New Stanek WND column, “Abortion: Sunshine on a rainy day or not?”
We come back to asking why an abortion proponent would want abortion to be rare, a dangerously moralesque view first expressed by Bill Clinton.
The Obama administration is trying to build on this. According to abortion advocate Christina Page in the Huffington Post April 7:
Some historic moments are short and sweet. That was the case last Friday with a call the White House organized on common ground in the abortion conflict. In a never before attempted event, the Obama administration merged dozens of leaders from the pro-choice and pro-life movements onto one conference call line and, wisely, muted us. …
[T]he intent is to focus on the areas in which, theoretically, both sides share a common interest. And there are many: preventing unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reducing the need for abortion, strengthening supports for struggling families with wanted pregnancies, making adoption an option as accessible as any other, and saving lives by improving maternal and child health.
Actually, not to nitpick, but as far as I know only two pro-life groups were invited on the call, Concerned Women for America and Democrats for Life.
Whatever – the dicey (pardon the pun) question for the other side is why care about “reducing the need for abortion”?…
Recognize this is a concession. If America is as pro-abortion as the other side likes to say, there is absolutely no reason to “reduce the need for abortion.”…
Continue reading my column, “Abortion: Sunshine on a rainy day or not?” at WorldNetDaily.com.
[Bumper sticker courtesy of Cafe Press]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“… increasing sense of urgency”?
Dear lady, that is a understatement. Our Lord is slow to anger, but how angry He must be. I feel that He is slowly but surely removing His protective hand.
Keep up the great work, Jill.
Remember how the choice side says that abortion is a sad but necessary and women take this seriously. Why would they do that if they were simply removing a clump of cells. No one likes abortion….because?? It kills an innocent human being that’s why.
OH but having an abortion is like getting a tooth pulled. Except for the simple fact that nobody grieves on the anniversary of getting their tooth pulled.
Why should abortion be rare?
Jasper,
Love the QOTD!! Thank you!!
People make all kinds of choices. Should we legalize them all?
This attempt at some kind of agreement is nothing but the Left’s usual mind games and gradualism. Their talk never made any sense.
Abortion is ALWAYS EVIL.
Again, the liberal mind set. They want it both ways, which is SO illogical.
‘Yes, it’s just a clump of cells.’
BUT, don’t show those pictures of those cells formed into a baby. Don’t even show them on an ultra-sound because it might upset someone!
‘It should be rare.’
BUT, don’t let us stand on the sidewalk and talk to the pregnant moms and offer them help. As a matter of fact, don’t go and talk to a crisis pregancy center because all they are going to do to you is lie, they don’t even have doctors working there.
Of course, I could go on and on. But again, Jill hit the nail on the head. I beleive with facts (information and PICTURES of aborted babies, the development of your baby) many moms would not abort their own flesh and blood.
Please we need to keep the faith and push for more adoptions. I have SO many friends would love to adopt and won’t pursue because the lawyers they have spoken with are so discouraging.
Imagine someone saying this:
“Murder should be safe, legal, and rare”.
This is preposterous especially if “rare” applies to oneself.
“Do unto others…….”
Bill Clinton was a genius at demonically semanticizing words….is is, what is is…….
Think people instead of blindly following these Liberal propagandists of the Abortion Holocaust.
I still would like an answer as to why abortion should be rare. Since abortion is viewed as a “right” can anyone say what other rights, such as speech and religion, that should also be rare?
Yea, Murder should be safe, legal and rare…..ah, that sounds sane right??
They shouldn’t have muted the pro-lifers. Most of the major advocates for the pro-life movement are educated and speak well. Like Jill!
Most are not going to yell in your face, throw things at you or try to hurt you. So why mute us?
Recognize this is a concession. If America is as pro-abortion as the other side likes to say, there is absolutely no reason to “reduce the need for abortion.”
I think that the point is that many Americans are neither as pro-life, nor as pro-abortion, as either side likes to say.
Mary —
This is long, and old, and many here have probably read it already; but it frames the way many women I know feel about abortion: http://priestsforlife.org/prochoice/ourbodiesoursouls.htm
The logical consistency of thinking abortion is wrong but should be legal is up for debate, but there are many women who think this way. The problem is that the pro-life movement wants nothing to do with them, so they self-identify as pro-choice.
He rised. ,
“The problem is that the pro-life movement wants nothing to do with them, so they self-identify as pro-choice.”
what do you mean? Are they pro-life?
