Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...
Posted on 02/14/2006 9:48:17 AM PST by presidio9
FOR MANY staunch supporters and opponents of abortion rights, the search for a third way on the issue seems like so much phony political positioning.
-snip-
But there is a new argument on abortion that may establish a more authentic middle ground. It would use government not to outlaw abortion altogether, but to reduce its likelihood. And at least one politician, Thomas R. Suozzi, the county executive of New York's Nassau County, has shown that the position involves more than soothing rhetoric.
-snip-
This is a matter on which no good deed goes unpunished, and Suozzi was immediately denounced by Kelli Conlin, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, for the grants that went to abstinence-only programs that, she insisted, do not work.
-snip-
Nancy Keenan, the president of the national NARAL group, is also stressing prevention. Her organization ran an advertisement last year explicitly inviting the "right-to-life movement" to join in an effort to "help us prevent abortions." Usually, NARAL's allies refer to abortion opponents as "anti-choice," so the conciliatory language itself was a welcome departure. At the federal level, NARAL is pushing for a bill promoting contraception introduced by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid.
Right about this point, I can see my friends in the right-to-life movement rolling their eyes and insisting that all this prevention talk is a dodge. Maybe so, but my question to them is whether they honestly think that their political strategy, focused on knocking down Roe and making abortion illegal, will actually protect fetal life by substantially reducing the number of abortions.
Even if Roe falls, legislatures in the most populous states are likely to keep abortion legal. And if a ban on abortion were ever to take hold, does anyone doubt that a large, illegal abortion industry would quickly come into being?
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
No, I don't think a "large, illegal abortion industry would quickly come into being". The so-called "doctors" who violate their Hippocratic Oath for the big bucks are not going to risk jail. They are essentially cowardly killers.
Personally, I am thrilled by the "third way" talk from the Democrats. Once they start acknowleding the fact that a human life is a human life, and that it is a tragedy to end it, they are laying the seeds for the end of abortion.
I think that the best approach for the pro-choice crowd is just to not talk about abortion much at all. The radical feminists alienate regular folks who are concerned about abortion, and the third way carries the seed of its own destruction. If you are pro-choice then take the "out of sight, out of mind" approach.
I can't really believe that the die-hard pro-aborts really want it rare - for one thing profits go down, and for another, when women who abort are rare, it will be far easier to criminalize abortion. It's very hard to criminalize an act that a third of the population engage in - far easier if it's one in a hundred.
Mrs VS
If you were an honest liberal looking for a "third way," and you wanted to offer some support for this prediciton, it would be easy to document all of the illegal abortion clinics that have opened in red states that have made legal clincs rare.
Don't give 'em any ideas. They might set a couple up just to make their "story".
What I have never understood is this drama about needing access to abortion in every small town and village across America. Puh-leeease. A woman is pregnant for 9 months. But let's take the first trimester. Give her a few weeks to discover the pregnancy and she still has lots of time to make travel arrangements. No one OWES her the price of an abortion plus the travel plans to a location any more than they had a say in her sex life. If you want help after the fact, give me a say before the fact. But freedom has its long term conscequences.
Good point. Obviously nothing is beneath these folks.
They might even kill off a "customer" or two to make it a really good story. I still suspect that pro-abortion forces were involved in the shootings of a couple of these abortionists several years ago.
I never understood why the Dems dropped the "safe, legal, rare" approach. It worked for Bill Clinton.
When I was in college many years ago, the colllege feminists were upset that when a doctor told them they were pregnant, they were not immediately offered abortion services and were offended they were offered pre-natal care. The rabid feminazis will never be happy until abortion is the first option health care providers offer women and with prenatal advice and counselling on the healthiest way to bring a baby into the world as a last choice. Disgusting.
"Usually, NARAL's allies refer to abortion opponents as "anti-choice," so the conciliatory language itself was a welcome departure."
Funny, I refer to NARAL as a pro-death group.
Arianna Huffington used to trot out this argument back in the days she pretended to be a Republican. I found it suspicious then and I think in retrospect that was a good litmus test of what she was.
It's fine if a Dem says it, but any Republican who joins that chorus will never get my support ever again.
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...
I suppose that includes our current Secretary of State?
So long as abortion is legal and regarded as at least possibbly safe, it will be far from rare.
I'm not familiar with her position on the subject, and since as far as I knew she isn't running for anything, her position is not really relavent yet.
