Abortion proponents now totally confused about what to call themselves
It’s clear by now Planned Parenthood didn’t consult its friends before announcing plans to drop the term “pro-choice” from its lexicon.
Seems like a huge deal to me, particularly since Planned Parenthood offered no replacement.
Planned Parenthood doesn’t make marketing missteps, but I think it just did.
Certainly Planned Parenthood must have alienated groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Feminists for Choice, Catholics for Choice, Rock for Choice, Medical Students for Choice, Republicans for Choice, Center for Choice, 4000 Years for Choice, Clinicians for Choice, Voice of Choice, Choice USA, yadda yadda.
It took a week for NARAL to gather its wits, but finally on January 17 it issued a response, digging in its heels to expand the meaning of the term wider than ever:
[I]t’s important that NARAL Pro-Choice America also see “choice” in much broader terms. Choice means having access to birth control and choosing when to make the personal and financial commitment to bring a child into the world. It means taking steps to ensure you can provide for and protect that child to the best of your ability.
Of course, it makes perfect sense to protect children “to the best of your ability” you didn’t kill yourself. But I digress.
Last week abortion supporter Whoopi Goldberg became so confused on The View she decided pro-choice is pro-life… but that people who say they are pro-life are not that at all but are anti-abortion… but actually, we’re all pro-life…. Um… jump to 1:21…
[youtube]http://youtu.be/4VdeMgnZXtw?t=1m21s[/youtube]
On January 22, A. B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill newspaper, responded to an October Fox News poll indicating that 50% of Americans called themselves pro-choice and 42% pro-life:
But you know, though, those people would argue that using those terms is not really accurate polling. Everyone’s pro-life, even if they support the right to an abortion.
Um again… jump to 4:01…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2spb_Pe1wg – fox[/youtube]
Note that despite the insane mash-up of terminologies, the left lean now is toward life: Abortion proponents want to be considered pro-life. Strange times indeed.
Scott Klusendorf of Life Training Institute was interviewed on Issues, Etc., on January 29 regarding his thoughts on why PP is abandoning the term “pro-choice.” He said:
Here’s the classic thing. Whenever you’re losing an argument, there are five things you want to do:
1. Make the debate personal rather than objective: Determine right and wrong by your personal circumstances, not some objective standard.
2. Make the debate complex.
3. Offer no rational arguments, only labels.
4. Appeal to the majority.
5. Reduce the entire thing to personal circumstances that no one else has a right to understand or judge.
PP is five for five on this particular video clip. You couldn’t have done it better.
Let’s watch that ad again, with Scott’s points in mind…
[youtube]http://youtu.be/2hVSFh__xss[/youtube]
Scott continued:
What does it tell you that they are publicly trying to reframe the debate? It tells me a couple things:
1. They’re terrified of images of abortion being widely distributed in the public. Feminist Naomi Wolf put it well in a 19[97] New York Times article, when she said, “When someone holds up a model of a six-month-old fetus and a pair of surgical scissors, we say, ‘choice,’ and we lose.” “Choice” holds no power against the power of the backdrop of an unborn human that has had his skull stabbed and brain sucked out. “Choice” just doesn’t work. The images convey the truth the language attempts to hide.
2. The other thing it conveys is PP is afraid that the pro-life movement is increasingly a younger and more motivated movement. The other side of this debate is dealing with an aging population of activists who have made no real arguments to advance their cause, and now are trying to reduce everything to labeling and personal circumstances. They’re in trouble.
Which is not to say we are in the clear. Scott again:
On their side they have the law and the political establishment, and that isn’t going to change any time soon. And we’re going to have to work a whole lot harder to get involved politically. But for now they have the upper hand politically, but they don’t have the upper hand in terms of where their movement is going, and the argument. They have no argument.
As for the terminology flux:
I can think of article that argued in 1995 that they needed to switch from “choice” to “consent” – that “choice” was empty and did not compete well in the marketplace. This argument against the word “choice” is not new. This is just a typical cyclical thing for them, a test balloon to see what happens.
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.
If pro-aborts really want to use the prolife name…may I suggest the following alternate spelling.
faux-life (f?’• l?f)
definition:
1) a false life or one who lives life in an artificial way.
2) said of groups that use erroneous biology to justify its chosen lifestyle.
;)
Totally Confused?
I’m good with that.
I am just totally good with them being “totally confused” too Carla.
Whoopee,”I slaughtered my baby(ies) but I am stil Pro-Life.” PLEEEEEEEASE!!