Alexandra,
Hey sweets!!
The article is 1995. That is still the way many women think?
What do you propose?
BTW Norma McCorvey(Roe of Roe v Wade)is not in the mushy middle. :)
No, jasper, they don’t consider themselves pro-life, because they don’t start out with the premise that abortion should be illegal. But I do believe that many women like Naomi Wolf or like Caitlin Flanagan in this article ( http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200705/caitlin-flanagan-abortion/2 — it’s a book review of sorts so it does mention books without really explaining them) would easily consider themselves pro-life under some circumstances, and probably find themselves appalled at some aspects of the pro-choice movement.
It seems to me that it would be much easier to work alongside women who think abortion should be rare, and eventually convince them that it should not be legal; than to work alongside women who think abortion should be rare and eventually convince them that it should be allowed for any reason through the third trimester. The pro-choice movement’s MO in this respect is, largely, to find the one point of agreement — the legality — and gradually expand on the logic from there. I don’t know why the pro-life movement in general is hesitant to seize the common point of agreement — the immorality of abortion — and gradually expand on the logic from that point.
Carla, I have no idea what Norma McCorvey’s opinions are. And even though I was only 12 when that article came out I can’t believe women’s opinions have changed all that much. I know many pro-choice women who are not represented by NARAL or Planned Parenthood.
The “legal and rare” crowd are elitists who know they’re deceiving, it’s the people who follow these pro-abortionists that we need to reach.
Cocaine use should be safe, legal and rare.
It should be legal because they will use it regardless of the law. It can’t be stopped.
It needs to be a choice. The privacy rights are so important.
Why can’t we use the same pro deather logic on other crimes? It is just white powder?
How dare we judge cocaine users.
“Why can’t we use the same pro deather logic on other crimes?”
You just answered your own question, xppc. You assumed all of this was based on logic, when if fact, it is based on emotion and an a priori rejection of the unborn as members of humanity.
Alexandra, I know I used to believe that abortion was wrong, but that it should remain legal. What converted me to being pro-life was seeing the reality of abortion and ultimately questioning why I thought something horrible should be legal.
I think many other people could be led down this path as well.
xppc-“Cocaine use should be safe, legal and rare.”
That will come just wait. Smoking cigarettes will be illegal but smoking crack will be safe and legal.
I agree, Lauren. My issue is with describing the desire for abortion to be rare as a “concession.” It seems kind of unnecessarily presumptuous and IMO it ultimately hurts the pro-life movement because it pushes fence-sitters away by assuming that they are disingenuous.
I know a lot of women for whom that is a real desire. They know, logically, that there is something wrong with abortion, but they are listening to their emotions, which are with pregnant women who want abortions.
Lauren-I think many other people could be led down this path as well.
Well said!
Alexandra, I don’t think that we’re assuming they’re disingenous, but rather trying to get people to question *why* they believe abortion should be rare. If we can address that “why” we can explain why it is illogical to beliece that abortion is wrong but should be legal.
I know this is long, but it is pretty good if I may say so myself, so I encourage everyone to read it.
Not every “abortion proponent,” pro-choicer, or pro-abortion ‘rights’ advocate believes that the unborn child is a clump of cells.
I’ve had several discussions with level-headed pro-choicers who believe wholeheartedly that the fetus is a person, a human being, and that abortion is the taking of human life.
The main argument that should be looked at, because it is the one that is used by most legislation that sanctions abortion, is one of rights. The main question that is asked is not “Is the fetus a person or a clump of cells?” The main question asked is “Does a person’s right to life trump someone else’s right to give or withold consent to use one’s body in order to live?” Essentially, “Does the fetus’ right to life trump a woman’s right over her body?”
Unfortunately this question has been asked and answered the wrong way in our courtrooms throughout the past 40 years. But the fact of the matter is, this is the question being asked.
I take issue with your post Jill, only because I feel we are doing ourselves a disservice by labeling all of our opponents as the “lump of cells crowd.”
If the argument is seen from this way, it is quite easy to see that pro-choicers who really do care about women and believe they are doing the right thing would really want abortion to be rare. These pro-choicers really do see it as a necessary evil, not as a right that is to be celebrated.
The problem is that we throw the likes of Planned Parenthood and NARAL and their profit based schemes into this and then begin to believe all pro-choicers are like this, finding every and any obscure “lump of cells” argument against abortion instead of just sticking to the rights argument with which they’ve unfortunately had success in the courtrooms.
