Redstate

....the first thing we can do is broaden our pro-life activism to encompass a generally coherent position.  I think Ponnuru had a valid point when he highlighted the regrettable fact that too often the pro-life movement comes across as radically focused on abortion per se, and not on related issues such as adoptive options, support for indigent mothers, etc.  (I am well aware that the reality is something different -- just talking about perception, here.)  So the first thing I would do is perhaps expand our scope a bit to something beyond overturning Roe -- we also need to reduce as much as possible the perceived need for abortion regardless of the law.  And we need to be seen doing so.

I would also argue that we ought to more fully embrace the "seamless garment of life" thesis and expand our activism to encompass movement against the death penalty, too.  While I am against the death penalty in any case, I recognize that support of it and opposition to abortion is not hypocritical in the slightest.  That being said, I think the nuance of this is lost on the public: if we as a movement can comprehensively present ourselves as the movement for life -- in stark contrast to our friends on the left, who will "euthanize" the old and sick, and kill the unborn -- we will gain massive traction.

One of the most compelling speeches of the modern era was Mario Cuomo's address to the 1984 Democratic convenion.  And the most compelling passage from that speech, to my mind, was this:

The difference between Democrats and Republicans has always been measured in courage and confidence. The Republicans believe that the wagon train will not make it to the frontier unless some of the old, some of the young, some of the weak are left behind by the side of the trail. The strong, the strong they tell us will inherit the land.

We Democrats believe in something else. We democrats believe that we can make it all the way with the whole family intact. And, we have more than once. Ever since Franklin Roosevelt lifted himself from his wheelchair to lift this nation from its knees -- wagon train after wagon train -- to new frontiers of education, housing, peace; the whole family aboard....

The time is come for us to rightly assume the mantle of defending the rights of "some of the old, some of the young, some of the weak" to live -- and the integrity of the "whole family."

But I'd like to see what sort of specific, even tactical steps we ought to be pushing for right now. - tomorrow, even.

Too often the pro-life philosophy casts mothers as the enemy, walking potential murderers.

Instead organizations commited to the safety and well-being of the mother should be supported and heralded as alternatives to abortion.  I have no doubt that abortion would be cut substantially if fewer mothers were afraid of motherhood.

These are some I've found in past research.  I can't personally vouch for them, but they are encouraging:

Solutions Pregnancy and Health Center


Nurturing Network


Good Counsel Maternity Homes

You're threatening my cherished stereotypes.

Good post.

Having this very discussion.

Okay, and here's another one: start building bipartisan pro-life coalitions.  Seriously.  Isn't Harry Reid pro-life?  Why not engage him?  Heck, throw him a dinner.  Get him to co-sponsor a bill.

Pro-life is already the Republican consensus.  We should make it the American consensus.

It's simple.  Really it is incredibly simple, but nobody is willing (except for David Horowitz and a few others) to take it on, because it is a tremendous battle, and academia is a completely self-sufficient and very self-protective group of people who have learned to subsist off of the government and endowment money.  ALL of the people in the upper administration of our colleges and universities that I have ever encountered are pro-choice.  They really don't have any choice but to be that way, because their faculties are.  If we really want to change the status quo, that's where it begins, because the universities teach this from the TOP DOWN.  

A pivotal insight was that controlling the university system was tantamount to controlling society, albeit on slightly longer timescales than any individual election cycle.  And they do. Our colleges and universities are almost totally liberal, and one of the core beliefs of that liberalism is the defense of abortion rights.    People don't even seriously discuss alternatives to that central concept any more -- there is some talk about adoption and alternative family structures (two gay men marrying and adopting a child for instance) but otherwise, rebutting the core principle is simply forbidden.  If you go into a faculty meeting at any large college or university in any of America's major towns or cities and raise the question of whether or not Roe v. Wade should be overturned, you will be escorted out of the room in one sense or another.  I know, because I've been there.  This is not something that is going to change overnight.  The Left has had more than 30 years to establish the norm.

Ask every Catholic Bishop who allows an abortionist politician to take communion how he can square that with the Holy See.  Demand the priests outline how much evil the other politician must be responsible for before voting for an abortionist can be licit.

But let me at least remind everyone that there are pro-lifers (wrt abortion) who a) support the death penalty, b) support euthenasia, and c) opposed the Schiavo legislation.  I don't fall into all of those categories, but they do exist.

I think the pro-life movement needs to broaden its "membership."  There are many people who oppose abortion in most cases but not all and don't call themselves pro-life because they believe it means a blanket ban on abortion.  As long as Roe is in place, the abortion ban crowd and the major limits on abortion crowd should have common cause in the pro-life movement.

To expand the meaning of "pro-life" to encompass all of those issues would probably narrow further who is comfortable identifying themselves that way.  I for one could not if all of the above issues were rolled into a pro-life label.

Finally, we need to move away from an indentification of pro-life with the religious right or religion at all.  Many moderates would support different restrictions on abortion but are scared of the "religious right" and thus don't want to identify as pro-life.  We need to have more non-religious groups as rallies (including the Pro-Life March each year).

That being said, it may still be a sound strategy to have a unifying theme.  But there is a cost to making the pro-life movement more religious and more exclusive.

As activists, where can we find an avenue on which to make some progress?

How do you measure progress?

I don't have much to add, other than one quick story: A few years ago business was going really well, so I decided to sponsor a table at the Omaha Right To Life annual banquet. It cost me something like $1000. My wife and I invited four other couples from our church to attend. I had never been to this event before, so I really did not know what to expect.

What I found was a genuine disappointment: Shrill, strident speakers. Angry rhetoric. Bitterness. I was truly embarassed that I had invited my friends to the event. Upon leaving, I knew I would never go again.

If we want society to embrace the sanctity of life, the most important thing I can think of is to make doing so a likable option. Psychology matters, and no one wants to "join up" with a bunch of unlikable people.

This extends to tactics as well. Sometimes I think that pro-life people feel so justified in their position that they will engage in acts that they would never consider under less intense circumstances.

Respect for life includes respect for the living, even those who are po-abortion.

I wonder how the attempt to restrict access to birth control and equate contraception to abortion is working for the pro-life cause these days.

What I found was a genuine disappointment: Shrill, strident speakers. Angry rhetoric. Bitterness. I was truly embarassed that I had invited my friends to the event. Upon leaving, I knew I would never go again...

...Respect for life includes respect for the living, even those who are pro-abortion.

This anecdote, I think, points to a certain tension in the pro-life movement.  

If abortion is a new Holocaust, if it's the slaughter of millions of babies, then of course people are shrill.  Of course there's angry rhetoric.

How could it be otherwise?  How could you ask people to be polite about infanticide, and respectful of baby killers?  That's like asking someone to be respectful of Al Qaeda.  

So as long the pro-life movement revolves around the idea that the fetus is equivalent to a baby, people will continue to be bitter and shrill, and this will limit the movement's "likability."

But if you take out the idea that the fetus (and the embryo) is a full-fledged human being, then the pro-life message loses some of its moral resonance.

At least, that's my view from the outside.  

earlier, you mentioned, "we also need to reduce as much as possible the perceived need for abortion regardless of the law.  And we need to be seen doing so"

Hillary has been doing this already - why not reach out to her instead of trying to rebuild the wheel? the bipartisan opportunity is there.

First, I agree with doverspa that there are plenty of people who oppose abortion but support the death penalty, as well as plenty of people who oppose euthanasia but also opposed the actions of Congress (especially DeLay) in the Schiavo case.

As a prelimianry tactical matter, I would push for applying the same level of regulation and hygenic requirements on abortion clinics as apply to any other medical facility. We enacted such a law in Louisiana 5 or 6 years ago to very good effect. The pro-choice crowd fought tooth-and-nail claiming we were just trying to shut them down, but a few glossy photos of rusted instruments sitting on trays ready to be used shut them up nicely. And of course, those instruments look pretty barbaric, so it reminds people of the reality of what is being done, but outside the emotionally-charged climate of a strict pro-life/pro-choice debate.

In the same vein, I think right now we should capitalize on that recent case of the teenager whose boyfriend's mother checked her out of school  and took her to abort the baby the boyfriend helped create. It's a good example of why parental consent should be required. But when we fight for parental consent requirements, we should be realistic about allowing judicial bypass provisions. Even the most generous of bypass provisions would be better than what we have now, so don't get bogged down in the details. In the campaign, use statistics about known risks of the process. How many women have suffered permanent damage to their reproductive system as a result of complications during an abortion? If we won't let a child have their tonsils out without parental consent, why should we let doctors monkey around with her reproductive organs without that consent?

In general, be willing to take half steps when we can't take full steps. We will lose an all-or-nothing fight, but every half-step in the right direction saves some lives.

for the assertion that abortion clinics are not up to the same hygenic and steril estandards of any other medical facility?

The solution to ameliorating the shrillness you discuss is simple. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Denounce abortion all you want. Be as shrill as you want about it. Just leave individuals and their names out of it.

It was legitimate to protest the Vietnam War (legitimate, but not necessarily right) but profoundly wrong to spit on individual soldiers and call them "baby killers". As you correctly note, such tactics really anger people.

