Stanek wkend Q: Is “challenging what it means to be pro-life” a winning pro-choice strategy?
In the wake of the huge pro-life victory in Texas, Think Progress has posted five ways abortion proponents are “fighting back.”
Most were all predictable: Challenge pro-life laws in court, continue protests in Texas and spread them to other states, and register pro-abortion voters.
But one was not: “Challeng[e] ideas about what it means to be ‘pro-life.'” Examples given were to push comprehensive sex ed and promote opposition to the death penalty as a pro-life issue.
Now, I know the other side has been attempting to muddy the lines between the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” terminology, in part to explain away the strengthening pro-life polls.
But this as a strategy struck me as playing into pro-life hands. It is the equivalent of our side trying to widen the definition of “pro-choice,” which in theory would seem to me to potentially bring more into the “pro-choice” fold.
But perhaps I’m not getting it? Your thoughts?
[Graphic via abortionisprolife.com]
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.
I agree Jill. This is a loser for the other side. Their winning strategy has always been to confuse, to blur, to conceal the truth about WHAT is being aborted. As soon as they attempt to really push the conversation, they force people to literally “choose”: what is this thing? Look at it! Is it a human with rights? I believe most Americans would say “yes”.
I would love to a see a coalition come together that was against death, whether in the mother’s womb or the State’s gurney. This one area of policy that I agree with the Roman Catholics. All life is sacred.
This approach only works on the surface. When you think about it, it only makes the issue more clear. For every convicted murderer that is executed, there are over 25,000 innocent unborn babies killed in abortion.
I have noticed that they are now trying to claim the mantle of pro life and label us as pro birth. Then they change the subject from abortion to capital punishment and talk about birth control. Pro choice is not getting it anymore. Their focus groups are spinning trying to figure out what sells.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding. This seems to me like they’re trying to narrow the field: “You aren’t really pro-life unless you’re working to encourage comprehensive sex ed, illegalize the death penalty, and promote a strictly vegan worldview.” Seems like just encouraging what they’ve been trying to do anyway. Narrow the definition of pro-life so extremely that it cannot encompass anyone. Not fighting for condom distribution in Africa? Not pro-life. Haven’t adopted a black baby? Racist and not pro-life. Don’t work with underprivileged kids? Rich snob, racist and not pro-life.
Maybe they’re doing as Susie Allen says, though, and trying to just re-define “life” and “pro-life” to encompass them. A strange and illogical version of “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” Like flipping the chess board around, and expecting your competitor not to notice.
You know, as I’m thinking about it, I’m realizing how uncoordinated they seem lately (pro-choicers). When they could hide behind the “It’s a woman’s choice!” “It’s not a baby-it’s a bunch of cells” etc. mantras, they were more united in their cries. “My body, my choice.” Now that we’ve dispelled that myth, they’re scrambling.
All of the sudden, it’s like they’re shooting randomly in the dark and hoping to hit something. “You’re not in her shoes” “We shouldn’t accept the term baby-it’s a fetus at best” “It’s a human but not a person” “Abortion is harmless” “Abortion is a difficult decision that some women have to make” “Pregnancy is just as dangerous as abortion” “Abortion is a necessary evil” “Abortion on demand & without apology” …. It’s all sort of spinning out.
Meanwhile, the pro-life slogans haven’t needed to change. They’ve become more encompassing of scientific fact (as we’ve developed more) but they haven’t needed to alter. “Abortion stops a beating heart” “It’s a baby, not a choice” these statements have been around forever. All we’ve done is given a window to the womb, and allowed women and men hurt from abortion to speak their piece. We’ve always known when human life began. All we’ve done is expose that. Because of this, there is no need to change our tactics, only the need to apply them more vocally, only the need to reach out in love and affirm the Truth.
Who gives a flying rat’s a** concerning the marketing by either side?
Isn’t this about creating policies and an environment in which babies are born?