The PP ad is one of the biggest jokes I think I have seen recently. “Not in her shoes” by the largest provider of abortion in the USA, whose whole profit margin is based on SELLING abortion to every woman (ask Abby Johnson) that walks in the door (even those who are NOT pregnant), who rings up BILLIONS of dollars mutliating unborn babies, has never seen an abortion they didn’t like, and who makes essentially adoption and parenting a non-option. Does anyone but me hear a cash register ringing (Cha-ching) at $400 dollars a pop the only option is Abort, Abort, Abort. Pro-choice, that is why Abby was told now all PPs MUST begin to offer abortions.
“I can think of article that argued in 1995 that they needed to switch from “choice” to “consent” – that “choice” was empty and did not compete well in the marketplace.”
And “consent” is not just as empty?
Scott Klusendorf hit the nail on the head, though Lila Rose says it in fewer words:
I can think of article that argued in 1995 that they needed to switch from “choice” to “consent” – that “choice” was empty and did not compete well in the marketplace.
If it’s the one I’m thinking of, the author did at least offer a new argument (albeit a highly tendentious one).
It was so nice how Whoopie let the other black host on the show talk. I would’ve like to hear what she had to say. Whoopie is an idiot and I can’t believe a woman who would make fun of a past president by calling him female body parts now has her own show. Who gives a rip what she has to say? I would have had more respect for her point of view if she would have admitted that those desperate women are SOLD abortions, they are not free and the abortion can cause waaaayy more problems for her down the line than the pregnancy would have, especially with 1.5 million couples in the US alone waiting to adopt. Whoopie your race is being exterminated, congratulations on making it sound like that’s a good thing.
The picture of Obama and Cecile intertwined reminds me of two SNAKES intertwined. There’s just something SINISTER about it.
The Pro-abortion lobby must be losing ground. I have personally faced “attacks” from abortion rights supporters that were anything but logical. Their arguements boiled down to fear mongering, demonizing pro-lifers, making the issue “complicated” and “personal,” and trying to emotionally manipulate me. And that all was coming from a PhD… who still believes that unborn children are just “blobs.” Please, this is the 21st Century. Such arguments are unsound. I am praying this era of injustice will end soon and all human life valued.
Two snakes intertwined … I was thinking Voldemort (Obama) and Nagini (Richards).
Liz B – I, too, have had the same experience as you have with abortion advocates. Probably we all have.
Sarah Terzo has included some amazing quotes by abortion advocates in her blog. I encourage you to share them with your PhD friend.
(1) For statements by people who believe that “abortion kills babies and that’s perfectly fine”,
See http://liveactionnews.org/some-pro-choice-activists-admit-abortion-kills-life-i-knew-it-was-a-baby/ by Sarah Terzo
(2) And for eye-witness accounts by people who have seen abortions in process, see
@ADTWF: Surely Obama is Umbridge and Richards is Voldemort? *nerdy*
The pic of Obama hugging Richards basically says it all. There is nothing, I repeat nothing that comes close to abortion rights on Obama’s list of priorities (except perhaps his next round of golf).
Obama is in his glory when addressing and mingling with the radical “choice” element. And it is because he sees abortion as much more than a woman’s “right”. Legalized access to abortion is a “gateway attitude” of sorts into every kind of sexual perversion and alternative lifestyle because abortion totally eliminates the link between sexual intimacy and procreation (unless of course we want the link). Once sex becomes divorced from procreation than who is to say that any kind of sex is not good? Careful you libertines out there–this envelope is being pushed in many places to include adult/child sex as a good thing so be careful what you wish for. This is a mindset of creature telling Creator how things are rather than our doing His will. We are all going to pay a very heavy price (and indeed already have begun)for tens of millions of dead babies, for the loss of their joy and love in the world, for the loss of their creativity and learning and skills, for the loss of their companionship,for the loss of their economic contributions, for the loss of their offspring and on and on. There is a palpable sadness in our culture and a loss of innocence. Youth reinvigorates and what are we doing but stomping out about a third of our youth every year. It is profoundly sinful.
The government doesn’t belong in the abortion decision…..until the time comes to foot the bill, then watch what happens when the government tries to stay out of it.
On their side they have the law and the political establishment, and that isn’t going to change any time soon.
.
Um, not really, no. The US Constitution does not protect abortions. That is why the political establishment and extreme prejudice is used when selecting Supreme Court justices. The rationalizations using the 14th amendment are simply bizarre and utterly foreign to the plain text and historical context of the amendment.