And in a civilized society, they are unnecessary to accomplish our political results. The public is not completely ignorant. If you promote one candidate as pro-life, and talk positively about the merits of pro-life, they will know that the other guy is an abortion supporter. You can call him that, without calling him a "baby killer". Then you can run a lot of issue ads with nobody's name in them talking about the horrors of abortion. Then you get the word out, and the public uses their own mind to make the connection to the abortion-supporter candidate, without directly and shrilly and ineffectively calling him a baby-killer.

the inconvenient fact that abortion is safer than a full term pregnancy

to adopt a more "coherent" pro-life position, or rather would it be better to point out the wider gap in coherency in the liberal position?

For instance, you rightly point out in your post that pro-choice movement has to some extent been successful in framing most pro-lifers as inconsistent on the basis that most (many) of us oppose abortion, but support the death penalty. Now, in reality, as you noted, that is not an incoherent position whatsoever. But let's grant the assumption that much of the fence-sitting public believes that it is.

So which side really has the wider credibility gap, here? The side that favors protecting the unborn, but killing convicted murderers, or the side that favors killing the unborn and protecting convicted murderers?

I've never been a big fan of the argument that "since position X that you hold is inconsistent with position Y that you hold, therefore position X must be false." (If position X conflicts with itself, that's of course another story). But as long as we're arguing falsehood from inconsistency, why not point out where the inconsistency lies?

As far as tactics go, I'd be more than willing to give up the death penalty forever for the sake of having Roe v. Wade overturned. I'm just not convinced it will work.

MachoNachos

I worked for Governor Mike Foster, who issued emergency inspection rules after a local TV channel did an expose on clinic conditions. I was there for the legislative debates. I have copies of the pictures of rusted instruments.

Beyond that, you might try here and here. Notice in this opposition post here , about half-way down, where the pro-abortion crowd brags that they defeated a bill that "would have forced a statewide shutdown of abortion providers by requiring that they meet the regulatory standards of ambulatory surgical centers."

An abortion, whatever else it is, is an out-patient surgical procedure. Sharp instruments are inserted inside the woman, and parts of her (not to mention the baby) are cut away. Why shouldn't a clinic which routinely performs such procedures meet "the regulatory standards of ambulatory surgical centers"?

To pressure the GOP (because honestly, we're just not going to have much influence on the donkeys) to actually allow some of the more cogent defenders of the pro-life position to occupy the bully pulpit once in a while. It's all well and good for us to trot out the "moderates" for the national convention, but what an enormous wasted opportunity that was to put someone like a Hyde inbetween McCain and Giuliani - or some reasonable and eloquent spokesman who can explain to the average American why we believe in the pro-life cause as strongly as we do.

The Democrats are not ashamed to say at their conventions (and everywhere else) that the only reason we oppose abortion is because we have some kind of neurotic desire to take medical choices away from women. Why are we ashamed to defend ourselves?

I think the original point of the "ungrateful" post was that in reality, George W. Bush ought to be the one out there doing this, but frankly he's not. So why not at least have a respectable surrogate out there doing it for him?

MachoNachos

Of the issue.  Abortion as a medical procedure -- because quite honestly, for anyone who has ever worked for pro-abortion doctor at a hospital, is where the argument really is, as Ponnuru was quick to point out:

But if you ask the question differently--if you ask, for example, if abortion should be "between a woman and her doctor"--you get pro-choice results.

Do not think for a second that pro-choice intellectuals are unaware of this fact.  I was told that by one of them more than six years ago, and quite frankly, it is their strongest and most intractible argument.  It is simply not going to be easy to change this.

I think part of our problem in making any progress at  all is that we are scared of this argument, and so we in legislative battles, we demand the whole loaf, or none. Like Democrats and Social Security, many pro-lifers don't want to win any of these lower-end battles, for fear that improving the bad situation a little bit would make it harder to get the total ban they really want.

Frankly, I don't see a total ban happening in this country for a long, long time.  Too much of the public (including a strong majority in a bunch of individual states) supports some level of abortion availability to eradicate it. It's going to take major cultural change to get all of those people to see the light. That kind of cultural change, while possible, takes a long time.

In the meantime, there are concrete steps we can take to reduce the frequency of abortions and to make them safer for women who have them. For myself, my religious beliefs compel me to accomplish what good I can now while we continue the cultural battles for the larger good.

Ok, I am pro-choice, but would love to see no abortions. Here is what I would do and support:

1. Get rid of all for-profit abortion clinics. I did a clinical rotation in a for-profit clinic, doing the 6 week follow-up to assess for infection and healing. I did not choose the placement (although I could have refused it). This clinic only gave very cursory birth control info to the women at this appt (and that only because it was required by law) did not provide any healthcare, prevention, STI testing or anything. They also, sickeningly enough, had a sign in the staff lounge stating that another center was performing more abortions, ie making more money, this place needs to compete better. I wanted to vomit.  Now, I don't want to get into a war about Planned Parenthood, so don't bother starting one, but they at least: are non-profit, give preventative health care, full spectrum reproductive care (all forms of birth control, sexutally transmitted infection testing, Pap smears, physicals for men and women) and a ton of education [not abortion oriented] for health care professionals and lay people--their STI updates and birth control updates are among the best continuing ed you can get, I take at least one every two years).
   
2. The pro-life movement needs to come out clearly and vocally that it is pro-life and therefore against murdering doctors/nurses/clinic workers etc. Be loud and clear about that. No websites with addresses and names published etc.
   
3. Make adoptions for minority kids, special needs kids etc. easier. Have a "we give kids to any loving, stable family" policy, regardless of the race of the parents (which liberals may not like) or sexual orientation (which conservatives may not like). A loving stable home is better for any kid than foster care, regardless of race or sexual orientation. In this same vein, terminate parental rights earlier, so that children don't spend years in foster care only to be put in the adoption market at 13 when no one will take them. Make adoption cheaper so that more families can afford it. Give medicaid for life or stuff like that to adopted children (they'd get it in foster care anyway) to encourage adoptions and ease the financial burden of taking on a kid who needs extensive physical and mental health care.
   
4. In this same vein (and here I go off the deep end a little, but I really believe this) teenagers are not adults. They can't vote, drink, and I believe, should not be executed. Don't let them raise kids. If you give birth under the age of 18, parental rights should be terminated at birth with the baby being placed in a closed adoption. Recognizing that anecdotes are not data, I have several 8th graders trying to get pregnant right now because they have a friend who did it, and there is a ton of positive attention coming her way, baby showers, free stuff, an apartment on their own, plus "a cute baby". A lot of these girls are looking for love, and if they can't get it from their boyfriend, they'll get it from their baby. If they saw their friend lose her baby in the delivery room, they'd change their minds pretty quickly. My kids with the most problems at school have parents who are around my age (I am 32). These kids are between 11 and 15, live in poverty, and are often abused/neglected. Kids are not equipped to parent, physically, emotionally or financially. I don't think this would raise abortion rates, as many teen pregnancies involve a desire for a baby, not just an accident. And losing your baby at birth might get them to take sex a little more seriously, too.
   
5. Don't be anti-birth control. If you think the pill is an abortifacent, be public and loud in requesting research into new methods. Put condoms out there where they can be used. Recognize that while you might teach your kids all they need to know at home, not every parent does. Pull your kid out of science during the human sexuality section, but leave the section in. Pay attention to research, push only data driven programs that are researched and well taught. Pilot new programs, but do them scientifically and be prepared to expand or pull them, depending on how they do.
   
6. Remember that pro-choice is not necessarily (or even often) pro-abortion. We want to stop abortion too. My father's lab was in a medical building (a building in which in '98 people were murdered by a "pro-life" fanatic). Our dentist was in there, too. Having someone beg my mother "not to kill her unborn baby" every time she took us to see our dad or get our teeth cleaned did not further the pro-life cause.

"..there but for the grace of God go I" attitude towards drunk driving.

Catholic theology is pretty tricky.  What happens if the Pope objects to a presidential candidate who, say for example, signed 152 death warrants as governor, or took a country to war that could not be justified under Catholic "just war" doctrine.

Most good Catholics -- and the Pope -- will discern between varying levels of belief and stricture within the Church.  And act accordingly.

You, I suspect, will be scratching your head.

Very excellent points. I am particularly horrified by your reports from the for-profit clinics. I wonder if the recent horror story about the teenager whisked out of school to the clinic by her boyfriend's mother, where the staff refused to let the girl's own mother see her when she arrived, was a for-profit clinic.

As for education, I support sex ed which focuses strongly on abstinence, but which also discusses birth control (and not grudgingly). And as you point out, parents should have the right to withhold their child from that class if they want.

And of course you are absolutely right that all sides need to vigorously condemn and fight against the violent extremists who target doctors and clinics with violence. There's no place for that in our society, and I consider those who perform such violence to be either mentally unbalanced or domestic terrorists. Thank goodness they finally caught Eric Rudolph.

I'm not sure I agree with you entirely on termination of parental rights for teenagers. Particularly given the dearth of available and decent foster and adoptive families available today, especially in minority communities. Certainly teen birth should be scrutinized carefully, and the fact that a 12 year old got pregnant is a pretty strong sign that the new grandmother isn't a terribly effective parent, but taking a child away from its biological parent is a pretty strong step. It's worth more debate, though.

of the matter.  Because it is so easy to be pro-life in the abstract until you are all alone, scared and pregnant, without insurance and unprepared for a child.  Which is why the cynics say that people want abortion to be illegal except in the case of rape, incest, or me.

