They know abortion is wrong. They know people are finally waking up to that fact. They know that because of this, they will ultimately lose this fight. This is their attempt at a plea-bargain. I don't think we should give it to them, personally.

Peace only comes through the total defeat of your enemy and not by acquiescence to their tyranny.

The abortion movement is faltering because it is based on the lie. Let us not become smug in our progress as to do so would weaken our resolve and make us vulnerable. We must stay alert, we must not acquiesce, we must not give up, we must press on to complete victory.

To find common ground with abortion makes us complicit in every abortion. Do not be deceived.

I would venture to guess our opponents are following the advise of Don Vito Coreleone:

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer".

Don't fall for this "common ground" claptrap. Since when does your opponent reach out to you and seek common ground? When he's following the advise of Don Corleone.

Well, when you look at the actual issue being debated here, I don't think "common ground" is possible, nor do I WANT to find it. Let's see...they think it is perfectly acceptable behavior for themselves to kill their young for whatever reason they choose. I don't think that kind of thing should be acceptable, and I don't like even trying to contort my mind in such a way to try and get myself to identify with the rationale of these people, because that's how wrong abortion is.

They are reaching out with one hand to find common ground on abortion while holding a curette in the other.

I doubt any one of them would wish to be shredded to pieces like what abortionists do to the unborn.

There is no common ground in life and death. And considering the Roe case was brought up to the Supreme Court based on a lie, there's no reason to believe such lies would not be employed now.

Actions speak louder than words.

I think "finding common ground" is the tactic you use when you know you have lost the battle, but don't want to admit defeat. Kind of trying to save face when you know that you are the loser.

If there is a sincere effort to deliberate then let's do that, all evidence is in and nothing is off the table. I want a national Women's Right to Know and mandatory human development in all high schools.

Simply pushing more con-dumbs doesn't make sense.

I don't feel like subsidizing another guy's orgasm.

It's time to start treating males like men, and females like women, instead of political pawns who can't manage basic sexual desires.

Well, the motives may not be very high-minded, but, at least it may be a chance to show the other side we do not hate them; rather, that we care about them as human beings. Right?

I think of the scenario that repeats itself every day somewhere around the country. Pro-lifers are peacefully witnessing to life at an abortion mill. Clinic workers and, on some days, the abortion doctor come past them to go inside. Even though they are doing heinous things, they are still children of God. Do we present to them, as best we can, the face of Christ? Do we truly care about the state of their souls; do we want something in them to be stirred by recognizing hearts that are willing to love even them?

I'm not being naive here and imagining that a single look of Christ-like love will completely turn around a person's life (though this is not impossible). More likely, this takes lots of patience and time. But, in light of this "common ground" business, it is interesting to remember abortion mill managers/owners, who, as a first step to leaving that gruesome life behind, went out and talked to the pro-lifers they had been walking past for months or years, sensing that they were the very people in whom they could confide--that they might find with them the beginning of the healing they so badly needed.

Scott Johnston at 12:10 p.m., in what sense do you use the phrase "children of God"? You said, "Even though they are doing heinous things, they are still children of God." God is indeed their Father in the sense that He created them; they were His initiative. But the far more meaningful sense for Christians is the sense that is only reserved for Christians, the grace of adoption: "See how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God" (1 John 3:1a).

By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother... Cain.. was of the evil one, and slew his brother. 1 John 3:10,12a

Huckabee made a good point toward the end when the word "murder" came up: he cares (as should we all) about the intent of the woman who chooses abortion.

The fact is, many women do not realize fully what they are doing--as in, the true nature of the life inside her and what abortion really means for that life--when they choose abortion. Either this, or they are so confused and pressured by other people that they can't think clearly about the situation.

In other words, Huckabee's point is a very good one; very few women go into an abortion clearly thinking in their mind at that time that what they are doing is choosing to kill the new human being within them. Other factors prevent them from realizing this. This is why the word "murder" applied to the mother is not appropriate--it is not what the woman intends.

"God is indeed their Father in the sense that He created them"

Jon, this is exactly what I meant above by "children of God." Yes, becoming members of the body of Christ is a work of grace, the grace of adoption into Christ, which is not the same as the biological beginning of human life. So, there can be two meanings to the phrase "children of God," and the difference is indeed significant.

My use of this phrase in the more broad sense is intended to reflect the fact that God loves every human being. The only reason He creates every human life is for love. This is one reason why it is so horrible when we do not open our hearts to this love and ask the Lord to help us live in the way that He knows we were created to live.

I think that the main reason why proaborts are feeling (or feigning) the "need" to find "common ground" is that they know that the majority of Americans really do not think that chopped babies are the greatest thing since sliced bread. They also have strong vested interests in blurring the lines between life and death, fair and foul, and civil rights and barbaric wrongs.

I expect that the recent shooting death of George Tiller has probably fueled this latest outbreak of “can’t we all just get along.”

While proaborts may speak with a unified political voice, there are, I think, voices within their ranks that are speaking not so harmoniously as the population control freaks would care to admit.

Abortion is not, ipso facto, a mere abstraction that can be parried, shaded, altered on political/ideological whims. It is not health care, and it is not a reproductive reset button. It is what it is, a savage, premeditated, act of violence that deliberately takes the life of a vulnerable and innocent human being and profoundly violates, physically and psychologically, the core of a mother’s being. I have heard a number of surviving post abortive women say that a part of them died when their child was killed. Women are naturally hardwired to give life, and endowed with strong instincts to protect their children at all costs. Men are likewise instinctively programmed to protect their mates and offspring; and participation in killing their own unborn children violates, demeans and destroys this vital part of their identity, also. Abortion is not only a cruel and unjust death for the child, it is a living death for that child’s parents, especially the mother, whose own body and psyche are inextricably bound to that of her child, and his/her survival and best interests.

Abortion is not only inherently dangerous, it is inherently wrong; and there are basically two ways of dealing with the inevitable, existential guilt that attends every child-killing; the way of honest confession and repentance, and the way of self-justification. That is why so many proabortion activists are post-abortive men and women. Misery loves company, and in order to justify their own abortions to themselves, they seek to involve as many others as they can in an effort to avoid facing their own guilt (thus compounding it) and going through the grief, not only grieving the loss of their child, but of a part of themselves as well.

Famished nature will, however, avenge itself; and one cannot go on suppressing that kind of guilt and grief indefinitely without even further damage psychologically and often physically as well; and this is one reason why there are many post-abortive men and women in the prolife movement. Most of these have come to terms with their guilt and done, or are doing, the work of the grief process.

There is no common ground between life and death, good and evil, repentance and self-justification, light and darkness; and for the sake of those involved in abortion on whatever level, politically, personally or both, as well as our own conscience, the prolife movement must stand firm and continue to shine the light on this ongoing holocaust, expose it for what it is, and oppose it totally. Darkness flees before darkness. We must continue to be children of the light, because among the voices crying out for “common ground” are many who are already wearying, or shortly will weary, soulsick of the false glitter of the bankrupt rhetoric of the abortion lobby; and desperately need the way left open to the higher, safer and healing path of repentance. And we need to push as hard as we can to close the path to destruction and misery.

Sorry, I meant darkness flees before LIGHT.

The further we advances into the kingdom of light, the more we will do for others, if we can;

the further one advances into the spiritual realm of darkness, the more (s)he will do to others, if (s)he can.

Jon,

too many on this board recognize the abortion issue as 'spiritual warfare' that will cease in terms of granting all their civil right to life. But in a spiritual war we do not speak of 'fairness' (which is what 'rights' are) but of forgiveness (which is the central plank for 'healing'. I very much tend to agree with Scott, even though such a road is hard.

A few days ago I went video-searching and came across one titled 'It was only Friday' implying the climax of Jesus' crucifixion was on Sunday morning, with His resurrection. This is an illusion. The 'lifting-up' of us all came about with Christ's words on the cross pleading for our forgiveness 'because they know not what they do.'

I kill my-Brother-my-God-my-Jesus every day and I do not ever merit eternal Life with/in Jesus, especially being PL. It is only by His granting me His Life (via forgiveness) that new life begins. I am chastened to tread very softly when it comes to judging another: doesn't he who is forgiven the most, also love (in turn) the most? I am PL only by His grace. And such offers me access to many wonderful souls PL and PC.