That this event called by Obama is actually an act of finding Common Ground I have my doubts. Even from his campaign it was easy to see that he had a false sense of “seeking common ground” on the issue of abortion. Just like the recent ESR news he will probably shape the debate in his favor from the start and then announce his decisions and findings as if they were unbiased and objective and would make everyone happy.
Lauren, would you say then that women who want abortion to be rare but not illegal are merely making concessions?
Never mind, I’m heading out for the rest of the day so I have to be done for a while. My only point is that I think there are a lot of women who don’t want to take sides and who could definitely be persuaded to agree with pro-life logic — but I think that dismissing the beliefs or emotions of these women just because they are “on the other side” makes it harder to do that.
Greg, I think you’re right. If a pro choicer acknowledges that abortion is the taking of a life (or even a “potential life”) then you would want it to be “rare.”
Alexandra, I agree that there are definitely people who can be brought into the pro-life side. People who follow the “safe, legal,rare” paradigm are often those who have grown up with legalized abortion and as such believe it to be a fundamental right, albiet one they are personally uncomfortable with.
I think these people can be reached very easily with pro-life arguments. I think asking them why they think abortion should be rare is a good place to start.
If abortion should be rare, then why the need to force conscientious objectors to participate??
Comment period at Dept of Heath and Human Services is coming to a close.
Last chance to express support for Conscience rights of health care professionals.
Support continuance of the protective regulation put in place during the Bush administration in Dec 2008.
Comment here:
http://actions.nchla.org/Core.aspx?Screen=compose2&SessionID=$AID=970:SITEID=-1:VV_CULTURE=en-us:APP=GAC:ISSUEID=16808$
at Natl Committee for Human Life Amendment,
or here:
http://www.freedom2care.org/action/
Comment deadline midnight 4/9/09
Thanks!
I think that perhaps we ought to take the “it should be rare” as a good sign. It means that abortion hasn’t entirely twisted and warped their humanity to the point that it can’t be recognized. It is difficult, downright impossible, I know, to see the humanity in their arguments, and I don’t believe that there’s humanity in abortion or its arguments at all, but there is humanity in the people fighting for it to continue to flourish.
If abortion makes them uncomfortable, then we may be able to reason with their hearts. They’re people, and I think that if they acknowledge this uncertainty, we can gain more pro-life activists.
Cocaine use should be safe, legal and rare.
It should be legal because they will use it regardless of the law. It can’t be stopped.
It needs to be a choice. The privacy rights are so important.
Posted by: xppc at April 8, 2009 10:30 AM
Or course cocaine should be legal. And safe. And probably rare too.
Two points.
1) Maybe it all comes down to is the fact that some people don’t care for babies all that much. All the logic in the world will not change their minds on abortion.
2) Unless people recognize the dignity of every human being, from the joining of the sperm and the egg, there will always be “logical” reasons to support a “right” to abortion.
Bobby: “it is based on emotion and an a priori rejection of the unborn as members of humanity.”
This is ultiately what it comes down to. If only we can get the American public to realize this and openly address it. Im all for a dialogue with the pro-choice side. Lets openly debate the issue if only to show how unreasonable the pro-choice argument really is.
The use of a handgun for self-defense should be safe, legal and rare.
The main question asked is “Does a person’s right to life trump someone else’s right to give or withold consent to use one’s body in order to live?” Essentially, “Does the fetus’ right to life trump a woman’s right over her body?”
I don’t think this (considered “bodily autonomy” I believe) is a valid argument in favor of abortion. The government regulates many actions that we chose to do to our bodies. For example, smoking a cigarette is prohibited in most indoor restaurants, bars, and airports. Medical marijuana is illegal in many states. A pregnant woman who overdoses on drugs can be charged with endangering the life of her baby.
Let’s apply that saying to rape. Let’s keep rape safe, legal, and rare.
Would this society accept a man who said “My body and My “CHOICE”?? if we were discussing rape?
Let’s keep child molestation safe, legal, and rare.
Let’s keep tax fraud legal, and rare.
Let’s keep hate crimes legal, and rare.
Let’s keep……
The bodily autonomy argument is a distraction anyways. Why do a large number of women have abortions? Not to uphold this bodily rights. No, they have abortions to not have a baby. It often has nothing to do with clashing rights, only with the desire to specifically kill another human. There is no pro-choice argument to defend that.
Just curious Hal, did your wife have an abortion to protect her bodily autonomy, or was it largely motivated by the desire to not have a child?