I think one of the things we have to do, more constructively, is to stop this "culture of death" rhetoric, because I don't know whether the President has ever said it, and I don't think he ever would, and moreover, I don't think it is winning many friends among the health-care professionals who might be sympathetic to our arguments.  I worked for Nada Stotland.  She's an extraordinarily accomplished, unbelievably intelligent woman and her house is full -- and I mean full -- of books.  Up the stairs, in the living room, the bedrooms, piled all over the place in the kitchen, everywhere.  She's married and has some wonderful children, some of whom I met.  Her husband is also a really agreeable man - I helped to fix one of their computers, at their house, quite a while ago.  I couldn't have met a nicer bunch of intellectually engaging, inspiring people.  And that's the truth!

I will tell you that using words like "culture of death" around people like that will get you precisely nowhere.  Nada has about a 155 IQ by my reckoning.

And there shouldn't be a total ban -- I think others here have made that point very well.  What should happen is that intelligent and thoughtful people on the Republican side should engage intelligent and thoughtful people on the Democrat side and try to work out sensible ideas that can limit the frequency of abortion for the purpose of "convenience" and reduce it to the absolute minimum without offending the very well-developed sensibilities of some of the doctors who are honest when they want to provide the best care to their patients.  

That's about all I have to say on it for now.    

Not to expound on that which you do not understand.

'flexible' who'd a thunk it? do you mean to suggest we can hope they will eventualy come around to enlightened thinking on contraception, abortion, women priests etc, etc.? Well we do have the Copernicus/Galileo revisionism thing to go by I suppose, just not sure I'm willing to wait a couple of hundred years or however long it takes for the Vatican to catch up.

Or would be, if you understood word one of what you've said.

Both her positions up until six months ago, and the perception of her and her opinions for over a decade now, are such that most pro-lifers mistrust the positions of the last six months, and suspect that she'd draw the line in the sand on ending support for abortion well before most pro-choicers would.

Myabe an incorrect perception; maybe not. But there it is.

How many 'good' catholics around the world might be guilty of embarrassing themselves since they don't understand the deep inner workings of their religion because being they are so closely held by the theologians as to be incomprehensible to ordinary folk thus not widely available or discussed.

..public is another victim of "education".

You might want to educate yourself a little more about exactly what happened between Galileo and the church, which you can do here.

The Catholic Church has throughout the millenia been far more open to scientific progress than many other denominations of Christianity. The Church understands that scripture deals with how we should see God, not how we should see the physical world.

converts including the Goths, Vandals and Huns as ancestors of the Nazi Party.

For being neither here nor there at the same time, but unfortunately that's about all I can make of this issue at this point.  Sorry if that sounds squishy to anyone, but again, I think it's reality, at least as I have seen it.

perfectly well that there is a branch of the Catholic Church in this country, indeed worldwide, that considers adherence to Church's line on abortion as the defining principle of Catholicism.  Any equivocation on that one issue makes you unworthy of being called a Catholic, any equivocation on any other issue is okay as long as you are unwilling to comprimise on abortion.  Obstruct justice by concealing evidence on child-abusing priests and moving them around so they can continue to abuse--well that's okay as long as you are pro-life.  In fact we'll get you a cushy suite at the Vatican or elect you Pope.  Lie about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the transmission of HIV--if it prevents people from having protected sex, that's okay.

It wasn't long ago (1999) that the Pope made a major issue of a death penalty in this country.  It was not an exceptional case.  There were no questions of guilt or process.  The condemned (on Missouri's death row) just happened to be lucky enough to be scheduled to be executed when the Pope was visiting St. Louis.  The Pope requested that the Governor of Missouri commute the man's sentence and that request was granted.  What happens if Pope Benedict asks President Bush to spare Osama Bin Laden's life  (not that we will ever catch OBL) or demands that Zacaris Moussaoui be spared the death penalty?  After all representatives of the president's own church (the United Methodist Church) were turned away from the White House because they were going to advise him that the Iraq War was unjust.  President Bush had the gall to visit the Pope before the Iraq War, apparently hoping to get his blessing, but apparently all he got was a lecture.

The Catholic Church has let its medieval concepts of human sexuality overtake many of its good works over the last few years.  One wonders how different the Church would be if John Paul I had been Pope these last 26 years.

In my 28 years' experience as a Catholic, it never seemed particularly impenetrable.  Nor in Africa, when I saw congregations there.  Nor in Central America, when I saw congregations there.  Nor in east Asia, when I saw congregations there.

....there is a branch of the Catholic Church in this country, indeed worldwide, that considers adherence to Church's line on abortion as the defining principle of Catholicism.

Do tell which branch that is.

Really, Freder, you're not clear on the ins and outs of the rules in Catholicism, are you?

President Bush had the gall to visit the Pope before the Iraq War, apparently hoping to get his blessing....

Oh yeah?  Got a source for the President's intention, there?  I'll wait for you to dig that up.

The Catholic Church has let its medieval concepts of human sexuality overtake many of its good works over the last few years.

Medieval?  Freder, my boy, at least one of the targets of your ire was issued in the late 1960s.  I'll let you figure out which.  In any case, forgive the rest of us if we ignore your judgment of the relative merits of the Church's good works.

....can you say?

Here's your one warning, your thin ice notice, etc.

Do we have to go over this yet again? The Church speak authoritatively against abortion, euthanasia, and contraception, but she speaks only prudentially against capital punishment. Put another way, abortion, birth control, and euthanasia are objective evils, participation in which imperils a man's soul; capital punishment is not objectively evil. It may even, in some circumstances, be good and right.

John Paul II spoke out against many wars, but he never repudiated the Just War doctrine, which actually obligates war when it is just.

You make no sense.

I'm glad someone brought up my favorite policy move. It's frankly pretty scary the way the pro-aborts fight tooth and nail any effort to increase the safety regulations at abortion mills.

I understand perfectly well that there is a branch of the Catholic Church in this country, indeed worldwide, that considers adherence to Church's line on abortion as the defining principle of Catholicism.

You could have saved yourself some serious time and effort by saying, I understand nothing about Catholicism. It would have had the virtues of being true, and taking less time and space.

Any equivocation on that one issue makes you unworthy of being called a Catholic, any equivocation on any other issue is okay as long as you are unwilling to comprimise on abortion.

I sometimes wonder whether you guys get this information through your fillings or from the fluoride-reception implants in your salivary glands. Free hint: There are a host of other "infallible" teachings that aren't open to compromise either. The discerning Googler might even find these rare, esoteric doctrines. As an additional gratis hint: A little thing called the Nicene Creed is a sort of coded, cryptic guide to some of those.

Insofar as you're aware of an actual sect of Catholics who ascribe to this heretical idea you've proposed, I'd appreciate a pointer. Some Bishops need to do some excommunicatin' and some educatin'.

Obstruct justice by concealing evidence on child-abusing priests and moving them around so they can continue to abuse--well that's okay as long as you are pro-life.

Well, that would be bad, if someone was actually doing it. But it could be worse: You could apologize for the abuse of children by pretending that it has something to do with the Church's teachings on celibacy, thereby, as a two-fer, excusing those human feces who abused boys as mere animals unable to control their impulses and perverting the inherent dignity of the human person. One infers you belong in the latter group.

In fact we'll get you a cushy suite at the Vatican or elect you Pope.

Ah, as opposed to ... what? And I'm unaware of Benedict XVI doing any of this? Or do you mean John Kerry's Pope Pius XXIII? I'm not really conversant with him, so it's entirely possible he did these things. Cites, kid.

Lie about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the transmission of HIV--if it prevents people from having protected sex, that's okay.

So it's your contention that condoms are more effective than abstinence at preventing the spread of HIV? I need to let some epidemiologists I know in on this -- there's a master's thesis lurking out there somewhere.

It wasn't long ago (1999) that the Pope made a major issue of a death penalty in this country.  It was not an exceptional case.  There were no questions of guilt or process.  The condemned (on Missouri's death row) just happened to be lucky enough to be scheduled to be executed when the Pope was visiting St. Louis.  The Pope requested that the Governor of Missouri commute the man's sentence and that request was granted.  What happens if Pope Benedict asks President Bush to spare Osama Bin Laden's life  (not that we will ever catch OBL) or demands that Zacaris Moussaoui be spared the death penalty?  After all representatives of the president's own church (the United Methodist Church) were turned away from the White House because they were going to advise him that the Iraq War was unjust.  President Bush had the gall to visit the Pope before the Iraq War, apparently hoping to get his blessing, but apparently all he got was a lecture.

(1) Had a lot to get off your chest there neighbor?

(2) It's fairly hard to "catch" the dead.

(3) Hopefully, the President will ignore the entreaties of a foreign leader and will enforce the law of the United States of America.

(4) Did Bush also ask for your blessing, or somehow communicate his intent to you before visiting the Holy Father? Or is this the fillings talking again?

The Catholic Church has let its medieval concepts of human sexuality overtake many of its good works over the last few years.  One wonders how different the Church would be if John Paul I had been Pope these last 26 years.

(1) Showing that you haven't kept up with the Catholic Church since 1452 or so.

(2) In a state of schism. A dead man as Pope would cause all sorts of problems.

Are you advocating dead men for religious and political posts? Or is this the fillings talking again?

Abortion was the third leading cause of maternal deaths worldwide, according to that pro-life organization, UNICEF.

That's simply a lie, dude.