This is horrible video of a woman who was shot dead on the streets of Iran:

http://bit.ly/XBzEb

We all need to be prayng for the world now.

"Individual results may vary."

Some people who self-identify as "prochoice" really do think abortion is an appalling practice, but they think it has to be kept legal and available to prevent horrible "back alley" deaths. They'll be glad to jump aboard anything that they honestly see as an attempt to prevent an abortion via persuasion, making other resources available, limits on reasons for late abortions, etc.

Other people who self-identify as "prochoice" just hope that by diverting attention to "prevention" they can get concessions on, shall we say, "availability".

I think you can tell the difference between the two when you look at their attitudes toward prevention. The reticent prochoice will recognize that abortion can be prevented even after pregnancy has begun. The hardcore abortion advocate passing himself off as "prochoice" will focus exclusively on "reducing the NEED" via contraception, and will not budge an inch on helping women avoid abortion after conception.

I have been waiting for this to happen in Iran. If anyone can find any comments I made while my husband was deployed, you will see that I supported the war in Iraq and predicted that their new democracy would inspire surrounding countries to rise up in support of their own rights. I'm not surprised by this, I am encouraged, and I hope the freedom fighters find success swiftly.

I don't think that these kinds of things are a plea bargain at all. I think that polls have consistently shown that most Americans are further right than NOW, and further left than ALL. I don't think most Americans consider things like ultrasounds, parental consent, or term restrictions on abortion; to say nothing of education reform etc to be attacks on abortion but rather consider them middle ground, and are uncomfortable opposing parental notification simply because that's the only way in the two-party system to support abortion rights. And I don't know why pro-lifers would oppose such things, unless they are the pro-lifers who oppose incrementalism.

As for why listen to the moderates now, as far as the pro-choice organizations are concerned, I think maybe it's as simple as having a president in the White House who is unlikely to allow a legitimate threat to the right to abortion. If most pro-choicers see nothing wrong with ultrasound legislation, or with reforms made to support pregnant students, or whatever, and most pro-lifers are pushing for such legislation and such reforms, I don't know why that wouldn't be considered common ground.

There is no common ground on the issue of abortion itself, but there is common ground in the nuances of how the law regulates abortion and accommodates non-abortion choices. This common ground happens to be ground that makes abortion a less likely or less attractive choice -- and while that is not the same as doing away with the choice of abortion altogether, it does do away with some of the pervasiveness, which in turn makes people less likely to think of abortion as a necessity or as a natural right.

Why are abortion supporters "reaching out" to find "common ground" you ask?

Obvious: common ground means more dead babies.

I think there is a sense of guilt and shame among the pro-aborts, though they won't admit it and the hoping to find "common ground" is an attempt to say to the anti-aborts, "See, this is where we're alike." There really is not such a place, or at least not as I see it.

Every pro-choice person I've talked to shudders at the idea that they are pro-abortion. Most say they would never choose it but support that it be available for others.

It's no longer 1973; it's not a blob of tissue; we know so much more now, but the pro-abort people cannot admit to being wrong and the last thing they want to do is change something that takes away women's rights and/or choices.

Their whole argument is framed around the ideas of choice and rights; these are feel-good words, warm and fuzzy words, much more tidy than saying murder or kill. It is not an argument based on reality or facts; it's ideas. The left always wants to see issues as nuanced and in different shades of gray rather than black and white. To admit that abortion is wrong would take away choice and deny rights. These are ideas the left has fought hard for. They're not about to surrender. They used the ideas for power, not for "choice" or "rights."

I think this whole idea of common ground is a distraction and a way to avoid the debate if abortion is right or wrong. This is a clear cut right or wrong issue. If it's not human life, there is nothing wrong about abortion; there would be no need to make abortion rare.

it may be partly PR on the part of the left proabort.
Obama has succeeded in reframing the debate. In a way, detracting from the debate.

In asking the question, it presupposes that abortion is here TO STAY and we should all just accept that.

After all, what is the common ground?
Either you believe that all human beings from the moment of conception until natural death are persons, entitled to the full protection of the law or

you don't.

At the present time, the women's movement, in an effort to gain equality for all women have managed reorganize society in such a way that some human beings (women) are more equal than other human beings (unborn babies).

Therefore I think it's important that we to emphasize that we will continue our prolife work until there are no more abortions.

pbho was successuful in 'appearing' moderate and reasonable on the topic of 'abortion in an attempt to appeal to moderates and liberals who are ambivalent about abortion on demand.

The strategy appears to have been successful in the most recent election cycle so you don't change whores in the middle of the dream and you continue to dance with the one who brung yuh.

How do you find common ground with a jihadist terrorist who believes he/she is doing God a favor and currying favor with God by killing those with whom she/he disagrees?

The terrorist may be sophisiticate enough to understand that winning the 'PR' game is key to advancing his social/political/theological agenda and agree to dialog with his/her enemies in order to 'appear reasonable', while at the same continuing to make plans to kill as many infidels as possible as quickly as possible.

Advocates for prenatal humans should only agree to dialog with pbho and his spokesweasles in forums where there conversation cannot be controlled and manipulated by pbho sycophants.

The recent decision by ABC to air a special on health care in America and refusing to allow the opposition the opportunity to purchase time to offer their rebuttal and their alternatives to 'obamacare' is a case in point where liberals are only interested in free speech with which they agree.

There is no plausible explanation for ABC's decision NOT to allow opponents to socialized medicint to present their 'plan', especially if the opponents were willing to 'tote the note' to do so.

Conservatives and pro-lifers should not be sucked into believing they are dealing with people who negotiate in good faith.

The whole 'we want to reduce the number of abortions' ploy is utter nonsense because none of the advocates for 'choice' can give a cogent, consistent, logical answer why the number of abortions should be reduced.

yor bro ken

Therefore I think it's important that we to emphasize that we will continue our prolife work until there are no more abortions.
Posted by: angel at June 20, 2009 6:09 PM

*brain stutter* !!

I think it's important that we emphasize we are here to stay until abortion is no longer legal and no longer an accepted way of dealing with a difficult pregnancy.

I am George Tiller by John Wayne Gacy

oh, ken, you are truly priceless!

Lots of great comments, JTM, Luana, Angel, Ken ...

Just a couple of thoughts to add:

I agree that everyone caught up in the PC delusion is seeking the comfort and affirmation of others to help silence the voice of their own conscience.

Deep down, they know it's murder.

I had a 10 minute discussion with a psychiatrist from the University of Wisconsin at the San Francisco Airport about his medical center's desire to corner the murder-for-hire market. Specifically they hope to slaughter viable babies of 6-9 months gestation, by the hundreds.

He was saying that both sides needed to curtail the inflamed rhetoric and work to find common ground. He asked me if I could support the abortion of an embryo before implantation. I explained to him that I unequivocally could not because of the fact that human life begins the process of development at conception.

We went our separate ways. We did not find common ground.

I do have great news however! There is in fact common ground for those in the Pro-Life and Pro-Death camps. It can be found on Golgotha, at the foot of the Cross of Jesus, where Pro Choicers can repent and be washed, forgiven and made new by the Blood of the Lamb. There they can be adopted into God's Loving Family, sealed for eternity and become Heaven-bound.

We serve a Mighty God!

As far as the inflamed rhetoric is concerned, this is one fire that "ain't goin' out" until child-killing is properly condemned by the American judicial system again or until Jesus comes back.

Thanks to Jill and the mods., we have a great forum where we can encourage each other and keep each other fired up for the Battle for Life.

God Bless.

What is the difference between opposing "common ground" (left nicely undefined) and opposing incremental measures? I'm hearing a lot of "there is no common ground," but there are all sorts of incremental pro-life measures that many moderate pro-choice people would agree are good ideas.

Alexandra: I don't think for a hell's minute that ANY prochoice person is willing to give up the right to abort under any incremental circumstance/situation.

The reason the "common ground" situation doesn't work is because the two values are so diametrically opposed.
Either you believe an unborn baby is a person who deserves protection under all circumstances

or

you do not.

A baby cannot be a person protected by the law in some circumstances and not in others. This is simply irrational. (Although irrationality is a prochoice specialty)

Do you believe that Obama and the proaborts are saying," well we believe there are some circumstances where abortion is wrong" and we might say not abortion?

