New Stanek WND column, “‘Common ground’ vs. zodiac abortions”
In his Jan. 22, 2009, proclamation lauding the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Obama wrote we must “reduce the need for abortion … [by] find[ng] common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information and preventative services.”
Since then, “common ground” has become the talk of the pro-abort town.
A month ago, the pro-abortion website RH Reality Check, funded by Ted Turner, even launched an “On Common Ground” forum, inviting thinkers from both sides to publicly contemplate.
To date, of 15 contributors, only 2 are solidly pro-life – Kristen Day of Democrats for Life and Serrin Foster of Feminists for Life – and they have each only posted once.
The problem is pro-lifers fundamentally oppose every “common ground” plank Obama and pro-abortion strategists unilaterally established, which were, in English, widespread contraception distribution, comprehensive sex education and taxpayer funding of the “family planning” industry, i.e., Planned Parenthood.
The equivalent would have been for President Bush to say, “We must work to find common ground to stop government subsidizing of contraceptives, expand abstinence education and defund Planned Parenthood.” Right….
Continue reading my WorldNetDaily.com column today, “‘Common ground’ vs. zodiac abortions.”

“Common Ground” is a joke? Yet another BIG surprise…. I’m really getting shocked today!
I think the biggest obstacle to common ground is what the definition of abortion is. Those who favor it, tidy it up with terms like reproductive rights or reproductive choice, but that’s a broad brushstroke of a definition, and really does not define the act of abortion.
Let’s start with the common ground definition that abortion is the murder of an unborn child.
Those who favor abortion must defend why this is right and/or acceptable to do in the womb, when if done outside the womb, it is against the law and is considered murder or manslaughter.
This is the heart of the matter. Forget all the other blips on the radar screen of family planning or sex education; they’re just distrations; this is what it boils down to: It either is human life or it is not.
Let’s start with the common ground definition that abortion is the murder of an unborn child.
Those who favor abortion must defend why this is right and/or acceptable to do in the womb, when if done outside the womb, it is against the law and is considered murder or manslaughter.
Many believe women have this right based on the theory of “bodily autonomy”. They acknowledge a child is being killed (something unheard of in the 1970’s and ’80’s when it was just a “blob of cells”) but say the mother’s rights trump the baby and the father’s rights.
So what we see now is the emplacement of utilitarian ethics. If you are wanted you are a person. If you are not wanted you can be killed, experimented on etc.
What it all boils down to is a cheapening of the value of innocent human life to something below that of “the right of bodily integrity”.
I can fondly remember the day when innocent human life was the most sacred physical thing on earth. What a sick world we live in today..
So what we see now is the emplacement of utilitarian ethics. If you are wanted you are a person. If you are not wanted you can be killed, experimented on etc.
Posted by: angel at July 15, 2009 6:31 PM
Exactly, angel. And where have we heard this kind of ‘reasoning’ before? Hmmm…can anyone say ‘ NAZI GERMANY’?
The pro-aborts HATE when abortionism is compared to Naziism.
I think it’s almost the perfect analogy – except the executions are legal, and scheduled by, and in the presence of , a consenting mother.