The World Health Organization reports that 529,000 women die worldwide each year as a result of pregnancy and childbirth, and about 68,000 die each year as a result of abortion.  Just presenting a source, no opinion either way at this time, so please don't jump all over me.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

Insofar as that makes sense -- and really, I'm giving you one very large benefit of the doubt -- it's nonsensical. Nothing I've said, or that you've misapprehended, is exactly hidden dogma. Insofar as you don't understand it, well, see the title line. Insofar as Catholics don't understand it, well, you can lead the horse to water, shove his face into the water, and whack him on the back, but ultimately, he decides to drink or not.

One suspects you've been whacked on the neck a lot, to no avail.

Get rid of the apparent linkage between religion and the pro-Life cause. This is not a religious issue. No, it isn't. it's a human rights issue that (ideally) everyone should care  about no matter what their religious beliefs. Along those lines any non-traditional pro-Life sub-group should be highlighted front and center: Democrats for Life, Feminists for Life, Atheists for life (if any such group exists), Gays and Lesbians for Life. Sometimes such groups are cold-shouldered by religious activists and the Gay-Lesbian groups have even been refused permission to join pro-Life rallies and marches. Stop such sectarian policies and quit making it seem that this is just another pet cause for would-be "theocrats".

In response to Krempasky's original question, I would pose several things - which are, unfortunately, all long term issues:

-Defunding Planned Parenthood.  Despite earlier comments on this thread, they remain the most active, vocal, and effective instrument for abortion on demand in America.  Planned Parenthood receives over $265 million annually from federal, state and local tax money.  On Capitol Hill, Planned Parenthood's representatives remain some of the most outspoken activists against abstinence education. They are far more interested in providing abortions than adoption services. And despite claiming to be a non-profit, Planned Parenthood has made a profit every year since 1987, an amount that totals more than $502 million. More details are available at the American Life League, but this is something that GOP leadership always balks at doing.

-Boycotting organizations that fund the pro-abortion left, and doing so in a public manner: this one's self-explanatory, and there are several resources on the web to this end.

-Reaching out to the Community through your church or other community center: it's high time pro-lifers refocused their efforts in support of improving our foster care system, making adoption a process that is more straightforward and family friendly, and giving crisis pregnancy centers the help they need to succeed.

-Helping bring young people into the movement: polls consistently show that young people are more pro-life than any post-Roe generation... but are they getting the support they need?  Do they have the arguments at hand to defend their position?  These are areas where pro-lifers can help the next generation of leaders on this issue.  Economic conservatives shouldn't be the only ones with grants and support mechanisms.

-Providing Social Leadership: A culture of life starts by convincing more Americans on this issue in a careful, respectful, and responsible way.  The President is unwilling to lead by convincing Americans on this moral issue - fine.  We can do this ourselves by elevating those who will lead, in both private and political life.

If you already knew the answers, why'd you post the question? lol... just kidding, it's generated some interesting debate.

Just cause I have one of the answers doesn't mean I have all of them.

Besides, I'd rather get folks here thinking about how to go on the offensive and move the ball down the field than rehashing old ground, defending what we already believe.

Unsafe abortion might certainly be more of a health risk than childbirth. Regulated, medical abortion in the US is safer than pregnancy/childbirth. Pro-life demands that women be given explicit info on the dangers of abortion (above and beyond informed consent) drive me batty for this reason. Just nursed my baby to sleep and have to join her, will find and post links tomorrow.

But almost assuredly, those numbers are actually indications of deaths from hemorrhage and infection, which can happen whether you carry a child to term or not.

The year I worked at the Heritage Foundation, I went to a coference for young conservatives. I suggested then that the conservative movement needed to provide more support, and be very visible in showing all the support we provide, to promoting adoption, improving foster care, etc. As the old political saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

The shrill negative message would play better if heavily leavened with staunch, highly visible support of the alternatives.

Perhaps in addition to the annual pro-life rally, we could have an annual pro-adoption rally, where we encourage all pro-lifers to put their money where there mouth is and adopt a needy child or donate to non-profit adoption agencies. That would give us two bites at the public attention span, with 2 different but related messages.

I think the key words in that post were careful, respectful, and responsible.  Demonizing people does not make them want to join your cause.  I realize that may only be the fanatics that demonize, but that is what is covered in the news.  When people follow the news, even though it is all bad, abortion doctors being killed, clinics being bombed, potential mothers being harrassed on their way in or out of a clinic, these are disgraceful activities that are not helping anyone.  All they are doing is making the pro-life cause out to be a fanatical cult, almost.

I think that if you want to end "convienence" (sp) abortions, or abortions for any other reason than medically neccessary, rape, and incest, you must make stronger options available, so that abortion won't even be considered as an option.  I would have to think that a young, scared, pregnant girl's options are as follows, in order of consideration:

1. Abortion
   
   
2. Adoption
   
   
3. Have child and deal with consequences

And they probably haven't even thought about what they are going to tell their parents, or other important figures.  

Our level of education on sex needs to come into the 21st century.  You must accept that kids get experimental in their teens, and they're not going to listen to every word their parents's say, that doesn't mean don't guide them in the right direction, but you can't really expect a teenager to conform to all rules given to them, or they wouldn't be teenagers.  Point being, no, we don't want them to have sex, of course, but if they are going to, which is their decision, be safe, use protection.  Advocating safe sex, does not equal encouragement of promiscuity.  I have to refer to a previous post that I made, and I think this especially applies to teens, at least I know it did when I was a teen: The more my parents told me not to do something, the more I wanted to try it.  Especially if your parents aren't telling why it's bad/wrong, just that it is, come on...

I was horrified by one poster's description of for-profit abortion centers gunning to meet their monthly targets and beat the competition.

Why not push for taxes on for-profit abortions? Leave Planned Parenthood alone on this one, don't tax not-for-profits. Fighting them on it would be a distraction and would make it look like a back-door attempt to ban.

But who could oppose a tax on PROFITS made by abortioners? And we could dedicate the proceeds of the tax to funding adoption and foster family programs.

After posting this I spent a long time discussing it with my closest pro-life friend.

I would support the grandparents raising their grandchild if they go through the adoptive process, social work eval, references, whole kit and caboodle and get approved, and legally adopt the child, so that the birth parents have no legal standing in the child's life. As long as they clear the process, the grandparents should get preference for being given the baby. If they do not meet the criteria expected of all other adoptive parents, that baby should go to the first approved family on the adoption agency waiting list.

and tell me when you were there.

My middle-class family went through the hash of the system for six years before finally adopting my little sister through the inner city social services.  She was abandoned in a park.  Now, she is a beloved daughter.

Adoptions are expensive, long, difficult - and too often, the loving homes that only want another child cannot afford the cost or the time.  So they give up, and the child cycles back into foster care, and comes out more emotionally bruised and broken than someone who's been through a war.

We have to be willing to bear the cost, and we can work to change the system for the better.

Nonetheless, women are dying from pregnancy and childbirth, whether it be from miscarriage, hemorrhage, infection.  These are not self-inflicted like abortion is.

I think most of those prenancy/childbirth deaths are happening in developing countries where pre-natal care is not available, not in the US.  And the amount of abortion related deaths also occur in socities where abortion is outlawed, because people still want them, and they will go to unsafe lengths to get them.

On a side note, the HBO movie "If These Walls Could Talk" from several years ago was a great showing of the dangers of abortion.  Short synopsis, a woman in the 1950's got a kitchen table abortion, then died from a hemorrhage, in the 1970's a family with 4 kids has an unplanned pregnancy, they decide to "figure it out" and have the baby, and in the 1990's, Cher plays an abortion doctor who gets killed when a fanatic couple posing as patients shoots her.  Great watch for both sides.

To be a flaming pile of crap.

But hey, we all have preferences.

for somebody, usually the little unprotected one.

Not a problem with me...

That's why we live in America, because we all have preferences.

There is more detailed information in the body of the second report you site. The 68,000 figures comes primarily from the third world. In the U.S., it says that there is 1 maternal death per every 100,000 abortions performed, while there are 14 maternal deaths per every 100,000 live births. This figure is premised on the abortion being performed "by qualified persons using correct techniques and in sanitary conditions".

The report supports my contention that abortions are a surgical procedure.

Naturally, my previous post was meant to say that they are pretty safe for the woman... as another poster pointed out, they are almost inevitably fatal for the little one.

This data is from CDC. I wasn't able to find anything more recent on the CDC site, but there is no reason that the rates would have changed in their proportion to each other in recent years. To look at the statistics fairly one would have to decide what to do with ectopic pregnancies. To save the mother the embryo needs to be removed, but I don't know that you could count that as abortion reducing maternal mortality, as I doubt most women with a ruptured ectopic pregnancy knew that they were pregnant or knew that it was ectopic. Regardless, there are still many other aspects of pregnancy and childbirth that can kill you. My personal paranoid fear is amniotic embolism, but that didn't and won't stop me from having children.

Should women have abortions because it is safer than carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth? No. Should pro-life people exagerate the dangers of abortion while minimizing the dangers of pregnancy? No.

"The annual case-fatality rate of legal induced abortion ranged from 0.3 to 0.8 abortion-related deaths per 100,000 reported legal induced abortions"

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5103a1.htm

"During 1982-1996, the annual maternal mortality ratio fluctuated between approximately 7 and 8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births "

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00054602.htm

Thanks for that very informative link. There are some fascinating statistics buried in there.

For one, about 31% of abortions were by women aged 20-24. Girls younger than 15 totalled less than 1% of all abortions. And women at the other end of child-bearing age also accounted for less than 1% of all abortions.

