Amazing - I agree with Zeke. Dobson is enough of a dummy that I'm surprised he could ever figure this out, but still - it's correct, it just banned a precedure that is sometimes the best one. There are still others when needed.

Doug

LOL! "The best one"

....Heaven help us.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Images/PBA_Images_Heathers_Place.htm

Zeke again prefers to engage in personal atacks instead of friendly argument... but I'll respond anyway.

Yes, Zeke, I have read the ruling on numerous occasions.

And since I have read it, I know that it bans at least one abortion procedure (a start, we can work to ban more). And as another person wrote, it helps us educate about how abortion kills children by showing what abortion really is...

But more than that, I also know that it allows states to pass more pro-life laws that reduce abortions. I also know that it talks about how abortion hurts women and sets up another possible reason for overturning Roe.

With all due respect to Dobson, he's wrong on this one point (tbough he still supports the ban in general -- something you left out). The ban stops more than 1,000 PBAs annually in New Jersey, another 300+ in Louisiana, and those done in other states.

Fortunately 99% of the pro-life movement recognizes prohibiting these abortions (and the other benefits of the ban) as a good thing.

THANK you so much, Steven. You have no idea how much your input here is appreciated.

I didn't know the exact numbers but I did know that the PBA ban is making a BIG difference- to say that not one baby has been saved as a result of the ban is a lie!

...also, if it wasn't saving babies lives, we wouldn't hear abortion supporters constantly talking about how bad they feel the ban is.

Quite frankly I don't think the abortion movement seems to be doing anything. I look online, and all I see is just propaganda. I'm a staunch pro-lifer, so quite obviously I'd like to see more being done to combat abortion. I'm not talking about holding signs in front of an abortion clinic, or participating in a rally or protest or what not. I'm talking about some kinda lobbying in congress, get more of pro-life people elected. Invest into science groups who'll help us make clear that the moment of conception is when life begins.

I don't see anything happening. All it seems like is a bunch of conservative religious people sitting around the table arguing about how immoral everyone else is.

Abortion shouldn't be a religious debate. The second we make it into one, we've already lost. Pro-choice has given us the advantage by attempting to take away the humanity of the unborn, by attempting to make a subjective conclusion regarding what constitutes humanity!

We need some more publicity, get on some news shows and argue against pro-choicers, the best of our arguments against the best of theirs. I don't think they can win, I really don't.

Also, I think we need more government statistics, accurate ones, to find out just how many people have abortions, just how many abortion clinics there are, and other various statistical data that we might need in an argument. Getting it ourselves leads to a trap, because people will believe our info is biased. If we get the government to do it for us, it has the best chance of being unbiased.

I can only hope that 2008 becomes a great year for the prolife movement. Abortion is a lot like Slavery. It's only a matter of time before it becomes an untenable reality to continue.

2008 will be a bad year for RTLs because the American people will elect Hillary Clinton president.

2009 will be a bad year for RTLs because President Hillary Clinton will sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law.

Then we had better become more active, on a national level, focus on developing our arguments against abortion, and arguing vocally against it, where the entire country can hear.

You sound like you're just going to give up.

FellRain,

SoMG is not giving up. He is prochoice and celebrating the above scenario.

Doug: "...it just banned a precedure that is sometimes the best one. There are still others when needed."

Yes, the "other" method is the D&E. This testimony is brought to you buy the "useless" PBA ban. From "Day 3" of the New York trials:

"Q. Do you have an opinion, Dr. Johnson, as to which of the two D&E variations, the intact or the dismemberment variation, may best facilitate the extraction of the fetal skull during an
abortion procedure?
A. I think that the intact procedure is actually developed in part to deal with the problem of the
fetal skull. When one does a D&E, technically one of the challenges is to remove the fetal skull, partly because it is relatively large, partly because it is relatively calcified, and it is difficult to grasp on occasion. So one of the common technical challenges of a dismemberment D&E is what is called a free-floating head or a head that has become disattached and needs to be removed. This can lead to more passages of instruments through the cervix. And technically it is difficult to grasp the head; it is round, it slips out of the instruments that we generally use. Either those instruments or the head can be extruded outside the uterus and cause perforation."
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/pba/pbaban.shtml

FellRain,
I am sorry you are feeling discouraged. Maybe you are thinking of getting involved yourself?

www.lifenews.com
http://all.org/stopp
www.operationoutcry.org
Just a couple of my favorites. Take heart.

