This seems to be the latest leftist line on baby-killing: Forget about the laws you finally have a chance to pass (like waiting periods for abortion) and give the kids more sex education. Oh, and stop calling us baby-killers just because we like to kill babies.
Yeah. Pretty one-sided "compromise." Give pro-aborts everything and stop criticizing them, too.
The authoress states unequivically that life begins at birth. In other words, she is against banning partial birth abortion.
Just another dishonest liberal trying to seem reasonable.
She does call the lefties to stop lying - which is great. But pro-lifers don't ie, so there is no "middle" that needs to be reached. There is no need for pro-lifers to compromise.
This article just raised my blood pressure. I couldn't even finish it. Compromise? Compromise what? Choose life or death and it is that black and white. And then this author has the gall to ask us pro-lifers to accept that life begins at birth! At birth? Hasn't this author seen one (and that is all it takes) ultrasound of an infant inside the womb of its mother? Such ignorance!
As someone who holds many positions that anger both sides in this debate, I wasn't as angered by this commentary as the others on this thread have been. However, I think she misses the point of the issue. I'll start with this paragraph:
I ask pro-lifers to begin by acknowledging that even devout men and women can believe that life begins at birth, not conception. In the making of public policy, it is men and women, not God, who take sides. No one faith, no one reading of any one sacred text, can be allowed to commandeer the process. Every biblical quote opposing abortion is open to an alternative interpretation. Besides, even many abortion opponents will make exceptions in cases of rape or the mother's health - a tacit recognition that pregnancy is a balancing act of competing rights and interests, not simply a way station between conception and death.
I agree that devout men and women can look at the religious texts and come to different conclusions. I spent years in church hearing anti-abortion rhetoric, and I never really believed that the Scriptural case against abortion was that strong. I certainly didn't believe that it justified passing a law. However, the religious arguments are only part of the issue. I was persuaded that the unborn child is a person by a pro-abortion woman who told stories of her own child remembering things from within the womb. It struck me that one doesn't build memories from a time when one is not a person.
As I follow the biological evidence backwards, I still don't come to legal protection beginning at the moment of conception. In that sense, I even agree with the writer's later assertions that pregnancy isn't quite like any other situation. However, I do believe that by the time a woman can know that she is pregnant, the child within her deserves legal protection from unjustifiable homicide.
The idea of justifiable homicide brings us to the final sentence in this paragraph. There are opponents of legalized abortion who support a rape exception to a ban on abortion. I am one of those people. The rape exception is based on the idea that justice is not served by putting a rape victim in jail for refusing to carry the child forced on her by rape. A citizen in this country can't be forced to give blood for a transfusion even if the recipient will die without the transfusion. We don't have that kind of claim to one another's lives, so a rapist cannot force his victim to support the baby that he forces on her. However, this situation is completely different from the one where the baby came into existance as a result of the mother's choices.
The mother's life exception should be even more obvious. If the pregnancy is likely to kill the mother, it is also likely to kill the unborn child. Reasonable pro-lifers are not going to support having two deaths when an abortion could have prevented one of those deaths. I can't support the assertion that I'm about to make with hard data, and people are free not to believe. However, my impression has been that most deaths during pregnancy come from things that happen very early, such as tubal pregnancies, or things that happen during the delivery. Fixing the early problems is still difficult, but these babies had little chance anyway. We have made great progress in emergency procedures to reduce the risk of the mother's death during the delivery.
Another paragraph deserves particular notice. It is:
I wish that pro-lifers would realize that their stealth attempts to limit access to abortion - the waiting periods and judicial decrees, the mandatory counseling sessions and parental notifications - are demeaning and manipulative. These efforts infantilize women at the very moment when those women are being asked to do the most grown-up thing in their lives - take perpetual responsibility for another human being. Can't they be free to make a decision on their own?
In some cases, I agree that laws designed simply to harass women making this choice are bad laws. I don't support waiting periods for anything. Mandatory counseling isn't my favorite idea either, but many aspects of medical treatment require that doctors outline alternatives. If we have those laws for other operations, abortion shouldn't be any different. Where the writer loses her credibility on the whole paragraph is her criticism of parental notification. In this country, parents are responsible for their children's decisions until those children reach the age of 18. If the child is having an abortion, the parents need to know. Trying to paint these laws as unjustified meddling is ridiculous.
Summary and Other Points
Abortion is an issue that defies a real middle ground. The middle ground between killing an innocent person and not killing an innocent person is pretty thin [/rhetorical understatment]. I agree that a politician who could successfully stake out a middle ground would be very popular with most Americans, but that middle ground just doesn't exist for this issue.
The issue revolves around whether the unborn child is a person. I think most proponents of legalized abortion really don't see the unborn child as a person. (I know that some Freepers disagree with me on this point, and I respect their arguments.) I think that if they came to realize that the unborn child is a person, then they would oppose legalized abortion. Likewise, I think many of us who oppose legalized abortion would change our minds if something could convince us that the unborn child is not a person. Therefore, the real exchange that needs to occur is an exchange of information leading to the settling of this question. Unfortunately, the writer of this article fails to address this information.
Finally, there is some middle ground in the sense of alternatives to abortion. There are volunteers in crisis pregnancy centers all across America who are working to help women through crisis pregnancies. In many of these centers, there is no talk of legal consequences or "baby killing" rhetoric. Instead, there is real help for women who are willing not to make a terrible decision.
Abortion - Not About Sex
The Exceptions - A Mother’s Life
The Exceptions - Rape
The Rape Exception - More Arguments and Answers
Bill
There is a up to $500.00 (not to exceed ever $25,000) fine to any one that kills an 'endangered' fox, or upsets/touches certain turtle nest eggs along our shores. Under the detailed listings of the federal Endangered Species Act.
There is a $350.00 to $500.00 'amount due' to kill the human species. (AKA abortion) And in second/third human trimesters; scissors are jabbed into the HUMAN head and the brains are sucked out-In elective surgeries- daily, in the United States, all under the guise of a woman's "right." The only real "right" is the "right" to remain silent.
When will humans become "endangered" and protected?
When will the so called pro-"choicers" realize basic science skills of the food-chain? Human's are NOT at the bottom of the food-chain.
Do they really see what they do, with their political correctness all in the guise of a "woman's right"?