Janet, right! We could go on and on. Why would we want to keep abortion rare anyway? It’s just a choice. If we aren’t killing babies, it’s just a choice to remove a clump of cells.
Again, why is Scott Peterson on Death Row for a double homicide? Shouldn’t it just have been Laci’s murder that counted? Was Laci nuts for naming Conner while he resided in her womb?
Posted by: Greg at April 8, 2009 10:59 AM
——
You raise the Bodily Sovereignty argument here. This was raised by Judith Jarvis-Thompson in the 70s and again by Eileen McDonagh and Daniel Boonin.
The core of the argument turns on the point consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
The argument has numerous fallacies. Ultimately it goes begging the question – simply assuming something it cannot support logically.
That would be specifically granting a special right to kill a human being where complete dependency is upon the one who is responsible for that life – the mother, while simultaneously rejecting all social notions of responsibility one has to one’s own children.
That’s not morality – it’s the absence of a morality.
I address this issue in a blog post called: Lileigh’s Location:
http://www.thrufire.com/blog/2008/04/controlled-burn-bodily-rights-or-lileighs-location-part-i/
Here is the problem. Abortion NEVER should have been legalized. Never! Would women still do it? Of course. Would it cause women to think twice before engaging in sex. Would it give them some consequences to think about? Yes.
Posted by: Oliver at April 8, 2009 12:04 PM
——
It’s not really a case of bodily autonomy – that’s a misnomer. It’s sovereignty because there is another person involved, and effectively the womb’s location is the domain of governance.
It’s more than simply self-government or freedom. It is absolute power over another individual without a shred of mercy.
So it comes down to a veiled fallacy called argumentum ad baculum – an appeal to force.
We know that as “might makes right”.
If abortion had been illegal I never would have had one.
Or course cocaine should be legal. And safe. And probably rare too.
Posted by: Hal at April 8, 2009 11:27 AM
Next time you go to your abortion doctor, offer him some coke dude.
Then offer your off-spring some free cocaine to help the poor farmer in those South American nations.
Tell them to use it safely and rarely, dude.
If it’s good enough for daddy, it’s good enough for your off spring.
Hello Carla, I’m sure you and a lot of others would not have. That’s what the PC industry has managed to do. Confuse the hell out of women.
What a great piece, Jill. Powerful.
Oh, yeah, and heroin should be legal, too, right Hal? And rare? And safe?
It wasn’t safe for my dear friend who died one year ago from using it.
We outlaw many things that we know are harmful to human life. Abortion clearly takes human life. Bodily autonomy doesn’t seem to carry much weight in the illegal drugs debate (when there’s no other fully dependent life to consider), and it should carry even less in abortion.
Kel, great point!! Sorry to hear about your friend. If the government had no say so in drug use, this country would be in worse shape than it already is.
Thanks Chris.
I wasn’t really advocating the Bodily Sovereignty argument. I merely brought it up to show that the argument (B.A.) that has given abortion rights proponents so much success in the courtroom is actually completely compatible with the idea that the fetus is a person.
And thus if one is pro-choice because of the B.A. argument, it would make perfect sense that they could also take on the belief that abortion should be rare.
The B.A. argument alone lends one to believe that abortion is a necessary evil.
The anti-personhood argument (clump-of-cells argument is not.
I was only making a distinction in the views held by pro-choicers, one that should help to answer the rhetorical questions brought up by Jill and some of the other commenters.
Hope that clarifies it a bit more. Thanks for the link, I look forward to reading it.
Greg:
I took your post above and substituted the word “murder” for the words “choicer” and “abortion”.
Your comments are ludicrous because abortion is murder and the choice usually results in the murder of a innocent human being. There should never be any compromise in looking at it any other way or trying to see it their way.
I have no desire in compromising or seeing their side of the story. Rather, abortion is heinous, it’s evil, it’s immoral and MUST be stopped. Their is no compromise on this issue. In fact, compromise has led to even more death and destruction and is in fact a tool of the enemy to deceive.
Peace only comes with total victory over and defeat of your enemy and you would do well to learn this lesson.
Never forget this fact: ABORTION IS MURDER!
Here goes your edited post:
“I know this is long, but it is pretty good if I may say so myself, so I encourage everyone to read it.
Not every “murder proponent,” pro-murder, or pro-murder ‘rights’ advocate believes that the unborn child is a clump of cells.
