I know that I'm providing a service to women that no one else will.
Carol Everett said that when she started having doubts about what she was doing -- the sales tactics, the selling abortions to women who only thought they were pregnant, the pushing to sell more and later abortions, the taking women to the hospital in a car when they had life-threatening complications -- she'd repeat to herself like a mantra, "I'm helping women have safe, legal abortions."
The unanswered question is: Why does no one want to go into abortion providing?
I'm sure that some of that is our "fault". It must be tough to work in a field where the mere mention of your profession will cause a large portion of the populace to look at you differently. While pro-lifers have (mostly) done a good job of loving & accepting post-abortive women, we're still not very good at loving & accepting abortionists. In fairness, it's harder to forgive abortionists ... but it's still a requirement.
NOTE: Actually, only Christian pro-lifers are really required to forgive abortionists. Atheist & agnostic pro-lifers are under no such obligation. Just sayin'.
The rest of the reason, though.... Well, consider the high rates of depression, substance abuse, and so forth among the Nazi SS. When someone is trapped in evil -- even if she thinks she is doing the right thing -- evil will take its toll.
I really had to laugh when I read her letter to Brian Williams. I'm quite certain that the "pro" in "pro abortion rights" is modifying the entire phrase "abortion rights" and not just "abortion." In other words, "pro abortion rights" means the person is in favor of abortion rights. In other other words, the person is in favor of the right to have an abortion. She read it as being pro-abortion, though, as if Williams was talking about the right to be pro-abortion or, in other words, the right to be in favor of abortion. I'm quite certain that Williams wasn't doing a news story about that sort of right, though, because even if all abortions were made illegal, people would still have the right to be in favor of abortion.
To see how ridiculous her reading is, imagine if Williams was doing a story about some people who were trying to pass laws against sex crimes and he called these laws "anti sex crime laws." Who in their right mind would read that as implying that these people were actually anti sex?
The difference between "sex" and "sex crimes" is the same as the difference between "abortion" and "abortion rights." The words "sex" and "abortion" both function as verbs when alone and the both function as adjectives when they modify "crimes" and "abortion," respectively.
I probably shouldn't laugh at other people's bad grammar because the Lord knows I'm horrible at checking my own blog for grammar/spelling mistakes. But I find it highly amusing to read bad grammar that seems to be caused by ideology.
When someone is trapped in evil -- even if she thinks she is doing the right thing -- evil will take its toll.
Indeed, Naaman. I think of the concept of being in thrall.
macht, when you're pro gun rights, it's because you favor gun ownership. If you're pro abortion rights, it's because you favor abortion.
And actually, the gun lobby does a much better job being pro-choice on the gun issue than the abortion lobby does on being pro-choice on abortion. The gun lobby doesn't try to get government funding to buy guns for poor people.
when you're pro gun rights, it's because you favor gun ownership.
That is absolutely untrue. I am pro-gun rights and do not favor gun ownership one bit. I just don't think that my personal feelings on the wisdom of having guns in one's house should be forced on the entire population of this country.
I invite all of you to join me in writing a letter to the editor of Time, correcting the misinformation from the pro-choice side against CPCs, it may just be published in the magazine. Also, if you've had a positive experience with a CPC or Pregnancy Resource Center, please share it with them, it's one of the most powerful forms of testimony.
Alexandra,
Your statement could be refraised: "I just don't think that my personal feelings on drunk driving, robbing a bank, murder, or stealing should be forced on the entire population of this country." There are in fact cases where we "force our personal feelings/morality" on the rest of the country"and we create laws to protect citizens.
Alexandra wrote:
That is absolutely untrue. I am pro-gun rights and do not favor gun ownership one bit. I just don't think that my personal feelings on the wisdom of having guns in one's house should be forced on the entire population of this country.
Um, yeah. I agree with Alexandra, actually. I don't own a gun for various practical reasons, but I'm steadfastly in favor of people's right to own guns.
(Also, being pro-gun-rights is a good way to annoy Rosie O'Donnell, which is a worthwhile goal on its own. 
)
The gun-rights versus abortion-rights analogy is a bad one. Sorry, Christina. The reason it's bad is because it misses the entire point of the pro-life position: the rights of the unborn child, specifically the right to Life. See, if you own a gun, you aren't infringing upon anyone else's rights. Now, Rosie might think that you're an evil person for owning that gun, and she might try to take it away from you ... but your gun does not detract from Rosie's rights. If you accidentally shoot your gun at someone, why then you've infringed upon your target's rights, but that's a separate issue. Simply owning a gun is a matter of personal rights.
