NARAL releases Pro-Choice Voter Guide
Thought you’d be interested in checking out NARAL’s newly released Pro-Choice Voter Guide.
As an aside, I see NARAL has apparently expanded its definition of “choice.” See graphic right, taken from its home page.
Now “anti-choice” apparently also means “anti-healthy pregnancies.” So I guess this means pro-lifers oppose abortion and proper prenatal care. That certainly doesn’t leave us much wiggle room.
But I digress. There are only 2 Saturdays left before the 2010 Election Day. Try to find some time this weekend to help an “anti-choice” candidate NARAL opposes.
Oct.23, 2010 9:04 am |
Industry watch, Voting |
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.
Jill – I think they’re trying to make the case that only perfectly formed pregnancies – where everything is wanted and desired, including the time of pregnancy, should be elective.
If the child is not perfect, you can reject/kill your child.
Hmm… not much grace there.
So, the true message NARAL is sending is that grace and compassion are optional.
This is exactly what Christ meant when He said the words you speak will convict you on the Day of the Lord.
How many on that day will desire God’s grace and compassion, instead of His absolute power?
Even if one doesn’t believe in the Almighty, would they still want someone else to have absolute power over them? They’re blind.
Non-sequitur alert:
In my meandering quest for some other ‘little known fact’ I went down some rabbit trail and I stumbled on to this bit of rhetorical splendor.
It is a timeless relevancy that gave me pause for thought concerning my own pet ‘religious opinions’.
“In a cause like this [abolition of slavery] he is a mean-spirited bigot who would refuse to labour because another is labouring in the same cause whose religious opinion happens not to agree with his own.”
Frederick Douglass, “The Free Church Connection With the Slave Church: An Address Delivered in Arbroath, Scotland, on February 12, 1846.
I clicked on my state and said BUH BYE to all of the proaborts that will be leaving office!!
A list of who not to vote for! Perfect!
It seems disingenuous to post about a link without commenting on what’s behind it.
Do you have anything to say to NARAL’s observation that pro-life lawmakers tend to vote against policies that will help women continue their pregnancies, like state-based children’s health insurance plans and Title X programs that offer prenatal care or referrals to providers who offer these services (and take Medicaid)?
I find the “prochoice” voters’ guides to be more thorough, usually, than the prolife ones, so I’m always grateful when organizations like NARAL put theirs out. I just vote for whoever they hate most, figuring that he or she will do the most to protect women and children, not abortionists.
Hmm . . . it appears that in NJ’s 3rd, Jon Runyan isn’t overtly pro-life, but his opponent John Adler is uber pro-choice (endorsed by NARAL). So in my mind, as long as we make sure that the pro-abort doesn’t win, we can always encourage Jon to lean more pro-life later on.
Try to find some time this weekend to help an “anti-choice” candidate NARAL opposes.
But do your homework first! I’m not buying NARAL’s “anti-choice” label for some of these guys. Take Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) for example. NARAL has him as “anti-choice.” Yet on the congressman’s own YouTube page, he posted a video where he recounts his reaction to CHA’s endorsement of PPACA. He says, “You go tell the 600 Catholic hospitals and all the sisters and the administrators that they’re pro-abortion.” Not pro-healthcare-reform. Pro-abortion. And he’s jubilant about it. NARAL can call him anything they want, but I’ll take him at his own word and call him “pro-abortion.”
Megan,
Pro-lifers are not anti-woman. I recall that Hawaii’s CHIP program was an utter failure because of outrageous costs. Everyone and their brother signed up whether they really needed it or not just because they could! I don’t know enough to comment on the other programs you mentioned.
and don’t forget that many Planned Parenthoods don’t do pre-natal services anymore. Our PP here stopped that in January 2009. Now the only help a young pregnant woman gets is help to abort. No adoption. No baby. just abortion.
That pretty much sums up what NARAL wants – for their community and candidates.
What sort of self-serving twist of logic leads you to assert that because NARAL list ‘Healthy Pregnancies’ on their site it infers that anti-choicers are ‘anti healthy pregnancies’?
Because, cranium, ‘Healthy Pregnancies’ is under the headline “WHAT IS CHOICE” followed by ‘Abortion’, ‘Birth Control’ and ’Sex Education’.
As you may know, some of us are opposed to abortion. This also means that some of us are opposed to others teaching children sex education that promotes abortion and some birth control methods as healthy choices.
When NARAL added ‘healthy pregnancies’ to the list under “WHAT IS CHOICE” they are implying that some people are also opposed to ‘healthy pregnancies’ in addition to the other three listed. I don’t know anyone who opposes healthy pregnancies, do you?
Maybe your right. NARAL probably isn’t implying anything at all.
This means NARAL is just stupid. That works too.
I really don’t think they were implying anything. They may have actually been trying to say ‘look we offer non-abortion services as well’.