I do not think that is the case. They believe abortion is a woman's right - a right that is built upon the premise that an unborn baby simply has no right to life.

yet another woman regretting her right to bodily autonomy.

http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2009/06/17/whats-the-connection-between-abortions-and-careers/

There is no common ground. The unfair attacks on pregnancy resource centers says it all. The pro choice side do NOT like PRCs because they provide many of their services for FREE, offer ALTERNATIVES to abortion, give facts on child development, tell the truth about abortion risks, and stress abstinence (for the most part, anyway). They also don't hand out contraception as if it were candy.

Alexandra: I don't think for a hell's minute that ANY prochoice person is willing to give up the right to abort under any incremental circumstance/situation.

Well, you're wrong, as most polls on abortion have shown for the vast majority of my life. AS I said before, most polls show that most Americans are right of NOW and left of ALL. They want restrictions to some extent, and they want reforms.

I know pro-choice people who think that teenagers should be required to have parental consent. I know pro-choice people who support ultrasound legislation. I know pro-choice people who support education reforms to accommodate students who are pregnant or who are young mothers. I know pro-choice people who don't support late-term abortions.

As I said before, there is no common ground on the issue of abortion. But there is plenty of common ground in how the law approaches issues that affect abortion, and whether it acts to encourage or discourage abortion through the way it deals with those issues.

I know pro-choice people who think that teenagers should be required to have parental consent. I know pro-choice people who support ultrasound legislation. I know pro-choice people who support education reforms to accommodate students who are pregnant or who are young mothers. I know pro-choice people who don't support late-term abortions.

This is NOT common ground. Abortion is still allowed under ALL these circumstances. A woman can get an abortion because her parents give her permission. A woman can still get an abortion after viewing an ultrasound. So what? How does this help the baby who dies in the abortion?

But there is plenty of common ground in how the law approaches issues that affect abortion, and whether it acts to encourage or discourage abortion through the way it deals with those issues.
Posted by: Alexandra at June 20, 2009 8:44 PM

again this is smoke and mirrors.
Proaborts have NO intention of discouraging women from seeking abortions.
If they did, they would be doing it NOW. As the I am Dr. Tiller website clearly indicates these people actively believe in the "choice" for abortion and they actively promote it. They see abortion as a liberating experience.

There is no common ground in how the law approaches abortion. To say that we agree that all women should see an ultrasound and proaborts agree that all women should see an ultrasound is not really common ground. Because it's what happens AFTER the ultrasound that matters.

It's like saying that before a man makes the "choice" to rape, lets have him watch a video on the consequences of rape and then let him decide whether or not to rape.

Abortion is the only crime where we actively encourage people to deliberately harm another person.

This is NOT common ground. Abortion is still allowed under ALL these circumstances. A woman can get an abortion because her parents give her permission. A woman can still get an abortion after viewing an ultrasound. So what? How does this help the baby who dies in the abortion?

So angel, I assume you oppose incrementalism within the pro-life movement? Because that's the argument people always make against incremental legislation. "You have to ask your parents...AND THEN YOU CAN KILL THE BABY. You have to do it in the first 12 weeks...BUT THEN YOU CAN KILL THE BABY. Not okay." We hear that on here all the time, and most of the usual commenters always disagree with it.

Proaborts have NO intention of discouraging women from seeking abortions.
If they did, they would be doing it NOW.

Many moderately pro-choice people do have intentions of discouraging abortion. This is a demographic that radically pro-choice organizations currently feel secure at least listening to, given that Obama is in the White House.

There is no common ground in how the law approaches abortion. To say that we agree that all women should see an ultrasound and proaborts agree that all women should see an ultrasound is not really common ground. Because it's what happens AFTER the ultrasound that matters.

That's my point. Studies show that after viewing an ultrasound, women are less likely to abort. If a pro-choicer says, "I support ultrasound legislation," are you honestly going to say, "I don't care, you're pro-choice, not going to agree with you on that"?

"I know pro-choice people who think that teenagers should be required to have parental consent. I know pro-choice people who support ultrasound legislation. I know pro-choice people who support education reforms to accommodate students who are pregnant or who are young mothers. I know pro-choice people who don't support late-term abortions. "

Thats good, but unfortunatly the pro-choicers in congress do not have those views, nor does PBHO, so I don't see where commen ground can be met.

Guys:

I am not sure if you understand the significance of what is going on in Iran.

In the mullah's and his quest to retain power, Ahmadinejad may use this crisis to attack Israel to turn the focus of the Iranian people towards a common enemy.

This could end up in a Middle East quagmire.

Get ready saints. This is huge.

there is no such thing as a "moderately prochoice" person.

the choice for abortion even in some circumstances results in a dead baby.

I do not believe the incremental approach should be exclusively used.

Alexandra I do not believe that proaborts consider showing women an ultrasound, common ground. I'm sure they would be quite willing to show a woman an ultrasound and then bombard her with anti life rhetoric, to use their terms. I doubt very much that they would be neutral, becuase the fact is that most women who work in abortion clinics are themselves, post-abortive and therefore have a vested interest in forcing abortion (although I'm sure they insist they do no such thing).

"Abortion has radically dehumanized and devalued preborn babies. It has engendered attitudes of cold-heartedness, narcissism and violence. Who knows how far this contagion will continue to spread, how many people it will affect and in how many ways? Abortion is an evil, and it is the nature of evil to spread until it is checked. It is an unleashing of death that spreads like a plague throughout society in increasingly sinister ways. Abortion is a choice for death, and its long shadow haunts all of us."

There is no middle ground between birth and abortion. The proper response to abortion is not to seek a middle ground that does not exist, but to end abortion and, in so doing, end the evils that follow in its wake.

Alexandra: I think finding common ground on abortion is one of those concepts that sounds very good on paper. However, the very nature of abortion, that it is a very great evil, cannot be overlooked. The bolded sentence is a spiritual truth whether you acknowledge it or not. Evil is something that is not done away with through compromise. In fact, it tends to grow stronger in the face of compromise. Evil must be confronted head on.

I think perhaps we should talk out of the corner of our mouths about compromise but work to get rid of abortion completely.
I feel that Obama and his proabortion supporters have NO intention of ever compromising. It may simply be a stall tactic to keep us talking while they enact laws that permanently entrench abortion rights.

BTW, the quote in my post is from Donald DeMarco, philosopher extraordinaire!

Hisman,

Yes, i've been following it, they are now killing the protestors.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is encouraging the 'death to america' chant...

Michelle Malkin has been covering it..

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/19/iran-showdown-supreme-leader-tries-to-quell-rebellion/

I think perhaps we should talk out of the corner of our mouths about compromise but work to get rid of abortion completely.

No one is saying that working to improve the things that many moderate pro-choice people DO agree with pro-lifers on is all that should be done, that incrementalism should be "exclusively used."

Moderately pro-choice people don't think that "common ground" legislation means abandoning hope for abortion being legal; why should pro-lifers assume that it means abandoning efforts for abortion to be illegal? Implicit in the phrase "common ground" is the understanding that the two sides will not agree, and will not be ultimately working towards the same goal.

And yes, there are moderately pro-choice people. These are people who would most easily become pro-life if they let go of their starting-point belief that abortion is okay. There are radical pro-choicers who believe abortion should be legal up until delivery; there are moderate pro-choicers who only want abortion legal in the first trimester. etc. That the distinction between third- and first-trimester abortion is insufficient for determining who should be able to live and who should be able to die is not the point -- the point is, there are many pro-choicers who support restrictions or reforms that, if introduced by pro-lifers, would be supported by pro-lifers.

Jasper --

Thats good, but unfortunatly the pro-choicers in congress do not have those views, nor does PBHO, so I don't see where commen ground can be met.

Well, apparently it's currently in vogue among pro-choicers to push a common-ground approach. They're not the pro-choicers in congress but they do have an effect on the pro-choicers in congress.

Have a good night.

Implicit in the phrase "common ground" is the understanding that the two sides will not agree, and will not be ultimately working towards the same goal.

Alexandra, this statement makes no sense.

then for heaven's sake, what it the point if they don't agree and are NOT working towards the same goal? Does this make any sense to you?