That tells us a lot. For me, it suggests that a whole lot of abortions are for personal convenience or a perception that now's not a good time, not the stereotypical uneducated teenager in the projects somewhere who really can't afford to take care of a child. And those 20-24 year olds are certainly old enough to have learned about birth control and other alternatives.

Also, 56% of all legal abortions were obtained by white women. However, presumably because of the greater health risks seen in among black women (due to poor education, lack of available and affordable maternal care, etc.), the abortion ratio (ratio of abortions to live births) was highest among black women, a ratio of 512 abortions per 1,000 live births. For white women, the ratio was 189 per 1,000 live births.

The link you gave about Planned Parenthood's activities shows that only 8% of its clients used its abortion services. I would hazard a guess that most women who know they want to put their child up for adoption do not go to PP, so you are looking at stats biased by who goes there. And the number of adoption referrals also does not take into account the number of women who say "no thanks, I am going to raise this baby myself".

I really think you all would be better off targeting abortion only clinics. I would join the band wagon for that one (heck, I'm the one who suggested it). Demonize PP all you want, but they prevent more abortions than they perform. Many of their clinics don't even offer abortion services.

Obstruct justice by concealing evidence on child-abusing priests and moving them around so they can continue to abuse--well that's okay as long as you are pro-life

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1469055,00.html?g
usrc=rss  

and of course with this In fact we'll get you a cushy suite at the Vatican I was refering to the notorious Cardinal Law

does not conform with the just war doctrine.  The Pope was clear on this.  Bush loves to speak about the "culture of life" as though it refers only to abortion.  He is less willing to tout Catholic doctrine when it contradicts his stance on war or the death penalty.

You may wish to brush up on what the words "obstruction of justice" mean. It's not what a Plaintiff's lawyer says, just because he says it.

I'll spare you the bits about Law. They'd be lost on you.

What you say the Pope said is not what he said.

I further note -- and this will doubtless surprise you -- that the Pope doesn't make the call on whether a war is just. Meditate on that for a while.

Bush isn't Catholic. I hate to break that to you.

is indeed teh goal of pro-choice advocates. I'm pro-life and pro-choice. Its simple. I'm anti-abortion. I dont want to stop you from having an abortion. I want to stop youu from wanting one. Or needing one.

Thats actually been the position of the mainstream "left" (note: not the Left which is caricatured here daily). Abortion = tragedy. Singly, and in sum. But if there are voices with the "right" (note: not the Right which is caricatured there daily) that can divorce the issue of abortion from the moral argument, then the functional task of abortion reduction can indeed be bipartisan.

Take them with the requisite NaCl crystals.

This is free pro-life advertising, at the grassroots level and in major media. Play it up. Abortion makes even some of its proponents uncomfortable; force the contradictions. As a wise man has otherwise noted, this is the first, best flaw in NARAL's armor: The truth means that NARAL's message sucks.

Blog those pictures. Link them. They are the first and best counter argument for the child as a human being, for those who need to hear that message.

Relatedly, fight this garbage tooth and nail. Let's be frank about this: This isn't about perceived health risks for mother or child from rogue x-ray techs and their Ultrasounds of Doom. This is entirely about making sure mothers uncertain whether to abort their kids never see children as children in utero. This is about making sure that abortion alternative centers can't try to persuade women not to engage in abortions. (Paging Eliot Spitzer! This is an angle you missed!)

Finally, and related to that, get involved in abortion alternative facilities. That's where the war is fought every day. Fund. Volunteer. This is a campaign fought across national politics, and in pitched battles across the landscape. Volunteering and funding and fundraising for these places contributes as surely as each battle of a war contributes to the end result. This is where the image of pro-lifers does best; this is where individual hearts and minds are changed; this is where lives are saved every day.

When the President talks about a "culture of life" and has done nothing to make abortion illegal, why aren't more liberals who want to reduce abortions overjoyed?  His emphasis is on encouraging society to respect life and choose life.  My guess is that the answer to that question is the same as the reason pro-lifers aren't jumping up and down over Senator Clinton's proposals.  Because when push comes to shove, legal will trump rare.  Make abortions of convenience illegal and the number of abortions will plummet.  That in combination with lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies and rapes is one mainstream version of the pro-life philosophy.  But as long as someone can reason that inconvenience is more important than life, the moral issue isn't disappearing.

That they have those in Europe, too.

I may do a diary on this at some point, but I think this would be worthwhile for related issues like stem cell research as well. Even a token contribution in the form of grants, etc. towards adult stem cell research could help refute caricature of conservatives as anti-scientific and against medical progress.

In order for you to believe that insufficient or backwards sex ed is to blame for the current state of affairs, you have to ignore every piece of serious statistical, anecdotal, and sociological data concerning the ramifications of teaching non-abstinence-focused sex ed in public schools.  

Here are a few facts from a colleague's work (everything's footnoted if you want it) that will shed some light on things for you.

Despite this Administration's support for abstinence-only education, the vast majority of federal and state government-backed sex education programs in this country remain comprehensive, non-abstinence-focused sex ed. In 2002, federal and state governments spent $1.73 billion on contraception promotion and pregnancy prevention programs, as opposed to $144.1 million for abstinence programs for teens. That's a 12:1 ratio, with abstinence programs getting the short end of the stick.

Comprehensive sex education has existed in a real form for more than two decades, but it has not reduced sexual activity.  Today, one in five adolescents have sex before age fifteen.  By age thirteen, one out of every ten girls have had sex. By age 15, one-third of girls have had sex, as opposed to less than 5 percent in 1970.  That statistic is 45 percent for today's 15-year-old boys.  Two-thirds of suburban and urban 12th-graders have had sex; 43 percent of suburban and 39 percent of urban 12th-graders have had sex outside of a romantic relationship.  In the 1970s, 39 percent of sexually active adolescent girls reported multiple partners; as of 1988 that number had grown to 55 percent, and the number has continued to rise sine.  Today, thirteen percent of sixteen-year-old girls report having had sex with at least six men.  Two-thirds of suburban and urban twelfth graders have had sex, and 43 percent of suburban 12th graders have had sex outside of a romantic relationship, as have 39 percent of urban 12th graders.

Meanwhile, the national illegitimacy rate has risen dramatically, from just over 5 percent in 1960  to 33 percent as of 2003.  Three to four million STDs are contracted annually by teens from the ages of fifteen to nineteen.  Each day, eight thousand teenagers in the United States contract an STD.

Whilte the rates of teen pregnancy have declined, 34 percent of teenage girls get pregnant at least once before they reach age 20, resulting in 820,000 teen pregnancies a year - many of which end in abortion.

Our current sex ed regime of "you might want to wait, but if you don't, use this Planned Parenthood condom" is nothing but a pathetic failure.  And you want to expand it?

"as long as inconvenience trumps life"

Adam, thats a meaningless statement with respect to the actual people on the "left" and "right" whom I am rerferring to as being the ones genuinely interested in abortion reduction. Its Right rhetoric, which only inflames the Left rhetoric, and frankly gets in the way of the actual task at hand.

those on the (l)eft already are willing to meet halfway and declare abortion a tragedy. Those on the Left would caricature it as a medical procedure alone, recall. Hillary Clinton's rhetoric was excellent in this regard of emphasising that a thing can be legal and still, a tragic thing.

Those on the (r)ight have to make a similar effort to meet halfway and cast aside the moralizing attack substrate upon which their argument solely rests. Thats not an invalid argument, but it cannot be made without alienating women on the left who might never ave or want an abortion, but who still feel that teh choice is theirs should it ultimately someday be needed.

Your comment does not reflect that spirit of compromise, even though I know you personally are moderate. If you can cast aside that rhetoric and recignize its corrosive impact on teh debate, much progress can be made in reaching out to youur actual allies on the left in common cause.

Thta compare the number of women who attempt to carry a child to full-term, compared with those who seek an abortion? I think that would be highly relevant in determining which was more dangerous, per capita.

MachoNachos

What the Pope did [a]ccording to a March 18, 2003, Dallas Morning News article: "One of the strongest anti-war voices belongs to the pope. He sent an envoy to visit with Mr. Bush this month with a letter that called the war 'immoral, illegal, unjust.'"

And as I stated above, the president refused to meet with representatives of the leadership of his own church because they were going to advise him the war was immoral.

Last night, and I realized that I'm going to have to get less wishy-washy on this whole subject pretty soon.  It's one of the last ones -- I've saved up most of my wishy-washiness and squirreled it away inside this issue for too long now.  I think the clock on that excuse is running down.  

into the kool-aid-drinking wing of the pro-life movement any time you want to join. :-)

MachoNachos

The statistics in the WHO report, as well as the CDC data discussed nearby, show that in the U.S., there is about 1 death per 100,000 legal abortions, and about 14 deaths per 100,000 live births. Since the number of deaths per live birth is so much higher than the number of deaths per abortion, widening the statistics to include all those women who seek to carry a child until birth can only increase the number of deaths per attempt to carry to term.

I really don't have a dog in this argument either way - I can't recall ever having said that abortion should be illegal because it's more dangerous for the mother.

I think what we can all agree on, as has been pointed out in this thread, is that abortion is quite a bit more dangerous for the child than full-term childbirth.

MachoNachos

I have never had an abortion, am pretty sure I never would (can't say 100%, if the baby were anecephalic-no chance of life, confirmed on u/s by two specialists I might not carry to term given the safety of abortion vs. pregnancy/childbirth. I have to think about my other child, too. Couldn't know what to do unless I was actually there.) and this rhetoric of "convenience" really, really peeves me.