Yes – let’s celebrate Texas. 70,000 abortions a year – what, 97% or so within 20 weeks – so 2100 outside of 20 weeks – and many of those will still be allowable under the law.
And at the same time, Texas has some of the worst quality of statistics in the nation, and are proud to not be doing anything about it – so we “celebrate” that this new law *might* result in the saving of a few hundred lives, all while many of their other public policies push women to see abortion as a better alternative than having a baby.
But yes – “HUGE pro-life victory”.
I agree with PM Summer – would nice to see some people not enslaved to political parties to step out and come with some total life policies to really impact abortion rates.
NON-SEQUITUR ALERT
When President Barack Obama was asked about the murder trial of Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell, he said “I can’t comment on it because it’s an active trial.”
[USA Today, May 13, 2013]
“The president does not and cannot take a position on an ongoing trial, so I won’t as well,” Carney told reporters during his daily briefing. Obama is “aware” of the trial, Carney said, describing the case as “unsettling.”
Obama did previously weigh in on another homicide case, though that trial is not yet underway.
“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said in March 2012 during remarks in the Rose Garden. “I think [Trayvon’s parents] are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and we are going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”
The White House’s original plan — for Mr. Obama to address the verdict in brief interviews on Tuesday with four Spanish-language television networks — was foiled when none of them asked about it.
[One has to wonder why not a single one of the Spanish language networks did NOT ask about the Zimmerman murder trial if ‘racism’ was a major component.]
One of the first things Tre Vahn Mahr Tenn’s grieving parents did after retaining an attorney was to file an application to ‘trademark’ their dead son’s name and intials.
If death hands you lemons, then ensure residuals from the lemonade.
b o is certainly not missing the opportunity to boost his approval ratings with the part of his political base that has been hit the hardest by his malfeasance and ineptitude.
If b o has not shied away from pimping out his own daughters for political purposes, then it is completely predictable that he would exploit the death of someone elses child, if he calculated it would enhance his self image. After all if b o had a son who had survived gestation, then he’d look like Trey Vahn Mahr Tenn.
Meanwhile we still have no comment on the mutliple guilty verdicts in the Kermit Gosnell murder trial.
Look for b o to pardon Gosnell as one his last insults before he vacates Pennsylvania Avenue.
What else would you expect from a weasel who promotes, protects and blesses those who murder children.
Yes. We need comprehensive education concerning the value and sanctity of human life in all its stages. We need to teach against abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, capital punishment, war, contraception, divorce, and the hook-up culture.
We need to fill the void and teach positive actions in the direction of life, so our children can be safe and happy. We must teach them to avoid the mistakes that we older folks lived through. We owe this to them.
We should not wait for the abortion industry to take charge of the tradition that is passed down to the next generation.
Is “challenging what it means to be pro-life” a winning pro-choice strategy?”
Why would progressives change whores in the middle of the dream?
Perversion is the proclivity of the progressives.
Progressives pervert language because clarity and truth are anathema to them.
The great thing about plumb lines is they are reliable and predictable inicators of reality and only self absorbed fools would deceive themselves into believing it is not them who does not line up with the truth.
Did anyone notice that the quote in the brown box admits the unborn are children and are living??? Awesome!!!
The best thing we can do is NOT get distracted. I know there are many good people who are at a minimum conflicted about the Death Penalty. We have to keep it simple and remember just a few things:
1. Never shy away from the truth that abortion kills, and is a violent means to end an unplanned pregnancy.
2. Continue to hold public officials accountable for helping the culture of death advance.
3. Love people out of the abortion industry and support them as they adjust. People aren’t the enemy, Satan is because he HATES the image of God and will do anything to destroy it.
4. Pray and work until all human life is protected from conception forward.
5. Do not allow the world or the culture to tell us what God has called us to do as we protect His children.
lolol Ayn Rand. :roll:
No, I don’t think this (essentially semantic trolling and changing the subject) is likely to be a winning strategy when the national discussion is framed around the status of the unborn. It’s been tried before.