In my books, the term, "common ground" means finding things we can agree on which will ultimately bring about a resolution and that resolution to a prolifer has to be NO abortion(s).

then for heaven's sake, what it the point if they don't agree and are NOT working towards the same goal? Does this make any sense to you?

Angel, there are different kinds of goals. A stated goal of both pro-lifers and moderate pro-choicers is to reduce the number of abortions, and also to make society more accommodating of the non-abortion choices women may make. There are ways to reduce the abortion rate, or support pregnant women, without outlawing abortion. So while the two groups will never work together 100%, because one will continue to work to outlaw abortion and one will continue to work to keep it legal, both groups can at the same time work on issues not directly related to the legality of abortion, which accomplish the shared goal of reducing the abortion rate.

Again, good night.

HisMan, for once, I agree with you. Iran's election and the subsequent riots are an extremely important world event right now. I'm hoping for not such a disastrous outcome- my real hope is that they will depose the president and hold a new election. Let's hope for the best for the Iranians trying to bring the country they love into a new era in their fledgling democracy.

Erin:

I have many Iranian friends.

This is bigger than what the media or government is telling us.

The entire world economy is near collapse.

I predicted this two years ago.

I believe God's judgment on the world is beginning.

Seek Him or be lost.

The conversation between Mike Huckabee and Jon Stewart was a good one although they barely touched the surface. One thing that struck me was Stewart's contention that pro-lifers will charge aborting women with murder if Roe v. Wade is reversed. This declaration, which I don't think is a widely held belief of pro-lifers, is often used by PC'rs to make pro-lifers look like self-righteous lunatics. I think up front it would be good to think about the legal/criminal ramifications of abortion (1) if Roe v. Wade is reversed, and (2) when the question of legalized abortion goes to the individual states. That will be a BIG bone of contention.

I know the actual question was the motivation of the "search for common ground" and I don't know if the search for "common ground" by abortion supporters is sincere or not. There are probably as many motives as there are supporters. If we are to find common ground, we need to define abortion and all of its nuances first, preferably with medical terminology. The misunderstanding of what constitutes abortion - elective; non-elective; non-abortive medical intervention; - seems in some ways central to the debate.

Jill - I should have read the question.

I think what's happening is that Barack Obama's position on abortion is so radical that the various organizations are seeing a drop in numbers of donations beyond what they expected from the economy and this has them concerned. Efforts at common ground are to take the edge off the issue, making it look like there is a sincere effort to address the needs of women, such as Carla and those who testify against abortion. More and more are stepping forward. Not quickly, but certainly vocally and their witness is reaching a point of being outright undeniable.

At that point the house of cards tumbles, and if it gains momentum, you'll see many women step forward. Whatever their arguments are, what's happening today is a focus on responsibility, and this adds fuel to the demand that we, the people, don't enable sexual irresponsibility.

While I don't expect Roe to be overturned, if the social education and responsibility aspect kicks in, you'll see the power based on abortion crumble, because the political money won't be donated.

That's what's worrying them.

That's also why Obama is trying to move into a universal healthcare so quickly, before this scenario happens.

All, your comments are so smart! I'm impressed and blessed by your insights.

So while the two groups will never work together 100%, because one will continue to work to outlaw abortion and one will continue to work to keep it legal, both groups can at the same time work on issues not directly related to the legality of abortion, which accomplish the shared goal of reducing the abortion rate.

again I submit the goal of proaborts is NOT to reduce the number of abortions.
They see nothing wrong with abortion, therefore, there is no NEED to reduce them. Abortion is a morally acceptable choice to these people.
If it is not morally wrong to abort, why would they consider a need to reduce the number.
It's like a beautician saying I'd like to reduce the number of pedicures. There's nothing morally wrong with having a pedicure and just think of all the money lost if people didn't have pedicures.

Chris, I guess the question in my mind is, why after 35 years of abortion rights, do proaborts suddenly want to find "common ground". They weren't much interested in finding common ground before Obama was elected.

Obama is a politician first and foremost. His campaign was financed heavily by the abortion industry. He's their go to boy.

Obama is the one who framed the abortion debate with the idea of common ground. This did not come from the abortion industry (which stands to lose billions) nor did it come from abortion activists (who stand to see the reversal of their gains in the area of women's reproductive rights).

If the industry wanted to address the needs of postabortive women they would have called us, a week, a month, a year or two after our abortions. Would they have addressed the drug abuse, the drinking, the nightmares, the depression, the suicidal thoughts???
I often wonder why they assume abortion is risk free and sell it as such. They have to believe it is to keep the women filing in the door for a "safe, painless, legal,and risk free" murder of a child.

Who will buy one of those when The Truth is revealed??

Jill @ 6:41,
I agree! Thank you.
* * *

You all may have seen this already but I think it is worth posting here. This is a short video clip of Mike Huckabee on his TV show commenting on the "tea parties". His words are encouraging to anyone with a "cause".

http://www.foxnews.com/huckabee/
(Go to his site and click on "When getting attacked is a compliment" on the right side of the page.)

Carla: I think it's also rather telling that most abortion advocates are completely unwilling to even admit that abortion at the very least hurts "some" women (ignoring here the fact that abortion always results in at least one dead person).
That would be a starting point, in my mind.
Yet, they often brush off the experiences of women for whom abortion led to more problems.

They weren't much interested in finding common ground before Obama was elected.

When I was in college (before Obama was elected or a candidate), the pro-choice and pro-life campus organizations cooperated to create a task force to pressure the college to provide housing for students with children. They didn't call it "common ground," but this is the sort of effort that "common ground" refers to. I don't know how widely these types of efforts occurred pre-Obama, but evidently they did exist.

"I think it's also rather telling that most abortion advocates are completely unwilling to even admit that abortion at the very least hurts "some" women"

The negative side-effects felt by FATHERS of aborted babies are often ignored, although it seems that people are waking up to the fact that they exist. More men and women need to speak up on this issue, IMHO. I wonder - is there a counseling group for post-abortive Dads?

Happy Fathers Day, Dads. My heart goes out to Dads who have lost a child by abortion. God bless you.

I guess the question in my mind is, why after 35 years of abortion rights, do proaborts suddenly want to find "common ground". They weren't much interested in finding common ground before Obama was elected.
Posted by: angel at June 21, 2009 6:55 AM
---------

Obama is the abortion industry's clearest voice, just as he was in the IL Senate. This isn't about common ground, because Obama has already said that the differences are irreconcilable.

Abortion rights as an issue were studiously avoided during the election. If you recall, Jill's attendance during the Democratic National Convention made that clear. They avoided it because of PBA, and BAIPA issues because these are graphic, gruesome and later term abortions. In an educational battle, you don't want to provide the opposition opportunities to voice solid evidence and point at real human beings who describe their experiences as horrible. Whenever a dead baby and a pair of forceps is held up and the word abortion is used - they lose.

Now that Obama is in, the best defense is a good offense, and "common ground" is the only play that's possible for pro-aborts. In a weak economy, people don't want to pay for abortions - Mexico city polling showed that.

If I'm correct, the goal to "reduce the need for abortions" is code for providing lots of political payoffs towards various education programs, support centers etc. This doesn't mean they'll provide PRC efforts, but think doppelgangers - organizations that provide "compassionate support" for abortion decisions that defuses the "abortion hurts women" argument that is growing.

Abortion may be personal, but its political usefulness to the left is the reason why it's still around.

Janet: yes Happy Fathers Day to all those dads on this board (HisMan, Jasper, Bobby (where are you BTW?), Chris, Ed?, and so one)

Thank you Banana, but I am NOT an extreme prolifer! :D There is no such thing as being moderately prolife. What, the moderation comes in believing that abortion is right in some circumstances? Excuse me, but it is NEVER permissible to have the direct intention to kill an unborn child. NEVER. Not even in cases of rape or severe birth defects.

Chris, I quite agree. I posted a link on another thread to a blog which featured a woman, in real time, who is pregnant and considering abortion. In the end she has decided to abort. We were watching a young woman who aborted her baby to go to graduate school. Her claim was that she would be unable to continue/defer schooling. Who's to know? I personally know a woman who was pregnant with twins doing a PHD program and who took two years off and then was allowed to come back to finish her degree. She is now a tenured professor.