I don’t see how you can infer that they are stupid for NOT implying that anti-choice includes anti healthy pregnancies. That just doesn’t make sense.
What do they offer a pregnant, scared 16 year old girl who doesn’t want an abortion?
“That just doesn’t make sense.”
Oh now I get what you’re saying cranium. Thanks.
NARAL is promoting continuing pregnancies as the healthy choice and abortion as the unhealthy choice.
Gotcha.
Choice without judgement.
Praxedes, you are giving the impression that you are so far up on your high horse you can no longer see the ground. Being deliberately obtuse does not constitute a rational point.
“Choice without judgement.”
I will always ‘judge’ killing a child as an evil choice. If this gives you or anyone else the impression that I am riding a tall horse so be it.
Abortion is not a rational choice.
You can ‘judge’ as you see fit Praxedes, but it won’t change things.
Child:
[n] a young person of either sex (between birth and puberty); “she writes books for children”; “they’re just kids”; “`tiddler’ is a British term for youngsters”
The high horse comment was in relation to your twisting of what I had said, either through lack of comprehension or an obtuse attempt at scoring a point. (I prefer the latter hypothesis because it’s more amusing, even if your ‘attempt’ was blatantly obvious)
It would appear that there are a vast number of people who think that abortion is a rational choice.
It would appear that there are a vast number of people who think that abortion is a rational choice.
I agree cranium. Thinking abortion is rational doesn’t make it rational.
Are you enjoying your perverse little word games Praxedes?
Exactly the same thing can be said of your position.
I think we’ve been here before cranium. It’s not about playing games. It’s not about winning.
Trip, trap. Trip, trap.
Given that its a battle you’ll never win and your claim that it’s not about winning anyway, why are you fighting?
Because, cranium, every life matters. EVERY life.
If what we do saves just one life, changes one heart, makes a difference in one child’s, one parent’s life, then it has been worth it. I realize it’s not a particularly utilitarian or “practical” view, but there it is. And I wouldn’t change it for anything.
The science says the fetus is ‘human’. It has it’s own unique DNA. That much is not in dispute.
But most people don’t refer to fetuses as babies. When people say ‘I’m having a baby’ they really mean ‘I will be holding and seeing a baby once my pregnancy is complete’. Your claims of ‘baby’ are subjective opinion based on the broad variability of linguistic intent.
One of the regular commentors here recently said “He was formed entirely by 5/6 weeks. He just got bigger. That was the only difference.”
After sucking my teeth momentarily I thought OK, lets check up about this. So I googled. I ignored anything which looked remotely pro-choice. I only looked at images and read information from unbiased medical sites and from anti-choice sites. The feeling I was left with was ‘if you’d be happy to walk down the street holding hands with a six foot version of that, you’ve got issues – but wait, that’s right, it can’t walk, it can’t see, it can’t talk….’.
And that’s what people ‘know’. So, no, it’s not “one child’s life”, it’s a potential child, an as yet unfinished child, an incomplete child. No more than a car is a ‘car’ when it is halfway along the production line – it is not operable. And the science regarding pain, mental development and other factors, whilst ‘inconclusive’, is strongly indicative of it being significantly less than that of a newborn.
A fetus simply is not a fully formed human child. That’s why infanticide is a crime and abortion is not.
cranium,
Are you also OK with aborting fetal pandas and belugas, or just fetal humans?
The real argument is: should we end a human life just because it’s lawful?
In the south at one time, ending a human life was lawful.
during slavery, some humans were considered property, and the injury and ending that human life was lawful.
during oppressive regimes, ending human life was lawful.
And since 1973, in America, ending human life via abortion is lawful.
But does a law make it right (a moral thing) to do?
If so – how does one feel about other usery for humans? Slavery? Sexual trafficing? Torture? extermination? Human scientific exploitation? all these and more looked at one segment of human kind as less than human.
and that is what we have here with abortion.
“Given that its a battle you’ll never win and your claim that it’s not about winning anyway, why are you fighting?”
The same reason that I would fight to save you if it ever became legal to kill athiests. Love.
“A fetus simply is not a fully formed human child.”
And when we were children, we were simply not fully formed human adults. But we have been human beings since the day of our conceptions.
Janet, I find your question simply inane, go ask a pregnant panda.
Actually Praxedes, I would fight for you if it ever became legal to kill theists. Thank you.
The physiological traits of a 12 week fetus for instance, are significantly different to those of a new born child. A new born child has all the physiological traits of an adult. The difference is how people ‘perceive’ a fetus and a child, that’s why people accept abortion.
“The difference is how people ‘perceive’ a fetus and a child, that’s why people accept abortion.”
That’s why SOME people accept abortion. OTHER people see the humanity in all of us — athiests, theists and the preborn.
The difference is how people ‘perceive’ a fetus and a child, that’s why people accept abortion.
You can “perceive” that the sun is cold, but it doesn’t make it so.