I have stopped using birth control, drinking alcohol, taking advil and started taking vitamins and naps and had a baby. I had a preterm labor scare, I went through what every mother goes through and thought about the possibility of something going terribly wrong with me or my child. I got life insurance. I spent 27 hours in labor, 25 of which without drugs because it is best for the baby. I spent a month pumping until she could finally get a latch. I would die for my child. I would kill for my child. I understand being pregnant and giving birth in a way that you cannot as a single man, and never will entirely.

Yes, you can be pro-life, I don't begrudge you that at all. Yes, you can experience parenthood and be willing to die or kill for your child. No, you cannot understand what motivates every woman who decides to end or continue a pregnancy. Call it murder, call it wrong, fight against it. But don't expect people like me to join your bandwagon if you publicly minimize what pregnancy is and does and make it out to be just a "convenience". I can imagine being a pregnant, scared 20 year old. I never was, but I can imagine it, and how it would have affected my life. It is about a h*ll of a lot more than just convenience.

When you reread one of your own posts and realize that if it were anyone else, you'd have rated it a "2" or below for incoherency and general all-over-the-place-ness.  The only excuse I can offer is that I really have tried not to think about this issue for a while, but ignoring the problem...

I'm late to the discussion, but a few thoughts on strategy:

1.  If you want to win on abortion, focus on the issue of abortion.  Avoid linking it to other issues, such as the death penalty.  (I actually think that the public is smarter than Trevino supposes, and that most people understand how one can be pro-life and also accept the death penalty in certain circumstances.)  
   
2.  In general, the narrower, more precise your arguments, the better you'll do.  A broad argument in favor of the "culture of life" is a grievous error, because it requires agreement with a whole range of policy positions that form part of the "life" position.  (Or, to be more blunt:  Run screaming from any argument that expressly or impliedly links abortion to the Schiavo case.)
   
3.  As mentioned by others, do not tie abortion to any specific religion.  You're trying to win a political majority, not converts.
   
4.  Finally, follow the six day rule:  You will not propose legislation regarding events that occur at or six days after conception.  If you make this a debate about banning the Pill, fertility clinics or stem cell research, you will lose -- and it won't be close.  This is not to say that you don't raise all these issues in hopes of changing the culture; only that you don't introduce legislation on them.  

von

This is the reason why I keep coming back to RedState.  I don't mind the flamethrowers so much when there is also opportunity to actually talk things through.

Since I'm at the tail of this post, I won't go overboard in my discussion, but let me say that Trevino is really, really on to something.  My attraction to the Catholic Church, despite some fundamental disagreements, comes from the concept of the "seamless garment of life."  That's a good thing.  I think there is a real difference between being anti-abortion and pro-life.  Despite protestations to the contrary, and admitted exceptions, I still feel the bulk of the "pro-life" movement today gets fired up about fetuses and loses interest once birth occurs.  I know that's not universal, but I think it is widespread enough to matter.  Give me a package that includes abortion restrictions, strong and comprehensive sex-ed, ample provision for adoption, resources for mothers, etc., and I'm much more interested.

The idea of the state taking children from minor parents interests me, but I'm still chewing on it.  Probably not constitutional, and there may be unintended consequences not yet thought of, but I can see positives as well.

All in all, good post.

<facetious>

You're being awfully generous there, I must say!  Did you get your card revoked because you forgot to pay your ACLU membership dues?  Did the NOW send you one too many contribution requests?  ;-)

</facetious&gt

Do you think that unwanted pregnancies weren't a problem in the 1950's when abortion was illegal.  Do you think kids just started having sex out of marriage, or at a young age now?  This has been going on forever, and we are just recently making it ok to talk about sex and protection.  I don't think anyone, including myself is stating that we should give permission to kids to have sex.  I also don't feel that making information about condoms and birth control available is encouraging sexual activity, I think it's being smart.  When I was in school, we had sexual education in our freshman year, and we were taught that abstinence was the only way to 100% protect against unwanted pregnancy and disease.  But they also taught us what condoms were, the differences between types, what birth control is, etc. Because they accepted that we all knew abstinence is the best way to go, but chances are, we weren't going that way.  Teaching abstienence only, with no information on safe sex, condoms, birth control, etc. , I think would be a dismal failure.  Ignoring sexual curiousity in teens or 20 somethings, I think is the wrong way to go about it.  Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away, I think we've learned this in other issues.  

Do you propose teaching kids how to safely shoot heroin or safely drive under the influence? We know they are all going to do it so we might as well make it safer for them.

Hey, y'know, I try. ;-)

But, seriously, although I don't have the moral certainty on this issue that some have, I am best described as pro-life (as the term is applied in the political arena; presumably, everyone would describe themselves as pro-life in the "life" arena).  I'd like to reduce the number of abortions.  I think Roe was wrongly decided, and the regulation of abortion should be left to legislature (as it is in virtually every other country).    

True, I don't subscribe to the fertilized egg is equal to embryo is equal to fetus is equal to baby logic chain -- on the grounds that it's illogical.  But, if you're looking for support for banning abortions in the second and third trimesters (with an exception for the life of the mother), I'm there for ya.  (Indeed, I favor substantial restrictions on first trimester abortions.)

[END of OT.]

Those are poor analogies and you know it.  

We do teach kids about the effects of alcohol and drugs, and I remember in high school repeatedly hearing something along the lines of "if you've been drinking, don't drive.  Better to be grounded for life than kill somebody."  I was taught the difference in alcohol content for different drinks, the difference in effect for people of different body weights, etc.

as I understand sola scriptura and individual justification from a protestant view (which is to say, not too well) Methodist persons are not bound by higher earthly authority if they prayerfully reflect on their own actions and find them just.

And just to clarify... If the Pope says War A is unjust, that is his opinion on an earthly matter because the Church teaches that war may or may not be just, but that individuals must make this determination on their own.  Thus although due consideration must be given to the Pope's opinion because he is a bishop of the church, one's own opinion, taking into account such information as may be had, in consultation with the Holy Spirit, is what matters.  

Re: A pivotal insight was that controlling the university system was tantamount to controlling society

Universities are fairly isolated ivory towers, and their effect on the rest of society (except through scientific discovery which can be very significant but is not ideological) is very limited. Only about half the populartion goes to college, and most of them are just there for job credentialing: they can be guaranteed to forget just about everything taught in a classroom that has no bearing on their future career. And here's the proof the universities don't really matter politically: which party and ideology do most academics favor, and which party and ideology has been racking up most of the electoral gains?

I absolutely do not want the Pope, or even a local bishop (even of my own Church) micromanaging American politics. No way!

Von, thanks for your thoughts.  I entirely agree with your assessment.  Pro-life shouldn't be conflated with issues like the Schiavo incident or we will run off those who agree with us on abortion.  And creating a movement where people like you and I are comfortable calling ourselves "pro-life" is important for overturning Roe and returning decisions to the legislatures.  Then compromises like the one you advocate could be adopted and fiddled with.

The problem in my eyes is what you see as halfway.  Allowing abortions of convenience is not halfway.  It's not a second best solution.  We don't allow other infringements on human rights.  In my eyes the "moderate" or "half-way point" is outlawing abortion in some extreme cases while not banning it in certain sensitive cases such as rape, incest and life of the mother situations.  I think a majority of the country would support that "half-way" proposal.  It would isolate the extreme wings of No Abortions and Abortions of Convenience.

Your "half-way" seems to be to not change laws at all, accept that the Supreme Court has denied legislatures the right to protect unborn children, and to try to convince people not to take advantage of that Supreme Court decision.  I am happy to go along with trying to reduce abortions in other ways (as are all pro-lifers) but to think that is a half-way point is silly.  Second and third trimester abortions don't have majority support.  Financial burden abortions don't have majority support.  If people's voices were heard, the left-wing "legal in all cases" position would no longer be a "half-way" proposal.

FWIW, I think you're being too sensitive to my rhetoric.  I try my best to use the most descriptive, non-emotional terms.  I use unborn child because that is what most pregnant mother's use (child, not fetus).  I don't say "baby killers."  And I really don't find

But as long as someone can reason that inconvenience is more important than life, the moral issue isn't disappearing

to be over the line.  It is an accurate description of the position of pro-choicers.  If they want to keep abortion for cases of necessity and allow cases of convenience to be made illegal, they could propose that.  But they won't because protecting the cases of convenience is part of the pro-choice movement.  That's fine, but it's not meeting anyone half-way.

and I think you'll understand why "convenience" is the wrong word.

I also don't feel that making information about condoms and birth control available is encouraging sexual activity... Teaching abstienence only, with no information on safe sex, condoms, birth control, etc. , I think would be a dismal failure.

Unfortunately, no serious study of the facts or awareness of the modern sex ed system backs your imagination up in this regard.

You have, in other words, discovered the perfect argument for advancing courageously after drinking 10 beers.

If it is not a necessity, it is a convenience.  I don't mind conveniences in life.  I enjoy many of them but they are still conveniences.  I could use abortion-on-demand if that sounds better.  But there is a differentiation between abortions due to medical necessity, rape, and incest and those due to financial issues, age, and poor timing.  Blurring the line doesn't help the discussion.  I thought necessity and convenience were rather non-emotional terms to use.