Interestingly, many of the commenters seemed to feel that because the woman had gone through a great deal of hand-wringing and agonizing, that in the end her decision to abort was morally ok.

I personally believe proaborts love this kind of scenario because they believe it puts a more human face on themselves and their agenda. And I think that is exactly what this whole "common ground" concept is about as well. It dovetails nicely with their "safe and rare" rhetoric. We've seen just how rare Obama wants abortion through his reinstating of funding of abortion worldwide by US taxpayers.

They see nothing wrong with abortion, therefore, there is no NEED to reduce them. Abortion is a morally acceptable choice to these people.

Keep believing that, then, angel. I hope it works out for you. The logic may not make sense, but there are MANY, MANY pro-choice people who are morally uncomfortable with aspects of unrestricted abortion, or with abortion itself. I don't really know why you would ignore the demographic power of a majority who would support limits on abortion and reforms to make abortion a less relatively attractive option in an unexpected pregnancy situation, but you are free to do so.

Banana, thank you. I know of pro-life and pro-choice organizations that work together to achieve common goals on a small scale. When I was in college, I (acting with my school's pro-choice organization) coordinated with a local pregnancy resource center, because I felt that the aid and information my organization offered should not ONLY support those women who chose, or at least considered, abortion. I had the full support of both the CPC's and of many pro-choice students in working to make abortion-alternative information more readily available.

There are many pro-choicers who would support things like that -- information and support and reform, and certain restrictions via legislation -- and I will probably never understand why the pro-life movement seems to insist that these people don't exist.

how would YOU know what I think Banana? Since I haven't talk about any of those topics on this thread?
or maybe you are a past poster lurking....... :)

The logic may not make sense, but there are MANY, MANY pro-choice people who are morally uncomfortable with aspects of unrestricted abortion, or with abortion itself.

quite right there, Alexandra! to support abortion but be uncomfortable with abortion as a choice is illogical. What's keeping these people from supporting measures that protect all babies, except the fact that they believe in some circumstances babies should be killed.
I've never claimed the proabort side to have ANY logic of any kind. It simply doesn't.

What's keeping these people from supporting measures that protect all babies, except the fact that they believe in some circumstances babies should be killed.

Their lack of logic. Would you refuse to support reforms that would save the lives of some (but not all) children simply because the logic of some fellow supporters is not thorough?

And I think we need to have less people getting pregnant when they aren't intending to. And when they do I want them to have real choices. Not to feel they have to have an abortion.
Posted by: Banana at June 21, 2009 9:17 AM

right. In the former situation, one remains chaste until marriage. Not impossible. Definitely woman-affirming. Definitely prolife.
In the second there are many choices, but abortion is not one of them. It is never an acceptable "choice" to kill another human being, assuming of course, that you believe babies are human persons.

Off to see my daddy today and go to a lovely summer party. Hope all fathers have a wonderful, blessed day!

" I am pro choice, but I don't think abortion should always be allied."

why?

Christine on June 20 at 2:18 p.m. wrote, "The hardcore abortion advocate passing himself off as 'prochoice' will focus exclusively on 'reducing the NEED' via contraception, and will not budge an inch on helping women avoid abortion after conception."

Who has taken the initiative to "reduce the NEED"? On June 17 Don Gilgoff wrote: "Coinciding with the Obama administration's move to ready a plan for "reducing the need for abortion," [RHRealityCheck] has launched an online forum aimed at finding what it calls "common ground" in the abortion debate."

Of course, there is never any NEED for abortion. That's like speaking of a need to murder! There is only a need for parents to accept responsibility, for society and the Church to encourage parents, and for the civil government (including President Obama) to protect its citizens.

Alexandra, there is absolutely no logic at all to support abortion. Not one single argument presented in support of abortion has any semblance of logic to it. They ignore scientific, philosophical and moral truths. It is a right fabricated solely on lies. The amazing thing is how well those lies have succeeded.

I don't see any of that on the prolife side. I am not wholly against incremental approaches but I think it best to try every and any way possible to ban abortion and criminalize it to some degree if necessary.

Now I do have to go. I'm late for an appt with God. :)

I am not wholly against incremental approaches but I think it best to try every and any way possible to ban abortion and criminalize it to some degree if necessary.

Like I said, working towards reform or restrictions, and working to criminalize abortion, are not mutually exclusive actions.

Alexandra, there is absolutely no logic at all to support abortion. Not one single argument presented in support of abortion has any semblance of logic to it. They ignore scientific, philosophical and moral truths. It is a right fabricated solely on lies. The amazing thing is how well those lies have succeeded.

I didn't ask if you thought that pro-choicers were logical. I asked if you would oppose them in efforts that would lower the abortion rate -- many of which are commonly referred to as "common ground" efforts -- simply because they are illogical.

Have a nice father's day. I'm at work and am furtively trying to round out my gift.

Banana,

why do you want to reduce abortions?

"some women suffer emotional distress and possibly mental illness after abortion."

they do? why is that?

Why so wrong? What possible implications could there be to abortion that would cause a woman to suffer like that? What does abortion DO, exactly, that would cause such anguish? How can that be the RIGHT choice for ANYONE?

xalisae at June 20, 2009 2:24 PM:

Yes, that was why I supported the war in Iraq. I think this was the heart of George W Bush's idea: a free Iraq would destablize the whole region. That the people (many of them women; it's being dubbed the "lipstick revolution" by some newscasters) of Iran are in the streets now wanting freedom and democracy, with thousands chanting "Death to the dictator," is amazing, probably more significant than the Berlin wall coming down. And on Friday, our president says he "doesn't want to meddle." I almost fell over when I heard that.

I don't really know why you would ignore the demographic power of a majority who would support limits on abortion and reforms to make abortion a less relatively attractive option in an unexpected pregnancy situation,
----------------
Posted by: Alexandra at June 21, 2009 8:48 AM

Not to belittle the beliefs of people who do find abortion abhorrent but are unmoved to work against it, but consider what you are saying above when it comes to their efforts. Would you really say the same thing if we were discussing murder or rape instead of abortion? Let's try that:

I don't really know why you would ignore the demographic power of a majority who would support limits on rape and reforms to make rape a less relatively attractive option in an unexpected sex situation.

It may seem harsh to put it that way, but that illustrates the insensitivity to the truth of what abortion does, and makes angel's point about being a morally acceptable choice to these "middle ground" people.

I'm speaking out of my own experience, where A Woman's Right to Know and Ultrasound Bills were set aside in committee by people who claim they are pro-life, but apparently find the 15 years of abortions (that's 69957 reported up until the year 2005) to be acceptable.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/usa/ab-usa-RI.html

4 years of data are still not reported, so the number is higher, and if the trend is correct there's been little drop.

Even if you dismiss the immediate effect of the child being shredded, that's still a whole lot of patients who are not being protected by the state against an abortion industry who has a direct conflict of interest in their care in providing the full extent of what abortion does.

I applaud your efforts at school because I think that's fully consistent with being pro-active in the current legal climate. What do you say to medical students who see what you're doing as obstructing their practice? (Yes, that's what was said during testimony.)

Thanks to those wishing us dads a Happy Father's Day.

regarding Chris' statement:

This is what I have said earlier - in no other situation would we apply the logic or lack of logic I should say, that we do with abortion. We don't go around talking about rape being safe and rare. We don't have laws that say men can only rape women between the ages of 21 and 30. Or that men can rape only women who are disabled.

Not to belittle the beliefs of people who do find abortion abhorrent but are unmoved to work against it, but consider what you are saying above when it comes to their efforts. Would you really say the same thing if we were discussing murder or rape instead of abortion? Let's try that:

From where we are right now, any ground that did not begin by acknowledging that rape must be illegal would be a step back -- not the case with abortion. But I don't have a problem taking sociological conditions that are likely to lead a person to rape or murder, and attempting to deal with those conditions as a goal in and of itself. On the RH Reality Check site I saw mentions of making adoption more accessible, of treatment of pregnant women in higher education, of discussion on the sacredness of sex (didn't read the article so not sure what it said) -- are these things pro-lifers would not support? These are things I would support even if abortion were illegal.

I imagine most people here were happy when the partial-birth abortion ban was passed. Would those people change their emotion of they knew that many moderate pro-choicers were also happy?