Jill Stanek and many people who want abortion criminalized also support the death penalty. Although I don’t support the death penalty, I can’t get too excited about it since the only realistic alternative is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In a way, capital punishment is a kind of euthanasia for the disorder of psychopathy — a disorder for which there is, at the present time, no reliable treatment.
Abortion really is in its own category. The ONLY reason for most abortions is the unwillingness of the pregnant woman to carry to term. It is quite distinctive from other so-called “life” issues.
“Texas has some of the worst quality of statistics in the nation”
Ex-GOP I’m surprised, your comment sounds remarkably like that of the Democrats’ stereotype of a rich snobby Republican. Maybe I am mis-reading your comment, but it sounds like CC a year or two ago talking condescendingly about personhood movement in either MS and AL, and how they had such low quality of life, ie poor, illiterate, etc. Everyone pounced on her then, for her snobbery and how her use of “quality of life” quickly becomes an excuse for eugenics. If your point is that TX needs more social programs to lower abortion rates, I’m not seeing it. LBJ’s great society of social programs increased, not decreased, poverty rates.
MaryRose, 10:03a: Yes, I think you got what I didn’t get. They’re trying to say one can’t be pro-life unless pro-sex ed and anti-death penalty. The problem there is pro-choicers claim those as their side’s virtues. So it all goes back to simply trying to muddy the waters.
Eric -
Women get pregnant, and based on the laws of their country, decide whether or not to have the baby.
If you look at abortion rates around both the world, and the United States, you’ll see that it’s clear that while laws matter, there are certainly other factors that affect abortion rates.
I simply look at the totality of laws in Texas, and am not seeing a “huge pro-life victory”. Maybe you can present me with a different numbers case than I presented – but it seems to me that a small amount of babies are affected by the legislation, and in the same legislature, they did things that will make it harder on families that do choose life.
Oh, and for the record on poverty, Texas is 45th in the nation. Yeah Texas!
Ex-GOP, thanks for the reasoned response. However, when you say “a small amount of babies are affected“, I’m not sure of your point. To me, even one life saved is a victory. If someone were set to kill you and only you (one person), and that killer was thwarted, that’s a huge victory.
I *completely* agree with your statement “while laws matter, there are certainly other factors that affect abortion rates.” When parents raise their children with self-esteem, unwanted pregnancies — and abortion rates — decrease.
As far as your comment, however, “they did things that will make it harder on families that do choose life,” it will be hard to convince me that reducing social programs hurts children in the long run when history shows that increases in social program spending lead to dependence, and dependence contributes to further poverty.
Opening up a whole ‘nother discussion arena here, but to me “poverty” is more than a lack of money. It’s a lack of meaning in one’s life. There are families in my home town where the boys drop out of high school to work at the poultry processing plant, marry young, have large families … a rich snob elitist nightmare. However, these families are happy, involved in church, and are active volunteers and contributors to the community. Most do not want government assistance to improve their “quality of life”. They most certainly would not want more money to live in fancy-schmancy suburbia with 2.1 children and be “rich” and “educated” by everyone else’s standards.
“Poverty” and “Uneducated” are terms often thrown around by social elites to make social program non-advocates look uncaring. While denigrating the TX legislature certainly won’t convince me, I do appreciate the dialogue with you.
I suspect it’s not *really* an effort tot expand he use of ‘pro-life’, but rather to justify their use of ‘anti-choice’. They *want* this to be a ‘pro-choice vs anti-choice’ debate. They play gams with rhetoric instead of responding to the issues. They want women to be lawfully able to kill their unborn children.
Jill Stanek says:
July 20, 2013 at 2:54 pm
MaryRose, 10:03a: Yes, I think you got what I didn’t get. They’re trying to say one can’t be pro-life unless pro-sex ed and anti-death penalty. The problem there is pro-choicers claim those as their side’s virtues. So it all goes back to simply trying to muddy the waters.