I can certainly understand and sympathize with the fear and uncertainty faced by a 21 or 22 year old woman who suddenly finds herself pregnant. But like it or not, ready for it or not, she is a grown-up at that age. In centuries past, she would be married and have 2 or 3 children by that age. She is old enough and should be mature enough to take responsibility for her own actions.

If this woman has an abortion because she doesn't  want to keep dealing with her chosen sexual partner or because she's afraid of what her daddy will do or because she's "just not ready yet", then I'm sorry, but that is an abortion for her convenience.

We're not talking about rape here. She was a willing participant in the act that made her pregnant. She could have choosen birth control (again, we're not talking about 14 year olds here, we're talking about the 20-24 year olds who had 31% of all abortions in the U.S., according to the CDC). She could have chosen non-intercourse sexual activity. She could have (gasp!) chosen abstinence. But she didn't want to bother with all that... In my book, getting an abortion is entirely a matter of her convenience, no matter how understandable her fear and anxiety may be.

I haven't seen any studies that show that abstinence only works. I would love to see the studies that show that it does.

I know we are talking semantics here, but I am just letting you know that that particular term is going to invoke a passionate, adversarial response in pro-choice women like myself. We are talking about a fundamental life change that is going to increase the woman's chance of living in poverty, decrease her likelihood of finishing her education etc. I'm not justifying abortion, I am just stating that it is not the same as moving a hair appointment to a better date. The word convenience implies a callousness on the part of the woman. I'm not suggesting you change what you feel or believe, just that if you want to work with those of us in the pro-choice crowd (and I never said halfway-just work with us) that terminology is not going to work. How about "elective abortion"?

That's the real question, do you want help from those of us on the other side of the debate?

Pat, I don't think we should just be focusing on the groups most likely to have the abortion, I think we need to be looking at pregnancy rates and look to bring down rates across the board. I don't just want to reduce abortion, I want to reduce the number of children living in single parent households, and the number of children living in poverty. We can do all of that by decreasing unwanted/unplanned pregnancies. And some of these women are using birth control. It's not 100%. Again, I am not justifying their abortions, I am just saying we can't assume that they were just totally stupid.

In targeting specific demographics, I am much more interested in the 50% who have had a previous abortion. ("slightly more than one half were obtaining an abortion for the first time"-from the same source). Hello? I would buy  convenience as a word for women who have had a previous abortion. I need to think some more about that group. I would definitely support limits for them.

Doverspa-you are right, there is no half way point for those who believe that abortion is murder, but isn't working with everyone who hates abortion to reduce numbers a start? The pro-choice crowd would bend some if there were honest outreach.

There are none...

I think...., I don't feel.... I'm not trying to present this as fact.  Remember, there are no studies that back up either side...

its a deliberate judgement being made on the actions of ALL those who get abortions. I guess we are just talking past each other at this point.

I really didn't mean my post to be quite as harsh as it maybe came across. I can live with your proposed alternative of "elective abortions".

And I certainly support always looking for the common ground between opposing sides rather than fighting the same old battles over and over again.

At the same time, though, you should be aware that many on the pro-life side, to be very blunt, see a specter of privileged, self-indulgent liberal white women wanting to protect abortion as a birth control method, who try to hide behind protecting poor, uneducated, misguided young girls who wind up pregnant. The 20-24 year olds, who have the most abortions, are precisely the ones that the pro-life most despises, simply because they do have more options than the 15 and 16 year olds. So as much as the pro-choice side might react strongly against the word "convenience", I suspect the pro-life side will react against what they see as an even more watered-down euphemism.

Pat,

I understand that. Maybe I take it very personally because I am "a privileged,  liberal white woman". (I don't consider myself self-indulgent-but who does?). I know a lot of other women who also fit that category. None of them regard abortion as a form of birth control. I only know a coule of women that I know have had abortions. I wouldn't consider any of them self-indulgent, although I didn't know them when they had their abortions.

I do have to say that I have seen a lot of what I consider promiscuity, "serial monogamy" in my day. I think addressing the norms of society is an important thing to do as well. TV shows like "Friends" and "Sex in the City" normalize unhealthy behaviors. We can't blame Hollywood for giving us what we want, we need to look at ourselves and our communities, and at least start de-norming these behaviors. I don't know that these are the same people who have abortions, but I think that it is all linked. I saw a bib in Walmart the other day "I'm too sexy for my bib" I know the reference, but almost vomited anyway. They edit albums but sell that? Is it actually funny and I just don't get it? I think we have a lot of shizo cultural issues about sex. Basically "sex is bad, don't do it" and "sex sells, especially in its most blatant and tasteless forms" If we could get coalitions going that address single issues with clear agreement, ie more family friendly TV (I find Viagra ads a lot more offensive than Janet Jackson's nipple. In our Red Sox/Yankees rivalry household our children are going to be exposed to the concept of ED way before I think it is appropriate. Where do you even go with that? "well honey, when a man and woman love and respect each other a lot and get married, they like to show that they love each other in a special way, but sometimes the man has trouble showing his love and needs this pill"? Sorry to get OT, but I am so offended by those ads), easier to afford and manage adoption/foster services etc.

I mentioned a few months ago doing a pro-adoption March. I could easily muster 100 pro-choice families to go all on my own. I am sure they could all muster a lot more. No speeches about abortion. None. We could all march together with our own signs "pro-choice and pro-adoption" "choose life-choose adoption" "adopted children for adoption" whatever, but make it fun and open for everyone.

Back to work. I understand what you are all saying and meaning about abortion, I am just trying to help you package it better if you want to work with us folks. We'll listen to your talk on how to package it too.

I do appreciate the effort you have made to explain the "pro-choice" perspective and hot buttons. It really does help everybody communicate more effectively.

I'm entirely with you on the pro-adoption rally, and made a similar suggestion elsewhere in this thread. It would be hard to keep the radicals on both sides out, I'm afraid. We'd need some strong leaders on both sides to keep things in check, I think.

I don't see it as a judgement.  It is a description.  You can get many surgeries out of convenience.  If you suggest another term to describe abortions when the "time isn't right," I'd be open to using them.  But so far, you seem to be distraught by the fact that there are abortions done for convenience as opposed to necessity.

for taking the time to respectfully communicate on a very emotional issue.  In response to your final question, I already mentioned that "I am happy to go along with trying to reduce abortions in other ways (as are all pro-lifers) but to think that is a half-way point is silly."  The half-way remark was in response to Aziz's proposal.

Fortunately, abortion rates have been declining since the late 1980s and the actual number of abortions have been declining since the early 1990s (which may or may not be related to Republican control of Congress, the economy, or Bill Clinton's Presidency).  I hope that trend continues and I appluad those on both sides who work toward that end.

"Elective abortions" sounds just as good as abortions of convenience to me.  It is important to me (and many other moderates I believe) to separate abortions like this one from medical necessities.

To see why those of us who are willing to give some ground are still worked up about abortion, I highly recommend reading Amy Richard's account of her "selective reduction":

My immediate response was, I cannot have triplets. I was not married; I lived in a five-story walk-up in the East Village; I worked freelance; and I would have to go on bed rest in March. I lecture at colleges, and my biggest months are March and April. I would have to give up my main income for the rest of the year. There was a part of me that was sure I could work around that. But it was a matter of, Do I want to?

I looked at Peter and asked the doctor: ''Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?'' The obstetrician wasn't an expert in selective reduction, but she knew that with a shot of potassium chloride you could eliminate one or more....

On the subway, Peter asked, ''Shouldn't we consider having triplets?'' And I had this adverse reaction: ''This is why they say it's the woman's choice, because you think I could just carry triplets. That's easy for you to say, but I'd have to give up my life.'' Not only would I have to be on bed rest at 20 weeks, I wouldn't be able to fly after 15. I was already at eight weeks. When I found out about the triplets, I felt like: It's not the back of a pickup at 16, but now I'm going to have to move to Staten Island. I'll never leave my house because I'll have to care for these children. I'll have to start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise. Even in my moments of thinking about having three, I don't think that deep down I was ever considering it.

And we call those surgeries "elective"

Well...

I am pretty sure that I found that women in the NYtimes article as offensive as you did.

I am also feeling pretty sure that saying things like "deal" when as a medical professional I tell you what we call surgeries of "convenience" elective (that is the formal medical term, ask anyone in the profession) that you are stating you are not willing to work with the other side.

Don't be surprised when that encourages reasonable people to dig in their heels.

Exiting discussion.

 I thought he meant "it's a deal."  

I think you misunderstood "deal".

How about "it's a deal."  Elective abortions is just fine to differentiate from medically necessary abortions.  See my comment further down.

It should make you all feel good that we liberal feminists are so on the defensive :)

I love how Thomas, Strief, Trevino and a few others respond to myself and a few others who challenge them by simply calling them stupid or ignorant without ever providing a substantive response.  

Yes I understand the difference in Catholic doctrine between authoritative and prudential doctrine and that the Pope rarely makes pronouncements that are infallible.  But I also understand that when the Pope does speak, even prudentially, Catholics should give his words great weight and not pretend that he did not call the Iraq War unjust (actually both of them) or that he spoke frequently and forcefully against the death penalty and current church teaching pretty much rules out the application of the death penalty in this country.  

That said, I realize you are not going to hell for disagreeing with the Pope on the Iraq War or the death penalty, I just find it hypocritical that you are so strict on sexual issues but seem less bound to the guidance of your Church on other moral issues (even if they are "only prudential").

