In addition, I told Wallis as bluntly as I could, that as far as I could tell his position and that of Sojourners was indistinguishable from the old Mario Cuomo position of being "personally opposed" to abortion while wanting to keep the procedure legal. I suggested that neither he nor Sojourners could honestly be labeled pro-life because, for that term to mean anything, it has to involve advocacy for the legal protection of the unborn. Wallis was equally frank in response. He simply rejected my suggestion that the "legal protection of the unborn" had anything to do with being pro-life. Both of us left that conversation with a clear understanding that Wallis was, quite simply, pro-choice on abortion....
Public Safety was notified of the first instance of vandalism on Thursday at around 12:45 a.m., Cliatt said, noting that all six posters on the lawn had been torn off their plywood mounts. She added that "debate with words, not soft-focus photography" had also been written in black ink on one of the pieces.
"The irony of that is that there was text on all the posters, except the one where the vandal had removed the text," said Princeton Pro-Life member Matthew Sanyour, one of the students who first found the ruined posters on Wednesday night.
Again and again during their 11-year relationship, she rebelled: "Forgetting" her birth control pills, she would get pregnant, feel the thrill of self-determination, then panic that she would lose her husband, seek an abortion and collapse in relief and despair.
"Of course, this did not mean I wanted to do it again and again," she said. "A druggie also wants to stop every time."
"Her story is just so tragic," said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life. "It really underscores everything we always say in the pro-life movement - that abortion is part of a very sad story for women." For proponents of legal abortion, who often invoke the Clinton-era mantra that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," Vilar's story raises uncomfortable, and perhaps unanswerable, questions about the use of abortion as a first-line tool of birth control.
I think that when he said "legal protection of the unborn" isn't the only way to be pro-life, he meant that there ought to be laws assisting pregnant women in paying for their prenatal care, childcare laws, et cetera. Which is pro-life as well.
There are two sides to being pro-life: supporting making it illegal and supporting making it unnecessary. We have to, as pro-lifers, support both. We can't just make it illegal and we can't just make it unnecessary.Posted by: Vannah at October 13, 2009 10:31 AM
There is never a need for an abortion. All of the reasons women cite for aborting can be addressed with adoption-a live baby rather than a dead one. Accept in those rare instances where women are not allowed to be pregnant and continue in a job or program (where accomdodations should be made), the idea that abortion is ever necessary is a complete lie.Posted by: Jacqueline at October 13, 2009 11:31 AM
I will be at the Minneapolis Hilton to stand in silent protest of Dan Rather speaking at the Planned Parenthood banquet. Wondering if you will be too?
You can email me firstname.lastname@example.org
"I think that when he said "legal protection of the unborn" isn't the only way to be pro-life, he meant that there ought to be laws assisting pregnant women in paying for their prenatal care, childcare laws, et cetera. Which is pro-life as well."
Assisting women with prenatal costs and childcare is indeed pro-life, but it doesn't have to involve government intervention to be pro-life. There are many who try to back conservative pro-lifers in a corner by insisting that one cannot be truly pro-life if they don't support government programs. But there are many ideas on the table regarding how to best assist pregnant women, and some of those ideas involve free market solutions instead of government intervention. I don't think that you meant that one MUST support government programs in order to be pro-life - I think you were just clarifying what you think Wallis meant. But there are some with the "government assistance only" mentality, and I feel it discourages innovation and diversity of thought within the pro-life movement.Posted by: Janette at October 13, 2009 11:58 AM
I know what you mean, Jeanette. :)
I personally support making certain that they have access to healthcare no matter what, helping them find jobs that are good for a long-term outlook if they want that or have maternity leave, support maternity leave, make certain that the area always features some sort of childcare, et cetera.
There are also social things that need to change- like the stigma on young mothers. People generally say to young or unmarried women, "Have an abortion! Don't bring shame upon yourself!" and I think that that goes a long way- and we've come a long way, too.
I personally think that there ought to be non-government groups as well as government programs. That's just me.
And I'm so glad that you mentioned diversity in the pro-life movement. I get tired of being told that I must be a rich, old white man who refuses to think for himself and I must have a certain set of politics that I never waver from.
:)Posted by: Vannah at October 13, 2009 12:37 PM
I think any push for making a safer, more supportive world for women in challenging pregnancy circumstances is inherently a good thing - after that, it comes down to deciding which ideas most effectively accomplish this goal and considering potential consequences of certain policies or actions. Basically weighing the pros and cons of different ideas. So it especially bugs me when people assign the most unflattering of intentions to those with differing ideas. Examples: Less government intervention MUST mean you don't really care about the poor. More government programs MUST mean you don't believe in personal responsibilty. Absurd statements like those distract from the heart of the matter and is counter-productive to finding the best solutions. And, of course, I know you weren't implying anything like that - it just reminded me of that ongoing debacle.
And I agree that it's important to fight social stigmas that make women feel pressured to abort. At the same time, I think it's possible to point out that children generally do best when both parents are active participants without disparaging single mothers. You know, encouraging young people to delay sex until they're in a stable relationship with someone who will make a good partner in child-rearing, while also applauding single mothers for their dedication and acceptance of responsibility. And I think insisting that (no matter what the circumstances) women deserve better than abortion eases the stigma surrounding marginalized mothers and restores their worthiness in the eyes of society.
I think diversity in the pro-life movement is essential. Human rights appeal to everyone. Perhaps that's why many of our opponents tirelessly work to portray us as an intolerant fringe group - they cannot afford for people to find out that we're unified not by religion, money or politics, but by compassion for the voiceless. That sounds too much like a cause that most people would support :)Posted by: Janette at October 13, 2009 1:32 PM
First, can I just say that I'm sorry that I didn't spell your name correctly. Eep! Sorry. I wasn't paying attention! ^.^
Second, I just fist pumped to everything that you said! Woot woot!Posted by: Vannah at October 13, 2009 6:13 PM
Sorry. There I go, not paying attention again.
^~^Posted by: Vannah at October 13, 2009 6:14 PM