(Denise) I know people who believe abortion should be legal and also support the death penalty. The waters are AUTOMATICALLY muddied by ambiguous terms. Abortion is simply its own category. Being for its legality doesn’t automatically mean ANYTHING else and neither does being for its criminalization.
in response to the above picture-
A human being is human.
One of the rules of metaphysics is, something is what it is and not something else.
A human cant be a human due to birth. he is a human before birth, or he remains a fetus after birth. (when using the terms fetus and human I am referring to how they are treated, not a gestational age)
A human is to be treated with respect and dignity, he is deserves the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
A human is denied respect, dignity, and his rights when he is murdered.
Abortion kills a human being.
Abortion is wrong.
Eric – let me try to rephrase and explain.
I’m not saying that saving one life isn’t important.
What I’m saying though is, if we save one life in an area, and kill two in another area, we’re not better off. Now, I can’t for sure how many lives the abortion legislation will save or lose, if any. I can’t say for sure how many lives are lost or saved because of some of the other laws in Texas.
What I am saying though is, while it’s great that Texas is looking at ways to curb abortion and save lives, I’m also distraught that they have a lot of economic and health care policies that statistically, put them towards the bottom of the nation – and those things, statistically, lead people to more actively seek abortions.
“Abortion Rights are Pro-Life”
This seems to be just more of the same from the pro-choice side. Clarity and effective communication are not kind to their pro-death culture. So they try to redefine words that they want to associate with themselves. Think Nancy Pelosi and her “sacred” abortion rights. Ugh. We see this almost daily here on this blog in the comment box, pro-choicers acting like the definitions of all words are up for grabs for them to twist as they wish. Do I think it will be effective? I think “pro-life” has been effectively entrenched as “anti-abortion”, so no. The multitude of people that aren’t involved in either pro-life or pro-choice work will just scratch their heads and think it’s nonsensical.
What abortion advocates fail to grasp is that it’s entirely logically consistent to oppose abortion and support capital punishment: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2012/01/abortion-and-death-penalty.html
Even in a Catholic context: http://catholicstand.com/can-you-be-pro-life-while-supporting-the-death-penalty/
Note that the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is an intrinsic evil, but capital punishment is not an intrinsic evil.
Thanks for the explanation Ex-GOP, I think I understand your point, that lack of financial resources drives some women toward abortion. Repeated surveys of reasons girls and women abort don’t place finances at the top of the list, however. “Not ready for a baby” continually tops the list, and no amount of money will sway those girls and women. I agree with you that some girls and women do abort because they feel another baby is too expensive, but I don’t believe it is government’s role to help out. Crisis pregnancy centers and churches offer a lot of resources. Also, lack of financial resources doesn’t stop a girl or woman from giving birth and giving the baby up for adoption.
Eric – that’s not what I’ve seen:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf
I will admit – I’m assuming that some of the ‘Not ready for a baby” is financial, not just emotional. Even 1% swings it. And you’ll see in the Guttmacher, finances is a huge part of the decision.
I suppose my ultimate point is, I don’t think women are writing on their yearly goals that they want to get pregnant and have an abortion. Whatever we can do to promote a culture of life, the better. I think that means restrictions, but it also means that we have programs and laws in place that let people know that if they have the baby, they aren’t going to be left in the cold alone.
“…let people know that if they have the baby, they aren’t going to be left in the cold alone.”
I think you just made a great case for crisis pregnancy centers! :-)
Yes – I do agree with the approach that they take.
I know that many of the policies are targeted as being ‘socialistic’ – I just see health care, maternity leave, and tax policies of other countries, and it’s no wonder they generally have lower abortion rates.
Thanks for the reasoned conversation.
The problem is that girls and women are getting pregnant when they are not prepared to have babies. To a large extent, this demonstrates the failure of radical feminism. If that movement had succeeded, sex between males and females would be much less common.
Many so-called feminists have made “abortion rights” a must. They have tied female emancipation to an operation that rips embryos and fetuses out of female bodies. What they should do is ensure that those unprepared to carry to term don’t get pregnant in the first place.