.
Just imagine a reading comprehension test in which the student is given the following passage and choices:
14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Which of the following is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?
a. Citizenship for those born in the U.S. regardless of race.
b. Privacy
c. The right to kill one’s own child before he/she is born.
d. All of the above.
.
The fact is there is no right to abortion. There is a far stronger argument for life based on the actual text of the 14th Amendment.
So… what will they do with all those
Choice on Earth
Christmas cards?
Confused, desperately seeking slogans, retreating from sonograms…
Just where the proabort movement should be. :)
Indeed Mary Ann!!
The rest of their movement hasn’t gotten the memo yet!!
How about MY LIFE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOURS as the new slogan. After all the whole gist of it is that the mother has dominion over the child in the womb.
Have you ever considered that neither moniker is really correct? Who isn’t “pro-choice” in life, to some extent? Who isn’t “pro-life?” One word titles don’t really help us to understand each other, nor do they help us to understand the complexity of this debate. Most importantly they aren’t helpful in determining the common ground between both groups.
Yeah. Lately I’ve been fighting Step 2.
Make the debate needlessly complicated. Which is interesting, since it started here with Reality mentioning gestational trophoblastic disease, and has since expanded with another debate I’ve been engaged in with a user on YouTube to include “fertilized” eggs via parthenogenic activation practically within the same week. I swear, it’s as if these guys get a weekly newsletter to aid in their disinformation, the talking points are ALWAYS the same, and seem to emerge from everyone around the exact same time.
Most importantly they aren’t helpful in determining the common ground between both groups.
That’s because there’s not much “common ground” to be found with people who support the legal option of a parent to have their child killed in utero. That’s where we differ, and I’m sure as heck not about to budge on that point.
Because not budging totally gets things done.
The ad gives the impression that the pro-choice side realises they are the minority and want to somehow connect with the pro-life side to hide that fact. Interesting…
Because “budging” gets people killed.
Elly, can you cite one abortion restriction that Planned Parenthood endorsed (or was neutral on for that matter)?
Very few issues are black and white. Human dignity is one of them.
I don’t know, because I have better things to do than obsess over planned parenthood.
I acknowledge that abortion is indeed a horrible thing, but how about instead of trying to outlaw it and pretend that that’s going to reduce the number of abortions, we work towards reducing the need for abortion? that makes a lot more sense to me.
And while we’re talking about human dignity, what about the dignity of the mother? how about the dignity of a sixteen year old girl who gets date raped and discovers that she is pregnant? how about the dignity of the once again pregnant single mother with six children already who can barely afford to feed them? If you truly wanted to end abortion, you’d look at solutions to support these people instead of just bashing planned parenthood or whatever other “pro-abort” organizations. If the “pro-life” side started to do these sorts of things rather than driving semis around with graphic pictures on them, they would get a ton more respect from people on the “pro-choice”side. Maybe then we would finally see some progress on this tired debate.
I don’t know, because I have better things to do than obsess over planned parenthood.
Hey, you opened this can of worms. If you have time to criticize pro-lifers for “not budging”, it’s only fair that you look at the other side of the fence as well. Failing to do so would be dishonest.
What makes you think that outlawing abortion wouldn’t reduce it? Are you aware that abortion rates skyrocketed in the U.S. following Roe v. Wade? Or that Ireland’s abortion rate is magnitudes lower than that of the U.K. (even if you take into account the fact that some women travel for abortions)? And what about this study from Eastern Europe?
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:dgpzxlQboE0J:www.dartmouth.edu/~dstaiger/Papers/LevineStaiger%2520JLE%25202004.pdf+The+Journal+of+Law+and+Economics+abortion+in+eastern+europe&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgHVHsmd2qCbCfe_HlDZho_o-c0k2BRk-MWfA_2yyyP8h7kknG8uyviPas52KrUF5fZF7MB7EXJR0XAlSnImrOCR1LhzbwAqU3g32JR2m0fKR9l3wfC1mwKHdeVjsFJpjyuk4bM&sig=AHIEtbRnTJ_lLysJHcJerbrInkSI-7fNlg
The studies that suggest outlawing abortion doesn’t reduce it are methodologically weak. They essentially consist of comparing third world countries (which generally don’t have legal abortion) with developed countries (which generally do have legal abortion). This is an obviously fallacious comparison. Furthermore, although a significant numerical reduction in the number of abortions is certainly an important objective, it’s not our only one. Having a law that sets aside a class of human beings (the unborn) to be killed if they are unwanted goes against basic principles of justice regardless of how many abortions actually happen. Thus the debate cannot be resolved without answering the question of whether or not we’re dealing with a human being. If we are, then abortion opponents are right to try to ban it.
