John on March 22, 2006 at 3:27 pm
As the recent publication of Christian bashing cartoons by a couple of Canadian University student newspapers has shown, you can always count on the campus weekly for inane commentary.
Witness this beautiful example in the Dailly Vidette (Illinois State Univ.) titled “Pro-life organizations are anything but.”
[I]f you haven’t done your homework, you might believe that so-called “pro-life” organizations are formed to protect children and improve the quality of their lives.
This couldn’t be further from the truth.
The “pro-life” movement is not interested in preventing abortion. Their goal is to transform our sex lives and transform our families.
Author Kellie Powell goes on to list a series of shocking revelations about major pro-life organizations. Let’s look at a few:
Focus on the Family, the Pro-Life Action League and even the innocuously named Operation Save America are all groups doing their best to make sure that no sex is permitted if it is for any purpose other than reproduction.
Got that? No sex except for reproduction. Pro-lifers are joyless baby breeders with a distaste for sex. Of course Kellie doesn’t offer any quotes to support this statement. One reason may be that she is intentionally distorting the views of these groups. For instance, the Pro-Life Action League is indeed against the use of contraception. As I think any Catholic could tell you, this is not the same as saying “no sex except for reproduction.” I’m not Catholic, but I can think of several friends who follow the first precept without succumbing to the second.
But this charge is even more ridiculous when applied to Focus on the Family. Like most Christian groups, Focus is against sex outside marriage. However a quick look at this page titled “Spicing Up Your Marriage” will make it clear that they are actively promoting sex for pleasure as well as reproduction. I don’t think Kellie’s comment captures that nuance.
The American Life League, the group behind “Rock for Life” is not only opposed to abortion, they are opposed to contraception, sex education, homosexuality, organ donation and welfare reform.
That’s right, they call themselves “pro-life” but they’d rather you didn’t sign the back of your drivers license and save someone’s life by donating your organs.
Again, Kellie is misrepresnting the group’s view. ALL does have a page on their site about organ donation which you can view here. Their view is that doctors motivated to remove living organs from “brain dead” patients may not be as respectful of the patient’s rights as they otherwise might be. However, they do not say that people should refuse to sign organ donor cards, what the site actually says is:
[W]ith the serious ethical and moral questions surrounding organ harvesting, people would be wise to think long and hard before joining the organ donation campaign.
So while it may be true that they’d “rather you didn’t” it is certainly not true that they oppose organ donation as stated in the first paragraph above. Saying they’re not really pro-life because they raise a caution flag on organ donation is more than a stretch, it’s an abuse of language. Kellie continues targeting ALL, this time for their stance on “life of the mother” exceptions.
That’s right, ALL is so “pro-life” that they will not allow a woman to save her own life by ending her pregnancy.
Reading a “pro-life” organization’s manifesto is like having a badger gnaw on your brain.
And reading this screed is like discussing honesty with a used car salesman…
What Kellie fails to mention is the reason some pro-life groups have for questioning the “health of the mother” exception. Specifically, it has been used as a loop hole by abortionists to get around laws intended to restrict (usually late term) abortions. Kellie could have discovered this on the ALL website, which makes such reasoning quite explicit:
It sounds like Roe made it possible for a state to outlaw late-term abortions, but that’s not the case. The same day as Roe, another case, Doe v. Bolton, defined “health of the mother” to include all factors-physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age. Because the court defined health so loosely, a woman can have an abortion for any reason and at any time during her pregnancy.
Thus their objection is out of concern for unborn life, not mysogyny and is consistent with their goals and values. We continue…
The Christian Coalition has even more hypocritical and anti-life policies: they oppose not only abortion, contraception and sex ed, but pornography, gender equality, homosexuality and the separation of church and state. And, they win my “WTF?” award for opposing reproductive technologies such as artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization. The Christian Coalition is apparently only “pro”-life-with-no-assistance-from-medical-science.
This paragraph is a doozy. First of all, Kellie mentions several times that pro-life organizations are against sex ed. This is not true. They are against Planned Parenthood’s idea of sex ed, i.e. let’s get explicit with junior high kids and make sure they know about various forms of sexual gratification. I’m sure all of the groups listed in her piece would support abstinece based education given no other option. Most would simply prefer that sex-ed be left to mom and dad and not taken over by teachers unions in bed with NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Maintaining parental rights is not an absurd position to take.
Kellie also seems really put out that pro-life organizations are against pornography. This goes to her earlier point about pro-lifers being killjoys. In reality, there is every reason to believe that pornography and extra-marital sex are branches on the same tree. They are mutually supportive. One can hardly say no to pre-marital sex on moral grounds and in the same breath say yes to pornography. Since most pro-life groups view extra-marital sex as an underlying cause for the high rate of abortions, it makes eminent sense for them to oppose porn as well. Thus criticizing pro-life groups for being against porn is, essentially, criticizing them for being pro-life. We get it that you don’t like pro-lifers, but in this case you aren’t really saying anything.
Finally, Kellie also leaves out a few inconvenient facts with regard to the pro-life position on artificial insemination. This is not a gross non-sequitur as she would have it appear. In the real world, artificial insemination involves the implantation of multiple embryos in the mother. Doctors do this to increase chances of success, often implanting 4-5 viable embryos at once. However, if the goal is only to have one child and more than one survives and becomes a viable fetus, then what? Simply put, the woman is given the option of “selective reduction”, i.e. aborting one or more extraneous babies.
This practice is quite commonplace though not everyone is aware of it. I know two women personally who went through the invitro process and were offered this option. So, once again, it makes eminent sense for pro-life groups to have qualms about a procedure which regularly uses abortion to adjust the outcome. We move on…
If you identify as pro-life, you probably oppose abortion and want to see it reduced and prevented. “Pro-life” organizations do not want to prevent abortions, they want to outlaw abortions and punish women and doctors.
Yes, I want to outlaw most abortions, that’s a sure way to reduce them. As for punishing abortionists, yes I think people who kill infants for a living belong in a cell not in a BMW. As for women, I have no desire to punish them. On the contrary, I’d like to see them live long and prosper without the regret of having had an abortion. I’d like the same for their children.
The pro-choice movement is doing a better job preventing abortions than the pro-life movement is. If pro-life Americans understood this, they would be donating their money to Planned Parenthood.
Well, yes, but not in the way you think. I do think the increasing desperation of Planned Parenthood and friends is going to result in a decrease in abortions long term. But this “help” is all unintentional. Their complete self-abasement could take years. Meanwhile, I think I’ll keep sending my money to pro-life groups.
Recent statistics say that 66 percent of Americans don’t want Roe v. Wade overturned. But only 51 percent of Americans consider themselves pro-choice. What this means is that one third of the people who call themselves pro-life are actually pro-choice.
According to other polls only about 16% of Americans believe abortion should be used as a method of birth control. Since over 90% of abortions are done for exactly this reason (almost half being repeat visits for the same women), I guess that means 84% of Americans are really pro-life. In reality, poll wording makes all the difference. For a good explanation of this phenomenon, check here. Notice that the addition of the word “choice” to a question can shift the results 10 points.
Americans have been subject to 30 years of non-stop propaganda on behalf of the abortion industry. The media is 90% pro-choice and has effectively screened out arguments to the contrary. But with the advent of readily available 4D ultrasound technology and the blogosphere as an alternative source of information, the landscape is changing.
Kellie is one of many abortion advocates looking for some new lies to buttress the old ones. My advice is…keep doing your homework. I don’t think you’ve found a plausible solution to the abortion industry’s PR problem yet.
Category: Pro-Life |