If the issue were something more controversial than rape, like gay marriage, I do think that most pro-gay marriage people I know would support common-ground legislation that fell short of full marriage. I know anti-gay marriage people who don't oppose domestic partnership benefits (ie health insurance, hospital visitation, the basics) and I know pro-gay marriage people who absolutely support some sort of basic legal contract that people could enter into, even if it is separate from and inferior to marriage. Because it gets people insurance, it gets people basic protections, until the "long-term" goal can be accomplished.

One thing that incremental legislation accomplishes, in addition to lowering the abortion rate, is it frames the nation's default position being a moderate one, not a radical one. By that I mean, it is probably harder to argue in favor of abolishing, say, a restriction on late-term abortion, than it is to argue in favor of merely preserving the current lack of restrictions on late-term abortion. Abolishing an existing restriction means explaining why this is necessary; if the restriction exists and there is no obvious reason to do away with it, then people are unlikely to support that action. As people become accustomed to a society that doesn't allow late-term abortion, they are less likely to see any reason to support the right to late-term abortion.

What do you say to medical students who see what you're doing as obstructing their practice?

If I was still in school -- this was some years ago -- I would ask in what way they felt that offering non-abortion alternatives to women who sought them was interfering. I'd be interested to see what they had to say.

And once again, Banana, WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD?! People are opposed to rape, but not shredding vulnerable little developing humans to shreds. They don't have to SEE that, they never have to hear a peep out of them, so it's ok. A woman can cry and make a fuss about being raped, but if the victimized party is silent, it's a-ok, huh?

X, just to be clear, when I mention that society views rape differently than it views abortion, I'm not saying that's the way it should be. I'm saying that's the way it is. Any "common ground" to be found with pro-rape people would probably result in more women being raped; but there is common ground to found with pro-choice people that would probably result in fewer abortions.

X, just to be clear, when I mention that society views rape differently than it views abortion, I'm not saying that's the way it should be. I'm saying that's the way it is. Any "common ground" to be found with pro-rape people would probably result in more women being raped; but there is common ground to found with pro-choice people that would probably result in fewer abortions.
Posted by: Alexandra at June 21, 2009 10:51 PM

But Alexandra, you've just made my point clearer. Abortion IS viewed very differently than rape, murder, incest, shoplifting, kidnapping....virtually ANY crime.
This is because it has been successfully portrayed as a "right" and has been successfully marketed as necessary to women's emancipation.

Any common ground to found with people who support abortion would likely not result in much of a reduction in abortion rates and likely would lead to more abortion.
For example, if we agreed that a woman could not get an abortion unless she met certain "pyschological" criteria, this would not lessen the abortion rate. First off, many doctors would simply ignore rigorously assessing a woman and send her to the clinic. The abortion rate likely would not change much, if at all.

This was certainly Canada's experience. In fact, Canada required THREE doctors at a hospital to review an abortion request to see if a woman met the "mental health" criteria outlined by law. These "doctors committee's", contrary to what the feminists stated, often rubber stamped each and every abortion request. They didn't prevent abortion or even limit it. It was de facto, abortion on demand.

But Alexandra, you've just made my point clearer. Abortion IS viewed very differently than rape, murder, incest, shoplifting, kidnapping....virtually ANY crime. This is because it has been successfully portrayed as a "right" and has been successfully marketed as necessary to women's emancipation.

That's my point as well, angel. I already said that one of the dual benefits of moderate reform is that it tends to move the general public opinion to the center, since the public sees that, say, the right to an elective 3rd-trimester abortion is NOT necessary to emancipation.

That's what you're not getting. As I said in my FIRST comment, I can understand why someone opposed to incrementalism would oppose reforms that reduced the abortion rate but did not criminalize abortion, but I don't understand why anyone who would support incremental legislation would not also support rate-reduction reforms. Is it just because some pro-choice people would agree? What logic is that?

Any common ground to found with people who support abortion would likely not result in much of a reduction in abortion rates and likely would lead to more abortion.

Do you really think that? Do you really think that education reform, adoption reform, ultrasound legislation, etc would lead to more abortions? And if so then please tell me what incrementally pro-life legislation you would support.

For example, if we agreed that a woman could not get an abortion unless she met certain "pyschological" criteria, this would not lessen the abortion rate. First off, many doctors would simply ignore rigorously assessing a woman and send her to the clinic. The abortion rate likely would not change much, if at all.

Ultrasound legislation is the only remotely "psychological" criteria I think I've brought up, and I'm pretty sure it has been demonstrated to lower the abortion rate. Please explain to me how supporting pregnant women in higher education, or any of the other things that have come up, would raise the abortion rate, because I don't really know what you're thinking of.

There are some things I saw at a glance on the RH Reality Check website that I DON'T think you'd agree with. IIRC one of the articles is about access to birth control or maybe bc education; I know a lot of pro-lifers would support that, but I know you wouldn't, and I understand why. What I DO NOT understand is why you seem to think that things like the ones I've brought up many times here would raise the abortion rate. It's okay to not support things because you don't agree with them -- what I'm struggling to understand is why you wouldn't agree with the specific things I've been bringing up, because from here it looks like the only problem you'd have with them is that pro-choice people would support them too.

Alexandra, suppose a large movement of men ran around saying "stop calling it rape, it's aggressive fertilization, and every male has a natural right to do that!" You'd be upset because that wouldn't be intellectually honest as to the impact and consequences of that action. This is exactly what happens with abortion.

Abortion is morally wrong because it unjustly shreds the life of an innocent human being. Semantically altering the focus doesn't eliminate the consequences, and no one is fooled for a moment that there will be a sincere effort on behalf of the abortionists and lobby to reduce the need for abortion. The only ones who are confused are people who have a sincere desire, but let emotion tug them in all directions.

Every single one of those points on RH Reality Check have been addressed by pro-life advocates, some for more than a century. But it's incredibly hypocritical to state these are desired, when every action is consistently dead set against what's professed, to the point of rejecting valid evidence. That's what I've experienced with the pro-abortion lobby. At least Obama was intellectually honest in stating that the differences are irreconcilable.

Strategy and tactics should never be confused with principles. If one can advance their cause without violating their principles, then that tactic can be taken. Experience teaches us which paths yield which results. If a foundational principle of the abortion lobby is that women must provide children to abort because that generates revenue, then every tactic that promotes that principle, no matter how morally repulsive the results, will be taken.

The express role of government is not to promote virtue, but to guard against vice. I saw with my own two eyes, a committee vote to shelve an ultrasound bill prior to hearing testimony. Not one pro-abortion person said, "If you safeguarded against lawsuits we'd find that bill acceptable", which was the only legitimate complaint to not accept the bill as written. No, instead it was tossed out wholesale, because the end results would definitely be a loss of business for the abortionists. Instead of offering women the choice of seeing an ultrasound, they blocked their choice, assuming the women were "going to be burdened" against their original choice.

Round and round it goes. When the elected are no longer virtuous, then government itself becomes the vice.

Alexandra, suppose a large movement of men ran around saying "stop calling it rape, it's aggressive fertilization, and every male has a natural right to do that!" You'd be upset because that wouldn't be intellectually honest as to the impact and consequences of that action. This is exactly what happens with abortion.

If someone thinks that refusing to call abortion what it is would be a common ground subject, you are perfectly within your rights to disagree, and to refuse to support that. I am still curious to see the objections people have to the points that, in all honesty, sound remarkably similar to things FFL has been saying for some time.

Your complaint about the ultrasound bill seems to be that you saw pro-choice people unwilling to defend it for a variety of bias-related reasons. If pro-choice people are willing to support it, then how does that change your view? If the problem is just hypocrisy -- that people would profess a desire to lower the abortion rate without professing a desire to criminalize abortion -- then again I wonder what, exactly, makes this different from incrementalism, which by definition factors into account the incomplete logic of the public and the subsequent greater likelihood of people to vote for term restrictions rather than for a flat-out ban on abortion, etc.

Your complaint about the ultrasound bill seems to be that you saw pro-choice people unwilling to defend it for a variety of bias-related reasons.

Posted by: Alexandra at June 22, 2009 8:45 AM
-------

You need to go back and read what I wrote.