And while we’re talking about human dignity, what about the dignity of the mother? how about the dignity of a sixteen year old girl who gets date raped and discovers that she is pregnant?
Rape is a horrific crime. I think it’s a travesty that only 3% of rapists ever spend a day in prison. However, it’s still wrong to kill a completely innocent person in order to reduce the distress of the victim of a horrible crime. If abortion does kill a human person, then it seems that rape isn’t a sufficient justification.
how about the dignity of the once again pregnant single mother with six children already who can barely afford to feed them?
If the same mother decided to kill her youngest born child, should the law give her a green light? Isn’t it wrong to kill human beings simply because it’s expensive to raise them? You can’t raise this objection without assuming that the pro-life position (abortion is the unjust killing of a human being) is false.
If you truly wanted to end abortion, you’d look at solutions to support these people instead of just bashing planned parenthood or whatever other “pro-abort” organizations. If the “pro-life” side started to do these sorts of things rather than driving semis around with graphic pictures on them, they would get a ton more respect from people on the “pro-choice”side. Maybe then we would finally see some progress on this tired debate.
You should be pleased to know that pro-lifers operate over 2700 crisis pregnancy centres throughout North America, which are designed to provide realistic solutions and alternatives to abortion for women in such situations. But unfortunately, this seems to make pro-choicers even angrier than the graphic signs do.
Lastly, I’m glad we have common ground (that abortion is a horrible thing). May I ask why you believe this, and why you’re interested in reducing it?
1. Oh, I believe it would reduce it all right. Obviously it would not reduce it to zero or even close though. Many Conservatives also say that “banning guns won’t reduce shootings” though. So how is the abortion issue any different? Just because something is outside the law doesn’t mean it’ll never happen. How many people do you know who drink underage? (granted, drinking and shooting people, or getting an abortion are not quite the same thing :p)
2. I just don’t understand why the government should have the right to demand a woman carry her rapist’s baby. If she wants to, and thinks she’s mentally stable enough to, great. But rape is traumatic enough. Imagine having the reminder of being pregnant with a rape baby to remind you every day of what has happened. If caught early enough, I don’t think you can justifiably choose the embryo over the woman in this case.
3. You’re assuming it’s unjust. I don’t make that assumption. Yes, if it’s in the second or third trimester, I wholeheartedly believe it’s unjust unless done in the case of a medical emergency (i.e. life of the mother) Otherwise, I don’t understand why it can be called unjustified, or even cruel.
4. That is good news, indeed! I wish this were promoted more, you know instead of the pamphlets/semi trucks/whatever containing graphic pictures.
5. It’s sad. You can’t get around that fact. I wish we lived in a world where every child could be born to loving parents. But the reality of this world is that is not so. I’d rather not have unplanned pregnancies happen, especially to teenagers or to financially and/or emotionally unstable women. Any way that we can do this is a big step forward. Sex ed, promoting contraceptives etc are all good things, and things I would think the “pro-life” side would wholeheartedly support.
1. I personally think that gun control does reduce shootings. As I understand it, the debate is more nuanced. That is, supporters of liberal gun laws argue that restricting access to guns will lead to higher violent crime rates overall along with other undesirable consequences. Anyhow, this is still a faulty comparison. It would be more relevant to look at whether laws against shootings have reduced the number of shootings, or whether laws against spousal abuse have stopped it from happening (along with whether or not that’s even a necessary condition for outlawing those kinds of actions).
2. I don’t pretend to understand the suffering that a rape victim experiences. How could anyone? But let’s suppose the same rape victim does indeed carry to term (either she decides against abortion, or she’s somehow unable to get one) and has a son. However, she regrets it as the child starts to look more and more like the rapist. This becomes very agonizing for the woman, as it constantly reminds her of the painful experience. Should she be able to kill it then? If not, then you also agree that we shouldn’t be able to kill people that remind us of a horrible event (so the rape objection is ultimately unsuccessful). It’s not about whose rights are more important (the embryo or the woman), but which rights are more important (the right to life or the right to avoid the difficulties of pregnancy and/or childbirth). Sometimes the right thing to do is not the easy thing.