"We need some more publicity, get on some news shows and argue against pro-choicers, the best of our arguments against the best of theirs. I don't think they can win, I really don't. "

It's kind of hard to get on news shows when the MSM is full of pro-aborts. They're not on our side. Fell-rain, as a pro-lifer, you need to do your homework, many of those things you mention are being done or are available. pro-aborts ddon't care that life begins at conception, they believe boldily autonomy gives them the right to kill the unborn.

I think a different question should be asked regarding the PBA Ban...would more lives have been saved had the millions/tens of millions spent on it been used differently? Think of the army of canvassers that could be bought with that (changing minds door to door), or how many 2D/4D Ultrasound machines could have been bought, or how many people could be trained and fully employed as sidewalk counsellors. As we've seen with the 40 Days for Life campaign, it doesn't take a massive piece of legislation to make Planned Parenthood worried...

Jasper, you wrote: "pro-aborts ddon't care that life begins at conception, they believe boldily autonomy gives them the right to kill the unborn."

I'm glad to see you understand that so clearly. Abortion rights do NOT require fetal non-personhood or fetal non-life or fetal inferiority, only maternal body-ownership.

Phil, what makes you think PP is worried by the 40 Days for Life Campaign?

Abortion rights..Ha..In short that means a "right" to murder without punishment.

SoMG wrote: "I'm glad to see you understand that so clearly. Abortion rights do NOT require fetal non-personhood or fetal non-life or fetal inferiority, only maternal body-ownership."

I can actually prove that a fetus is a person, and thus prove that abortion is wrong and illegal. No prochoice person has been able to refute my argument, nor will they.

Slave owners thought that their ownership was absolute too. It is no greater than yours.

Thanks for the links Carla, I will. ^_^

Heather, it means a right to kill, but not a right to murder.

FellRain, you wrote: "I can actually prove that a fetus is a person,..."

Yes, this is true, BUT you also wrote:

"...and thus prove that abortion is wrong and illegal. "

This part is wrong. Abortion is neither wrong nor illegal, EVEN THOUGH the fetus is a person.

Once again, abortion rights do NOT require fetal non-personhood or fetal non-life or fetal inferiority, only maternal body-ownership.

SoMG I have wanted to talk with a bodily autonomy proponent about this. The fetus doesn't actually violate a woman's bodily autonomy. The fetus never crosses a barrier and enters the woman's body. At no point does the fetus exist outside the woman's body and then enters it. They don't cross that barrier that separates an individual from another individual( as a man that rapes a woman does).

I know that people aren't required to give someone a kidney for instance. However, people have been charged with depraved indifference for not talking measures to assist someone in a life threatening situation.

Heather, it means a right to kill, but not a right to murder.

Posted by: SoMG at January 2, 2008 11:51 AM-------------------- No difference.

Carrie, the unwanted fetus violates the pregnant woman's body-ownership (or "bodily autonomy", if you prefer that term) by taking material from her bloodstream without her continuing consent, and by subjecting her to labor and delivery without her consent.

SOMG, why did she consent to sex? Happy New Year.

SoMG, wouldn't that imply that the fetus is consciously taking the material and consciously subjecting her to labor and delivery? That the fetus made the choice to do so?

2008 will be a wonderful year for women because the American people will elect Hillary Clinton president.

2009 will be a wonderful year for women because President Hillary Clinton will sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law.

****************
Simple fact, the anti-choice crowd has been dwindling in numbers and effectiveness. Even Bush has done very little to support your cause and there are no *electable* helpers for you out there. Over the next 8 years the Supreme Court will be swung over to the prochoice side.

The energy used to try to restrict women's rights should be funneled into sex education for those who need it and WHEN they need it. PREVENTION is key. You are not going to stop sex, you CAN stop pregnancies. If you believe anything else then you can continue paddling your "fail-boat". Enjoy your trip.

SoMG I have wanted to talk with a bodily autonomy proponent about this. The fetus doesn't actually violate a woman's bodily autonomy. The fetus never crosses a barrier and enters the woman's body. At no point does the fetus exist outside the woman's body and then enters it. They don't cross that barrier that separates an individual from another individual( as a man that rapes a woman does).

Carrie, if the unborn were not inside the womb, then what you say would be true.

Agreed on some of the things you say, but "inside the woman's body" is the case, and you bet that her bodily autonomy is involved with either allowing her the freedom to decide whether to continue a pregnancy or not, as well as with allowing her to decide whether to end a pregnancy or not.

Doug

One more great thing that happened this year...I totally forgot till I was reminded by a STOPP email:

,b>Clinic income declines for first time in 50 years!