I imagine most people here were happy when the partial-birth abortion ban was passed. Would those people change their emotion of they knew that many moderate pro-choicers were also happy?

Alexandra, I was happy when the PBA law passed because I saw it as one step closer to abortion becoming illegal.

The fact that there may be some pro-abortionist who is "happy" about it doesn't affect the way I feel at all. I wouldn't call that "common ground" because their reasons for being happy about such a thing would be different than my reasons.

For instance, they might be happy about it because they were concerned only about the woman's safety, and the PBA procedure was harmful to women. Now, this is obviously a concern of ours as well, but in this there is no sympathy for the child at all. I had heard a lot of pro-abortionists say that this is their reasoning for being happy about the PBA ban, and that they are happy that there will be another procedure used to kill the baby instead. Maybe there is some pro-abortionist who believes that it's wrong to abort a late term baby, and really was genuinely happy that they were going to be protected by this law....but that is hard for me to believe.

And I find it really hard to understand how a person could be against abortion late term but be supportive of one early term. It is a completely illogical and arbitrary point of view. It begs the question, "at what exact point does the human fetus become a person"? And so far, none of the people who I know who support abortion but say they are against late term abortions can answer that question with any honesty.

I just can't find common ground with a pro-abortionist. I can't find common ground with a person who believes it is okay to kill a child, for any reason, at any time.

Incrementalism isnt about compromising and finding common ground with our opponents. It's about working towards the ultimate goal of ending abortion period.

The fact that there may be some pro-abortionist who is "happy" about it doesn't affect the way I feel at all. I wouldn't call that "common ground" because their reasons for being happy about such a thing would be different than my reasons.

a) that's not necessarily true; there are pro-choicers who think that there is no medical need for unrestricted access to late-term abortion. There are pro-choice people who find it abhorrent, however faulty their logic may be. b) The "common ground" is not the intent, but the result. If pro-choicers think that there is not enough support for women who do not choose abortion, I really, really REALLY would appreciate someone here explaining why they would oppose reforms to address the support given to pregnant women besides simply saying, "There is no common ground."

And so far, none of the people who I know who support abortion but say they are against late term abortions can answer that question with any honesty.

So your response to their lack of logic is to say, "Never mind, I don't want your support"?

Incrementalism is finding common ground with people who don't support an all-out ban on abortion. That's why it is considered more feasible than simply holding out for full-scale criminalization -- because it is a compromise with people who do not necessarily view the "ultimate goal" as being the same. If everyone who supported term restrictions or ultrasound legislation also supported a full ban on abortion, there would be no need for incremental legislation. Incremental legislation relies on support from people whose ultimate goals are not necessarily, at this point in time, consistent with a fully pro-life point of view.

Incrementalism is finding common ground with people who don't support an all-out ban on abortion.
--------

Let's start out with the common ground that we're human, and move on from there.

Why is the pro-abortion crowd looking for common ground? Good question.

While it is encouraging that more Americans are pro-life, I don't think that is the main motivation of these new attempts at common ground and dialogue. (Maybe I'm cynical.) Here in 2009, the pro-abortion crowd has (a) the most pro-abortion president in the history of the United States; (b) significant Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress; and (c) a narrow pro-abortion majority on the Supreme Court. Despite popular opinion, they are poised to have their way with the nation and to advance their agenda like never before.

Whether the issue is abortion or something else, I have noticed that when liberals aren't getting their way, they will stoop to all kinds of disgraceful behavior (see, for instance, mistreatment of traditional marriage supporters in California after Proposition 8 passed). However, when they are getting what they want, there is an effort to soothe ruffled feathers, create mutual understanding, tone down angry rhetoric, etc. If they can distract us through dialogue or keep us busy trying to "work together," we are less likely to be on the alert as they push their agenda on us.

Why is the pro-abortion crowd looking for common ground? I say that they are trying to distract us and calm us down so that we will stay out of their way. It's sort of like Mary Poppins' teaspoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. I don't buy it as anything else.

I would smoke out these attempts at dialogue and common ground by proposing the following:

* Reinstate President Bush's regs pertaining to pro-life conscience protections for doctors and hospitals (the President alluded to this possibility during his infamous Notre Dame speech, but--not surprisingly--I've heard nothing about it since);

* Reinstate the Mexico City Policy banning use of tax dollars to fund pro-abortion international organizations;

* Pass the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), which would prohibit the illegal transportation of minor girls across state lines — unbeknownst to parents — in order to circumvent parental notification laws;

* Keep the Hyde Amendment (banning the funding of abortions through federal tax dollars here in the U.S.) in place;

* Promote abstinence education in public schools;

* Implement a new national initiative to encourage adoption.

Each of these initiatives would not threaten Roe v. Wade, but would decrease the number of abortions, protect parental rights, and protect Americans who conscientiously object to involvement in abortion from having to fund it or participate in it. If the seekers of "common ground" aren't interested in these reasonable, moderate proposals, there isn't much common ground to work with.

Chris A. @ 7:55 AM,

Excellent post.

***
Alexandra,

Definitions: "common ground"

A foundation for mutual understanding. (answers.com)
A basis of mutual interest or agreement. (merriam-webster.com)
A characteristic or interest share by multiple people or systems. (allwords.com)

As I interpret these definitions, "common ground" refers to an idea not necessarily an action or final result - maybe something as simplistic as "let's all try to get along". Unfortunately not going to do much towards ending abortion.

"However, when they are getting what they want, there is an effort to soothe ruffled feathers, create mutual understanding, tone down angry rhetoric, etc. If they can distract us through dialogue or keep us busy trying to "work together," we are less likely to be on the alert as they push their agenda on us."

Stephen,
I didn't read your post before I posted. You said it much better than I could!

Posted by: Janet at June 22, 2009 11:42 AM

Thanks Janet.

Alexandra - just so it's clear the point I was making on this:

Your complaint about the ultrasound bill seems to be that you saw pro-choice people unwilling to defend it for a variety of bias-related reasons.

No.

1. The self-declaring pro-choicers wanted the Ultrasound Bill defeated regardless of the evidence that women are hurt by not being fully informed. They have a conflict of interest in the form of money obtained from women seeking abortions.
2. Those who declared themselves pro-lifers for election purposes voted to shelve the legislation instead of fighting for it because of "political realities". This means they didn't believe the lives of the 70,000 aborted children were sufficiently powerful enough to overcome other interests. If 70,000 people came after them with knives to kill those elected officials, they'd be swayed as to the gravity of their votes. The elected chose to ignore the converse.
3. Elected officials represent a collective of power via votes congregated into their person. That's already a "common ground" who is then charged by the electorate in carrying out the principles they were elected for. The problem is, the priority of issues is not selectable - if you don't defend life, then life is expendable, as Neda and most of Iran is finding out.

As I interpret these definitions, "common ground" refers to an idea not necessarily an action or final result - maybe something as simplistic as "let's all try to get along". Unfortunately not going to do much towards ending abortion.

Janet, what you are not acknowledging is that even when there is disagreement on abortion, there can be AGREEMENT on how pregnant students should be accommodated, on how adoption should be approached, etc. These have been goals of many pro-lifers for some time now. And they are things that will likely do a lot to lower the abortion rate, and have a likely eventual result of biasing the public discourse in favor of lowering the abortion rate further.

Chris, thank you for clarifying that. But the point of this Weekend Question is that the pro-choice "vanguard" is currently beginning to acknowledge is that many individual pro-choice voters do not support that kind of thinking. Most pro-choice people don't work in the abortion industry, and don't care at all about the financial impact on abortion clinics of a lowered abortion rate. Many pro-choice people do not support abortion on demand, without restriction, right up until birth.

An interesting piece in Salon: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/21/choice/index.html

Key quote: "Is there a point in pregnancy when our respect for life might outweigh a woman's right to make this choice?"

If there is a movement within the mainstream pro-choice demographic to discuss the need to weigh the right to life OVER the right to bodily autonomy in any context, why would anyone not see that as common ground? As the beginning of further, eventually ultimate, common ground? Assuming there is any logic at all to the pro-life movement, incremental reform that weighs more heavily in favor of the right to life will naturally lead to further questioning of weighing the right to bodily autonomy so heavily.