Most of the people you hear talking about Rice running are liberals (Helen Thomas did a piece on this last week). They want her to run because they know that she can't possibly win. Condoleezza Rice has firmly, recently and repeatedly put herself in the "safe, legal & rare" camp.
Is this the same 90/10 proposal? (reducing abortion 90% in 10 years?)
The leftist will not allow anyone to even speak of it!
I see that you signed up today, so I'll be nice about this. This article has nothing to do with the morning after pill. Nobody on this thread has mentioned it. There are other threads today that have. Notably, a Mass. court decision that requires Wal-mart (a private business) to sell it. Maybe you should have posted it there.
FWIW: The "morning after pill is not "contraception."
*sniff sniff*
Welcome to FR.
Haven't you been here before?
Yeah.. right.
Incidently, if you think the "morning after pill" is going to solve the abortion debate, you are not going to make a lot of friends here. Not saying that you, do, but it seems likely since you posted your question to this thread.
What is your view on partial birth abortion.
By your logic, the oldest person in the room has the right to kill anyone younger who they find to be "inconvenient".
Too bad that you don't believe all human life to be equal, for your belief lies at the core of racism, slavery, state-ordered murder (e.g., Schiavo), and genocide.
But then again, you did describe yourself as a "progressive", which is what socialists/communists call themselves as a cover for what they truly are: utopians who view brutal murder as an acceptable way to achieve said utopia.
Ah, you obviously didn't read anything before you signed up. This is a conservative forum. I predict your stay here will be short.
And what part of that did you not understand?
mpc755 sleeps with the fishes. My apologies to all who were enjoying conversing with (him) her, but I thought it best to abort before he(she) reached full term. it was better for everyone involved. Thanks to Admin Moderator for performing the surgery.
That's okay.
I missed what it's response to myself might have been as I was busy converting text files to an updated format.
Would you say that the mod could take full credit for a zot here? Afterall, she had only just signed up, and had not had enough time to implant yet. For that matter, is flaming someone who just signed up the same as flaming someone who has been here for seven or eight months?
The Centers for Disease Control recorded 39 deaths from illegal abortions-less than a hundred in toto-in 1972, the last year of statistical data recorded before that epochal decision.
However, the millions of unborn children that have been murdered with the approval of the state since then present a pretty irrefutable argument that this is not a "safe" or "rare" procedure.
At least, not for its victims.
To mpc755:
The best way to answer you question is to examine precident.
Studying two hundred years of legal history, the American Center for Bioethics concluded: "No evidence was found to support the proposition that women were prosecuted for undergoing or soliciting abortions. The charge that spontaneous miscarriages could result in criminal prosecution is similarly insupportable. There are no documented instances of prosecution of such women for murder or for any other species of homicide; nor is there evidence that states that had provisions enabling them to prosecute women for procuring abortions ever applied those laws. The vast majority of the courts were reluctant to implicate women, even in a secondary fashion, through complicity and conspiracy charges. Even in those rare instances where an abortionist persuaded the court to recognize the woman as his accomplice, charges were not filed against her. In short, women were not prosecuted for abortions. Abortionists were. Given the American legal system’s reliance on precedent, it is unlikely that enforcement of future criminal sanctions on abortion would deviate substantially from past enforcement patterns."
The most recent federal partial-birth abortion ban says that mothers absolutely cannot be punished for their part in abortion; doctors could be punished by a fine.
My source: http://www.abortionfacts.com/history/history.asp
Third way? Spay and neuter your sluts. Your pets would do it to you if they had the chance.
There are still "back alley" abortionists operating out of homes rather than genuine offices. They do this because they CAN, not because they must.
Additionally, there have been deaths of the patient even in clinical situations. This is why parents MUST be notified and give consent to the procedure. But as with AIDS, "it's different". I loathe liberals.
| Any calls for acceptance of other heinous acts? |
| How about Safe, Legal but Rare Assault? |
| How about Safe, Legal but Rare Theft? |
| How about Safe, Legal but Rare Rape? |
| How about Safe, Legal but Rare Infanticide? |
| How about Safe, Legal but Rare Murder? |
Safe, Legal but Rare is a glib but ultimately hollow argument.
There can never be a middle ground.
Every abortion kills a baby. End of story.
Fatal, Legal, and Frequent
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.