Planned Parenthood’s image problem is affecting its bottom line. According to Planned Parenthood’s 2005-2006 annual report, its clinic income actually went down $1.7 million from the previous year. Although this is not a very large decline, it is the first year-to-year decline for Planned Parenthood in over 50 years.

Oops....last year!

@Doug. SoMG anyone at all on The PC side,

please answer this ... why are rights special (especially body autonomy) if the person who has these 'rights' is of no value? Can having a single right impart such a strong value that Doug says "Your wish is my command." and SoMG is so enamoured of body autonomy that it justifies his activities. I'll repeat: How can body-autonomy have such an almost sacred value and at the very same time be in a human with no value (except to pay the abortion fee)?

The Worthy John M., Emeritus: please answer this ... why are rights special (especially body autonomy) if the person who has these 'rights' is of no value? Can having a single right impart such a strong value that Doug says "Your wish is my command." and SoMG is so enamoured of body autonomy that it justifies his activities. I'll repeat: How can body-autonomy have such an almost sacred value and at the very same time be in a human with no value (except to pay the abortion fee)?

Hold on here a minute, Bucko. Who says "the person is of no value"? Do you really think that I am saying the pregnant woman is "of no value" that she should not have bodily autonomy? Heck - that's just the opposite of what I am saying.

For the unborn, I grant you that some are valued exceedingly highly, wanted to a vast extent, etc. That does not mean that every pregnancy is wanted, of course.

For pregnant women, it's not that "their wish is my command." It is that I'd much rather leave things to them rather than have others dictate to them in this matter.

I'm not saying that anything is "sacred." I'm saying I'd rather have women to keep the freedom they have, here, rather than have every single pregnancy continued, seeing as it would be against the will of many women.

Doug

@Doug.

but a 'wanting' is but an illusion. Get 1000 or 10,000 people together to move a single piece of paper by 'wanting'/willing it to move. I'll bet that it won't budge. Someone, somewhere HAS to translate this desire into concrete actuality. Enigma, faced with the same impotency-of-desire amended her discourse to a woman and her agent. Actual abortions are never completed by the woman alone. Hence, the practical part of inclusion of agents in this discussion.

Abortion is not (and never has been) only about a woman's intentions or inclinations. Perhaps, then severely leaning on abortion providers is legislatively the way to go.

Because to get these wishes actualized is not in the constitution, perhaps the main focus of PL work should be here. The idea would be similar to curbing prostitution - focus not on the hookers, but on the pimps. Or, as in 'drugs' ... focus on the 'pusher' rather than the 'user'.

but a 'wanting' is but an illusion. Get 1000 or 10,000 people together to move a single piece of paper by 'wanting'/willing it to move. I'll bet that it won't budge. Someone, somewhere HAS to translate this desire into concrete actuality. Enigma, faced with the same impotency-of-desire amended her discourse to a woman and her agent. Actual abortions are never completed by the woman alone. Hence, the practical part of inclusion of agents in this discussion.

John, I'm largely a skeptic on psychokinesis, but we do act on desire, we do effect desire, "make it concrete," etc., all the time. Desire is not "impotent," it is the motivator in the first place. Among those things we can do, we do what we want the most, or that for which we have the least distaste.

That others are involved in abortion is just a practical matter - the difficulties of seeing and operating for the individual and avoiding risk are well-nigh insurmountable, as with an endless variety of surgical procedures. No big Voodoo here, just that we sometimes need other people to do things for us. Were it possible and safe for a woman to "push a button" and end an unwanted pregnancy, it would happen frequently (given the number of unwanted pregnancies) and it'd be "completed by the woman alone."
......

Abortion is not (and never has been) only about a woman's intentions or inclinations. Perhaps, then severely leaning on abortion providers is legislatively the way to go.

I don't think so. Even were I a pro-life strategist, I'd think it's farfetched that it'd be an effective tactic. Either a given abortion is going to be legal or illegal. What, beyond that, do you see as "leaning on abortion providers"?
......

Because to get these wishes actualized is not in the constitution, perhaps the main focus of PL work should be here. The idea would be similar to curbing prostitution - focus not on the hookers, but on the pimps. Or, as in 'drugs' ... focus on the 'pusher' rather than the 'user'.

My opinion is the best hope for pro-lifers is to get Roe versus Wade overturned. Presumably, the states would then make their own laws on abortion, some obviously restricting it much more, some obviously leaving it the way it is.

Doug