Janet, what you are not acknowledging is that even when there is disagreement on abortion, there can be AGREEMENT on how pregnant students should be accommodated, on how adoption should be approached, etc. These have been goals of many pro-lifers for some time now. And they are things that will likely do a lot to lower the abortion rate, and have a likely eventual result of biasing the public discourse in favor of lowering the abortion rate further.

I think that the mindset of pro-abortionists and pro-lifers are so different that even when we "seem" to be in agreement, we are not. And to be honest, a lot of times they mask their beliefs to sound like they are in agreement with us, when in reality, they couldn't be more opposed.

Also, the term "common ground" implies (to me) that something is settled. That we've basically agreed to disagree on an issue. I don't agree to that.

Those babies lives are too important to be worried about "common ground" with those who would allow them to be killed. Making abortion rates lower is not good enough. Making access to abortion more difficult is not good enough!

When laws are passed that might save some babies, it's bittersweet, not a completely joyous moment for pro-lifers. We are happy for the babies who will be saved, but are also sorrowful for the ones who are not yet protected by law. We are not "in agreement" with the law, 100%. We are working towards a ultimate goal of ending abortion.

The people who are always supposedly looking for "common ground" are always the same ones who are spitting in our faces every chance they get. It is so disingenuous. What do you think Obama meant when he said he wanted there to be "common ground", considering his stance on abortion issues? Do you really believe that he wanted us to come to agreement on anything? Or do you suppose he really wanted was for us to shut up and let him do what he wants to do? The other side wants to appear to be on our side when in fact, they hate us and everything we stand for!

Bethany, great post 1:14.
What they're basically saying is that the pro-life position is somehow unreasonable and that we need to compromise.

These are human beings, and our position on life is not unreasonable. Is it too much to ask people to refrain from murdering their unborn children? Elective abortion is never the only option for a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy. Pro-lifers are practical, and we are active in helping these women by giving them options in society. There should be more of that going on, as well.

Unfortunately, the abortion industry has deep pockets, and their livelihood is at stake when women are actually given all their options and all the pertinent information. It comes down to money and profit for them, not "helping women."

Those babies lives are too important to be worried about "common ground" with those who would allow them to be killed. Making abortion rates lower is not good enough. Making access to abortion more difficult is not good enough!

I'm not saying it should be good enough. I'm saying that lowering the abortion rate is a start.

I have never heard of anyone thinking that "common ground" means something is finished. Like I said, several of the topics on the RH site are things FFL has been talking about for some time -- not because FFL accepts that education reform or whatever will be "good enough." Many of these common ground issues are things that would still be goals even if abortion was criminalized tomorrow.

Kel this is not about the abortion industry, this is about pro-choice people. The two are not synonymous. For the majority of the pro-choice voting base, abortion is about what they think helps women -- not about money or profit.

This is the same logic that pro-lifers often call absurd in pro-choicers. Pro-choice organizations have, for at least the past decade or so, strongly opposed pretty common-sense legislation simply because it was pro-lifers introducing it and "our views are so diametrically opposed that there is no common ground. Either you respect women or you don't." All it has done is cost them credibility, as they desperately fought to rationalize the idea that ultrasounds are coercive, or that 14-year old girls should be able to undergo surgery without their parents' knowledge.

This is the same logic that pro-lifers often call absurd in pro-choicers. Pro-choice organizations have, for at least the past decade or so, strongly opposed pretty common-sense legislation simply because it was pro-lifers introducing it and "our views are so diametrically opposed that there is no common ground. Either you respect women or you don't." All it has done is cost them credibility, as they desperately fought to rationalize the idea that ultrasounds are coercive, or that 14-year old girls should be able to undergo surgery without their parents' knowledge.

They want abortion at all costs, Alexandra. It's about money. They fought to rationalize ultrasounds as being "coercive" because it costs them money if they show a woman an ultrasound and it convinces her to choose life. They fought to let 14 year olds be able to have abortions without parental consent because if the parents get involved, that means less money for them. It has NOTHING to do with "common ground". It has everything to do with greed, and murder.

Alexandra, do you consider Obama to be pro-choice?

and by pro-choice, I mean per your definition here:

"For the majority of the pro-choice voting base, abortion is about what they think helps women -- not about money or profit."

Do you think Obama's concern is for the women and not for money or profit?

Bravo Bethany!! Bravo!! 2:06pm

Abortion is big business.

"They fought to rationalize ultrasounds as being "coercive" because it costs them money if they show a woman an ultrasound and it convinces her to choose life. They fought to let 14 year olds be able to have abortions without parental consent because if the parents get involved, that means less money for them. It has NOTHING to do with "common ground"."

OPPOSING ultrasound legislation had nothing to do with common ground. Please tell me what about SUPPORTING ultrasound legislation, supporting education reform, supporting term limits, supporting adoption reform -- please tell me which of those goals would raise the abortion rate, which of them has the benefit of raising profits for the abortion industry. This entire post is about relatively recent actions, recent concern for "common ground," by pro-choicers.

"Do you think Obama's concern is for the women and not for money or profit?"

No, I think he acts more out of a concern to protect the right to abortion, though I do believe that this desire to protect the right to abortion is at least partially rooted in a belief that abortion being legal helps women.

Abortion may be big business, but the vast majority of people who support the right to abortion are not connected to that business.

"Janet, what you are not acknowledging is that even when there is disagreement on abortion, there can be AGREEMENT on how pregnant students should be accommodated, on how adoption should be approached, etc. These have been goals of many pro-lifers for some time now. And they are things that will likely do a lot to lower the abortion rate, and have a likely eventual result of biasing the public discourse in favor of lowering the abortion rate further."
Alexandra @ 12:38

Alexandra, I think you make some valid points.

"Kel this is not about the abortion industry, this is about pro-choice people. The two are not synonymous. For the majority of the pro-choice voting base, abortion is about what they think helps women -- not about money or profit."

What about women who don't believe in abortion but go to Planned Parenthood for a GYN exam of birth control. Aren't they in fact supporting the abortion industry, and monetarily, at that.

..GYN exam or birth control...

Abortion may be big business, but the vast majority of people who support the right to abortion are not connected to that business.
Posted by: Alexandra at June 22, 2009 3:06 PM
****************************************

This is true. However, it happens to be those very deep pockets who influence the politicians, the legislation, the ads, and the perpetuation of the misconceptions about how "abortion helps" women or "abortion emancipates" women.

Propaganda is usually paid for by someone.

Janet, I do think that women who go to PP for gyn services are financially supporting the country's largest abortion provider. My point was more that most of the people who would consider themselves pro-choice would not lose money if the abortion rate went down. All members of the abortion industry are pro-choice, but most pro-choice people are not part of the abortion industry.

No, I think he acts more out of a concern to protect the right to abortion, though I do believe that this desire to protect the right to abortion is at least partially rooted in a belief that abortion being legal helps women.

The reason I asked is because Obama is one of those asking for "common ground". What do you think Obama means when he says we need "common ground". Does he seem to be looking for common ground when he takes away funding for CPC's, takes away restrictions on abortion, etc?

This is one reason I can't see this sudden desire for "common ground" as anything but underhanded. It's the same story with ALL of the liberals who have supposedly been seeking "common ground" with pro-lifers. It's a hypocritical tactic, not a sincere gesture.

Bethany @ 9:20,

I agree. I think our hope is in the grassroots movements. The polls are saying that 51% of Americans call themselves pro-life.

* *

Alexandra @ 3:58,

"My point was more that most of the people who would consider themselves pro-choice would not lose money if the abortion rate went down. All members of the abortion industry are pro-choice, but most pro-choice people are not part of the abortion industry."

You are probably right. Wouldn't it be interesting to get a count on how many people have their hand in the "abortion till? Consider who gains from the abortion industry. From the abortion lobby in Washington to the person who packages the pills at the drug company to the average women who get discounted gynecological services at Planned Parenthood. They all have something to loose if abortion is reduced. It all adds up. Do you see my point?

Alexandra,
I know you are referring to making changes like improving the services for adoption and pregnant women - to reduce abortion and that's all well and good. I just think there's a laziness that has taken over and pro-choicers don't care to get involved. It's not on their minds. No one thinks they'll be confronted with an abortion decision until it affects them, so why bother.