On the other hand, there is no way for you to exercise your "right" to an abortion without stomping all over someone else's rights. The reason that abortion is so complicated is because two sets of rights are in conflict. The woman has a right to control her own body. The unborn child has a right to Life. Who's rights will prevail?
Unfortunately, many pro-choicers are still blind to the notion that an unborn child could have any rights at all. They only see the woman's rights, and therefore they misunderstand the pro-life argument. They think we're trying to control women's bodies. They think we're anti-sex. They think all sorts of crazy stuff. Meanwhile the pro-choicers miss the simple truth, which is that the pro-life position is rooted in the rights of the unborn child.
When I say "rooted" I do not mean that the pro-life position is exclusively concerned with the rights of the unborn child and cares nothing for the woman. These CPCs are proof-in-action that pro-lifers care a great deal about women. Post-abortion recovery programs and abortion safety regulations (hello, Christina!) are also evidence that pro-lifers care about women. Whenever possible, pro-lifers should always try to care for both the woman and her unborn child. For those of us who are Christian, our Lord demands us to show compassion to all.
No, the guns rights analogy is good (not in the way Christina said it was though). It is good insofar as it helps explain why the phrase pro abortion rights isn't incorrect. Somebody who is pro gun rights isn't necessarily pro gun or pro gun ownership. They are in favor of gun rights (the right to own a gun) not necessarily in favor of guns. Similarly somebody who is pro abortion rights isn't necessarily pro abortion. They are in favor of the right for women to have an abortion but they don't necessarily think abortion is a good thing.
macht wrote:
Similarly somebody who is pro abortion rights isn't necessarily pro abortion. They are in favor of the right for women to have an abortion but they don't necessarily think abortion is a good thing.
Theoretically, that could be true. The position you're describing would be "safe, legal, and rare" ... but without the Clinton baggage.
However, someone who really holds to that position is very hard to find. Pro-choicers are frequently arguing against stronger safety regulations for abortion clinics, against parental-involvement laws (which are proven to reduce abortion rates), and for public funding of abortions. In reality, "pro-abortion-rights" usually means pro-abortion.
Not to mention the obvious point that legalizing abortion caused abortion rates to skyrocket....
Nonetheless, your point is theoretically valid. That's why I'm not crazy about the way in which some pro-lifers refer to all pro-choicers as pro-abortion. I certainly agree that the pro-abortion label is appropriate for some pro-choicers -- especially the more hardline folks -- but it's not a universal fit.
...
Anyway, the arguments over terminology seem to be a waste of time. Is abortion acceptable (even if it's "safe, legal, and rare"), or is it an appalling attack on innocent life? If we can agree that abortion is evil, then we should be willing to work together to end it. That's the goal of the CPCs, right? If we can't agree on that basic point, then the terminology doesn't matter.
Naaman,
I was all set to disagree with you, but then I read this post. Now that is pro-abortion.
Indeed, macht. One has to wonder if Amanda can look past the politics and understand the complexities of the issue and the decision for women in that position. It's not just black and white, right or wrong. There are many facets to this very complex issue. She's one of those hardcore pro-choicers so set on making abortion morally the norm and reinforncing her political beliefs that anything less is about giving in to "the enemy". It's not about women's wellbeing anymore, it's a personal and political crusade.
Yes, Amanda Marcotte is pro-abortion. So are most of the 177 people who've commented on that blog entry you linked.... 
Patricia Beninato is another person I will describe as pro-abortion. However, Beninato is a good bit more rational and thoughtful than Marcotte. Although her opinions are just as strong as Marcotte's, Beninato doesn't usually spend a lot of time bashing God, insulting Christians, or slinging around obscene language.
Basically, Patricia Beninato is who Amanda Marcotte could be if Marcotte ever grows up.
Following up with this guy, who left a pingback on the Marcotte post:
http://republicofdogs.net/blog/?p=1272
I'm certainly not going to try to engage Marcotte or any of her howling mob in debate -- experience has proven that to be a futile effort -- but I'll take a shot at this blogger. We'll see how it goes.
How sad is it that someone can claim abortion is a moral good without ever really discussing what the act of abortion is.
Amanda never explains which abortions aren't moral. She says the vast majority are moral yet never discuss which abortions wouldn't be moral and why. Nor does she ever really make any kind of argument for why abortions are moral - she just basically asserts it with question-begging arguments. I've got a post coming up including this.
Commenting by HaloScan