3. That’s right. So where we actually disagree is not on whether a poor single mother or a teenage victim of sexual assault has human dignity. Where we differ is on the status of the unborn (at least in the first trimester anyway). The problem here, though, is that the differences between an embryo and a mature human are not morally relevant in the way that supporters of legalized abortion need them to be. We know from the start that fertilization is the beginning of a new distinct organism (prior to that, we only have individual cells that aren’t actively capable of growth or reproduction). The texts of embryology support this fact. And after fertilization, the embryo never seems to undergo any change that should change the way we treat it. It’s true that embryonic humans are very small (barely visible to the naked eye) and don’t look very much like babies (at the start anyway – see here for eight weeks after conception). Size, however, doesn’t seem like a good way to determine one’s right to life (otherwise bigger people would have more of a right to live than smaller people). Appearance and level of development also seem problematic. An infant that’s been horribly deformed from severe burn injuries also doesn’t look like what we would consider to be human, but it’s still just as wrong to kill it. Level of development, like size, also comes in degrees. If we use this as our criterion, we would have to say that more developed (older) people have a stronger right to life than (younger) less developed people. Or, we would have to set some sort of threshold level that one has to reach to be considered a person (and I have yet to see a convincing, non-arbitrary standard that determines this). It seems far more reasonable to say that all humans should have equal human rights.
4. Well, from what I can tell crisis pregnancy centres vastly eclipse political pro-life advocacy (in terms of number of offices, employees, volunteers, budget, etc). Though I’m with you that there’s always room for more (along with a wider range of services at existing sites) :)
5. Sex-ed and contraceptives might be able to reduce unwanted pregnancies to a certain extent. And I would personally agree that the abstinence-only message is overhyped. From the limited research I’ve done, studies suggest that it’s ineffective (some abstinence programs do work, but they don’t seem to be the kind that social conservatives would favour). However, there are reasons why the pro-life side as a whole doesn’t wholeheartedly support them. For example, New York City has the one of the highest abortion rates despite having excellent birth control access. A $450 million program to reduce teen pregnancy in the U.K. had similar results. Aside from effectiveness, there are also issues involving religious freedom and parental rights (sex educators and parents tend to have very different ideas of what the term “age appropriate” means). Some pro-lifers also object to hormonal contraceptives on the grounds that they really cause early abortions by preventing implantation, though I don’t personally think this is the case (there’s a good article here on this subject). You might not agree with some or all of this rationale, but I think they are at least legitimate concerns.
I don’t have time to reply to all of your points right now (lots of homework I should be doing…), but I just would like to thank you for discussing this in an intelligent and matter of fact way. That is something that debates over abortion are generally lacking. And it is too bad that this is the case. So, thank you :)
No problem, take your time. I’ve likewise enjoyed the dialogue :)
Nice converstation, Navi and Elly.
I would just like to add my two cents worth on this topic since it is one of the top arguments of those who support legalized abortion:
I just don’t understand why the government should have the right to demand a woman carry her rapist’s baby.
There are women who find out after they have a child that the father of the child has raped others. Maybe he raped someone years ago, during the pregnancy, or when the child was five. This child is now, technically, the child of a rapist. A just society should never, ever judge a child for the actions of his father (or actions of his mother, brother, uncle, grandmother, neighbor, etc.).
One of my sons looks very much like his abusive, alcoholic, dead-beat father. His dad’s features were never the issue. When I look at my son, I am not reminded of the abuse his dad heaped upon me. If anything, my son became a reminder that we deserved to live a life of peace and freedom.
I just finished reading the book A Stolen Life by Jaycee Dugard. The dedication page reads, “Dedicated to my daughters. For the times we’ve cried together, laughed together. And all the times in between.” If Jaycee can forgive and still love, all of us can.
I think it’s more from the point of view that the pregnancy will further extend the trauma. And additionally that it is a pregnancy that the woman has been forced into. Not so much that the child will remind the mother of the rapist.
The additional trauma, and the fact that he’s forced her to become a mother, are good reasons for punishing the rapist to the fullest extent of the law. Maybe he should even be charged with more than one crime, or something to that effect. I’m still not convinced that we should sanction the killing of a completely innocent human being for the sake of reducing her agony (unless, of course, you start from the premise that the unborn aren’t valuable human beings). Society’s new role should be to support the mother, not initiate more violence.
I think it’s more from the point of view that the pregnancy will further extend the trauma.
Believe me, the trauma from rape does not end in a mere nine months.