As for obstruction of justice.  If the Observer story is true and Cardinal Ratzinger concealed evidence of child abuse by claiming some kind of clergy exemption for 10 years after the child turned 18, then that is indeed obstruction of justice, since it was obviously designed to outlast the statute of limitations.  I remember enough from law school to know that deliberately concealing evidence of a crime is obstruction of justice.

If you understand the difference, and you still think it's "hypocritical" (to not accord equal moral weight to things that are explicitly not equally morally weighted, natch), then it does seem you don't understand the difference.  Or you're just dishonest.  You tell me.

Someone who thinks it's "hypocritical" of Catholics to accord infallible teachings infallible weight, but to treat as merely advisory the Pope's prudential judgments, instead of treating the latter as being the former (even though he admits they're not). I'm especially leery of someone who accords positive obligations where there are none, then suggests that he learned of these positive obligations in law school.

Ratzinger's order attempted to take evidence of child abuse (priests molesting children) and subsequent actions by the Church to cover up the abuse and prevent prosecution of the priests by moving the priests to other parishes and claimed that the Church had jurisdiction over the incidents and that that jurisdiction would not lapse until the alleged victims reached the age of 28.

In the course of discovery, the parties have a positive obligation to turn over relevant, non-priveleged documents.  Now this is where my limited knowledge of Church confounds me.  I don't practice law anymore but I do remember that if a client confesses to me I can keep that confession confidential, but I can not conceal evidence for the client nor can I actively aid him in avoiding prosecution by hiding him.  I believe that the priest/penitent privilege operates very much along the same lines.  I had no idea that the Catholic Church could claim jurisdiction over residents of the U.S. and use that claim to withold information from U.S. courts about felonies committed in the U.S. by U.S. residents.

BTW is as ORwellian an euphemism as I have ever seen. That NYT article made me blind with rage.

I can see we are on the same page, but are looking for a semantic framework we can both work within. This is an important task.

I'm glad that we made some progress is dropping the term "convenience" in favor of "elective". The question is however whether the pro-life movement as a whole is willing to be anywhere near as reasonable...

If I understand your position correctly, you'd leave that legal option open to her; why does it leave you blind with rage?

(I know why it leaves me blind with rage and tears, but I'm the web savvy ultra-far-right-winger on this topic.)

also makes me blind with rage. Do we ban it, or educate our children?

put more broadly - compulsion is not virtue. A society in which the immoral is illegal is not more virtous, and in way mays far less so, in which the immoral is legal, but taboo.

I hope that there is a hell so this woman can go there. I almost lost it at the end when she talked about having another pregnancy. What?! Sorry lady, you had your chance at more than one child. The reality is (and I am not saying this in order to preserve or change any laws) that this woman and others of her ilk are going to be the ones who fly somewhere for a safe abortion if abortion were outlawed. Nothing could have saved those children.

Thomas, I have deep respect for your pro-life views and beliefs, but I do agree with Aziz that you can feel rage at people who abuse things that are legal. I am pro-choice because I believe that sometimes it is the woman's life against the baby's, and no one should be able to force you to be pregnant. I am sure this is morally repugnant to many, but I just can't make myself make that decision for another woman. In that case (and I am sure in others) that woman's life was in no way over by having triplets. My job share partner has triplets. Hard? Yes. Doable? Of course.

I have had very intersting conversations with two college friends because of this thread. One pro-life, one pro-choice. I think that some of what they said could really contribute to this topic, but it is way too long. Anyone willing to start a new topic?

Your statistics, even if true, do not prove causation.  A lot of other things have gone on in society over the last thirty years that could account for the reported rise in sexual activity.  It is much more useful to point out that European countries that have much more extensive and graphic sex education programs, deemphasize absitnence to a much greater degree and have a much higher reported rate of teenage sexual activity, have much lower rates of all the negative things you point out (STDs, abortions, teenage pregnancies).  

Self-reporting, especially about sex, is notoriously inaccurate.  You need look no further than the statistics on the reported number of partners.  Males in this country average 7 lifetime, females 4.  So either men are having sex with a bunch of foreign women or someone is lying.

Recent studies of abstinence-only programs show that they are ineffective in preventing sexual activity.  Studies of abstinence pledges have shown that the pledgees are more likely to engage in more risky behaviors like anal sex and when they do eventually have vaginal intercourse, are less likely to use birth control.

You ignore the fact that America's comprehensive sex-ed programs have failed outright, something most mainstream experts concede easily. You ignore the issue of cultural factors and indeed all of the data that conflicts with your thesis. You value arguments that are so old and politically skewed (are you reading straight from the Waxman report, or do you just agree with his bogus stance?) that I can't help but think that you are basing your arguments on Google searches instead of actual knowledge of the situation.

I've helped write two books about this policy issue. The more you talk about this, the more you show yourself to have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Until you show otherwise, I'm done feeding a troll.

In all cases we are talking about crimes. In the case of teen sex, it is a felony in most states.

All three activities are high risk. All three can lead to death or injury.

You are entitled to your view that you want to teach safe boffing I don't see why our message in regards to teen sex should be a bit different than our message on teens drinking and driving or drug use.

Apparently you are advocating a sex-ed program that holds that sex outside of marriage is wrong and does not provide any information about contraceptives and uses fear of STDs and unwanted pregnancy to discourage sexual activity (and feel free to correct me if my assumption is wrong).  For the sake of argument I will grant you that such a program would be effective.

However, will you at least admit that your moral position (no sex outside the bonds of marriage and the use of artificial birth control) is a minority position in this country?  And that to teach, in the public schools no less, that sex outside of marriage is wrong, might be contrary to the wishes of a significant number of parents, who, although they may not like the idea of high school students have sex, see nothing immoral about two mature unmarried adults (maybe even of the same sex) having a sexual relationship and using any means available to prevent a pregnancy from resulting from that relationship?

The question of out-of-wedlock births is particularly problematic.  Society is certainly more tolerant of such things than they were 50 years ago.  Back then the solution to a pregnant teenager was to find the father, plan a quick wedding, have them both drop out of high school, get him a job at the plant, and start a miserable life together.  Or alternately, we could ship the young lady off to her "aunt" for a few months and she would miraculously reappear and no one would ask any questions, although there would be constant whispering behind her back.  Of course the more radical solution was arrived at in Ireland, where the young women were removed from society and forced to work as slave labor, often for life, in Magdelane Laundries, to atone for their sins.  Are we a better or worse society for no longer shunning unwed mothers?    

Most consent laws are written to protect children from predation by adults and as such prohibit adults from having sex with children, not from teenagers having sex with eachother.  So the comparison to underage drinking is not apt as an analogy to law enforcement.  

Although I can see your point as to how we should approach it.  Sex, like drinking, is an adult activity, something teenagers really shouldn't be doing.  But please, please, if you are going to do it (because we know, no matter what we say, you probably will), be careful.  And whatever you do, don't drink (or have sex) and drive.

You blatantly assign me policy positions that I've never taken, on this thread or any other.

You admit outright that you're making baseless assumptions as to my moral position on these matters.

You ignore every factual point that conflicts with your own ignorant point of view.

Any now you imply that I think we should shun unwed mothers?

Go get your shinebox.

only a very few states differentiate the age of the participants and that is a relatively recent, i.e. 20 years, development. What governs is age of consent. Sex below the legal age of consent, and is some states that is 18, is illegal and in many, if not most, cases a felony.

So the comparison is very apt.

And the message on sex, drinking, and drugs for teens should be clear an unambiguous: don't. And I just don't see how pulling condoms over cucumbers accomplishes this.

Again, that's simply not true.

Blind with rage bar, I see. I reserve blind with rage for atrocities, not idiocies: Some cretin wishing to deny history deserves a smirk; a woman killing her children because she doesn't want to visit CostCo deserves rage.

I'm surprised that I'm to your right on this. I would not have predicted that you'd give Holocaust denial a pas like that.

Shunning from polite society. Treating the cretin like the subhuman he is.

Espousing a stupid opinion deserves contempt. Murdering a child deserves much worse.

I am new to Red State, but I really enjoyed the above reasonings on the issue of abortion.  You are right-those of us that have planted our feet and have said that abortion is murder need to be outspoken against the hateful violence that has occured in the name of God and the pro-life movement.  In our churches, in our communities, let's reach out to the women who are having their babies "out of wedlock" and give personal help wherever possible. In my church, the elderly ladies crochet blankets to donate to a home for "crisis pregnacies".  Maybe some good men could go and help deliver them to communicate the message "all men are not creeps seeking to inseminate you and dump you by the wayside."  But let us never waver in our convictions that

1. The purposeful taking of an innocent human life is murder
   
   
2. Abortion is the purposeful taking of an innocent human life
   

Therefore = abortion is murder.

My fear is that in our culture of laziness, entertainment, and de-emphasis on personal responsibility abortion has become a merely convenient alternative to contraceptives.  That being the case, in our homes, in our youth groups, we must teach moral values and not allow the Left to wear us down.

But kids do what kids see.  Every time one of our leaders has an affair he brings down not just his own marriage, but society as a whole.

For those of us who are dads- we have a message to communicate through our words and our actions.

Nice to be a part of the red State forum.

How about setting a goal to engage 10 pro- choice folks in some type of meaningful, non-violent debate (no screaming, biting, eye gouging, etc.) where the goal isn't necessarily to win them over right then and there, but rather to show that we will listen and that we're not lunatics.

The secondary goal would be to convert 2 of them, in the next 365 days to a pro-life position.