I’ve had several discussions with level-headed pro-murderers who believe wholeheartedly that the fetus is a person, a human being, and that murder is the taking of human life.
The main argument that should be looked at, because it is the one that is used by most legislation that sanctions murder, is one of rights. The main question that is asked is not “Is the fetus a person or a clump of cells?” The main question asked is “Does a person’s right to life trump someone else’s right to give or withold consent to use one’s body in order to live?” Essentially, “Does the fetus’ right to life trump a woman’s right over her body?”
Unfortunately this question has been asked and answered the wrong way in our courtrooms throughout the past 40 years. But the fact of the matter is, this is the question being asked.
I take issue with your post Jill, only because I feel we are doing ourselves a disservice by labeling all of our opponents as the “lump of cells crowd.”
If the argument is seen from this way, it is quite easy to see that pro-murderers who really do care about women and believe they are doing the right thing would really want murder to be rare. These pro-murderers really do see it as a necessary evil, not as a right that is to be celebrated.
The problem is that we throw the likes of Planned Parenthood and NARAL and their profit based schemes into this and then begin to believe all pro-murderers are like this, finding every and any obscure “lump of cells” argument against murder instead of just sticking to the rights argument with which they’ve unfortunately had success in the courtrooms.
That this event called by Obama is actually an act of finding Common Ground I have my doubts. Even from his campaign it was easy to see that he had a false sense of “seeking common ground” on the issue of murder. Just like the recent ESR news he will probably shape the debate in his favor from the start and then announce his decisions and findings as if they were unbiased and objective and would make everyone happy.”
Here’s a clue Greg. You know your logic is flawed when Hal agrees with you.
Here’s a clue Greg. You know your logic is flawed when Hal agrees with you.
Posted by: HisMan at April 8, 2009 2:01 PM
Ha.
HisMan:brillante!
I personally believe that there isn’t really a way to sway people away from the bodily sovereignty argument because
1. women have been conditioned to want and believe they are entitled to the same “body” and “freedoms” as men – that is sex with minimal consequences such as the big one – pregnancy. In other words biology restricts a woman’s freedom.
2. women and men see the baby as the problem, not the sex. Babies once considered a gift, now are an obstacle to happiness, personal fulfilment and self-actualization.
Thus distortion in a view of femininity and the value of children.
Posted by: Greg at April 8, 2009 1:42 PM
——
Greg – I understood you weren’t advocating the BA argument, I was simply indicating it’s a fallacious argument. I’m sorry I didn’t address your point directly, which is valid – if I understand you correctly, you’re suggesting Obama’s administration is okay with cursory acknowledging the personhood of the unborn, but supports (no matter how illogical) the legal right to an abortion/murder anyway. I agree this is what it appears to be their position. It’s also consistent with BHO’s take in IL Senate cases.
With scientific and legal evidence mounting, the BS argument is really the only argument left, which is also the most self-centered argument.
HisMan – Greg’s not pro-choice at all – he’s merely describing the situation he sees. In fact, he’s been reading Steve Wagner’s Common Ground without Compromise, which I highly recommend.
Greg is suggesting pro-lifers shouldn’t be so quick to stereotype the pro-choice crowd, because it really dampens what could be very productive, educational deliberations. The danger is in addressing arguments they aren’t making, and we look foolish.
Greg is also a member of Students for Life of Illinois.
Chris:
We don’t compromise on murder, we shouldn’t compromise on abortion, period.
I wasn’t implying that Greg was anything.
I was just showing the weakness in his comment.
Weakness always leads to compromise.
Intersting that both Clinton and Mitt Romney said that abortion should be safe and legal.
Posted by: HisMan at April 8, 2009 10:31 PM
Well Chris, I have to say I agree with you. (Now you’ll be in trouble with HisMan too)
Most of those who try to use the bodily autonomy argument use it throughout the pregnancy. The way to defeat it is to ask why a third-trimester abortion must result in a dead baby.
Posted by: YCW at April 9, 2009 11:35 AM
——
Most who hold to the BS belief are not willing to defend 3rd trimester abortions. Given Blackmun’s argument in Roe, it appears that was his position.
Justice Ginsberg also recently recapped pregnancy as a form of slavery, suggesting this is a last defense of abortion rights.
For that to be true, one has to assume sexual intercourse is a sort of S&M ritual that has gone horribly wrong, and that killing the child frees the shackles you willing accepted earlier.
Yet physical freedom from the pregnancy doesn’t always imply emotional and psychological freedom.