portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

gender & sexuality | human & civil rights | political theory

Abortion backers operate on illogic

Just remember this the next time you hear pro-abortion protesters talk about extremists against choice: They're inadvertently describing themselves.
Abortion backers operate on illogic

By Stephen Cathers


Published: Thursday, April 29, 2004


This weekend, hundreds of thousands of protesters marched upon the National Mall in Washington, D.C., in the euphemistically named "March for Women's Lives."

Their numbers (half a million to 1 million) were certainly impressive, but little else about the march was.

Displaying a maturity level on par with that of junior high students, many of the protesters delighted in making slogans with vulgarities (why spell "country" when you could cleverly leave out the "o"?).

At a pre-march rally, Rep. Maxine Waters, displaying a level of vitriol that looked moderate compared to that of many of the marchers in a post-Dean Democratic Party, said that Bush could "go to hell."

Others wished that the president would have been aborted. But beyond the spectacle of grown women and men congratulating themselves for making naughty slogans about leaders named Bush and Dick, the rally revealed a radical movement that is further than ever from the mainstream and untouched by moral or logical concern.

As a disclaimer, there are certainly morally and logically serious people who are pro-choice.

They take into consideration the life of the fetus and argue logically about it.

This is not about them. Rather, this is about the national pro-abortion leadership (National Organization of Women, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc.) and its vocal faction of supporters, who can be recognized by their self-centeredness, unconditional support for all abortion and amazing imperviousness to logical thinking and reasoned debate.

These people, the ones lobbying in Washington and marching with vapid, vulgar and veraciously challenged slogans, never saw an abortion they didn't support.

Those who sang along to a performance of "Not Every Sperm Deserves to Live" deserve to be labeled pro-abortion rather than pro-choice and ought not have the audacity to pretend otherwise.

While these protesters certainly do not comprise the whole of the pro-choice movement, they are the ones in control of it.

The pro-abortion movement springs from a virulently self-centered individualism.

A look at the rhetoric of the march reveals the moral perspective of a 2-year-old: Everything is "me, my, mine." Slogans such as "My Body, My Choice" have no room to consider the life of the unborn child. Indeed, that particular slogan sums up so much of what is wrong with the pro-abortion movement. There's no consideration of the human life that is destroyed by abortion. The only focus is the woman.

Pro-abortion groups never seem to get around to talking about unborn children. Everything is centered on what the woman wants.

There's no debate about fetal life. For a march so centered on abortion, there was precious little discussion of it. The only topic was "choice."

Abortion advocates never want to move beyond the word "choice," because to do so requires actual debate and critical thinking about when a human life deserves protection, something they've shown a remarkable propensity for avoiding.

Of course, there can be no debate about when life begins. An embryo is undeniably human life from the moment of conception. Rather, the debate is about when personhood begins, because at that moment human beings are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including the right to life.

Pro-lifers believe that personhood and life begin simultaneously, and thus no right of privacy for a woman could ever trump an unborn child's right to life, any more than a mother's right to privacy could justify her in killing a newborn child.

On the other hand, pro-abortion advocates often claim that they're "personally opposed" to abortion, but, since people disagree about when personhood begins, the government shouldn't "legislate morality."

As far as credible excuses go, this is insulting in its illogic. To grasp the absurdity inherent in this position, imagine someone claiming that they personally believe blacks have civil rights, but, since people have differed over whether blacks have rights, the government shouldn't try to "legislate morality" by protecting them.

While pro-abortion advocates may claim they haven't taken a position on when personhood begins, their actions speak much louder than words: In every case they take the position that a baby is not a person until birth.

Look at their reaction to President Bush's signing of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act at the beginning of the month.

Before this became law, a criminal who harmed or killed a pregnant woman in a federal crime could only have been charged for harm done to the woman but could not have been charged for harm done to her unborn child. The UVVA corrected this oversight by making clear that a fetus is indeed a human being and thus a legal victim of any crime committed against it.

The law carved out an exception for abortion, in compliance with Roe v. Wade.

While this law was not controversial among the American public (four of every five people supported it), the pro-abortion lobby once again demonstrated its slavish devotion to abortion and vigorously opposed the act. Most people recognize as morally and logically laughable the belief that a fetus in the ninth month is somehow less of a person than a newborn babe, but abortion advocates are steadfastly committed to it.

Horrified that any unborn child might be legally classified as a person, Sen. Dianne Feinstein offered an amendment that would have codified the falsehood that a crime against a pregnant woman has only one victim.

The amendment would have created penalties equivalent to those in the UVVA for criminals who attacked pregnant women, but only because a pregnancy was interrupted.

The dishonesty of the amendment exposes the way that abortion advocates' commitment to abortion effectively immunizes them against critical thinking.

For instance, suppose that they actually believe that no fetus is ever a person. In that case, how on earth could they propose to punish a criminal for harming a non-person as harshly as if he had harmed a human being? It would be like sentencing someone who killed a dog with the punishment for murdering a human being. The injustice of the proposition is shocking.

If, on the other hand, pro-abortion leaders do believe that at least some fetuses are human beings, they are willfully trying to legislate what they know to be a lie in order to preserve a "right" that would be untenable otherwise. Neither scenario speaks well of them.

While abortion advocates often call pro-lifers "religious extremists," they are in fact the ones committed to an extreme position with religious zeal.

While they often say government should stay out of abortion, they then turn around and demand that taxpayers fund abortions as part of "health care" for the poor.

They fight so that any woman may immediately abort her child at any time for any reason using any procedure, with taxpayers footing the bill if necessary. This is, to put it mildly, far out of the mainstream.

Despite continual pro-abortion efforts by activists, the percentage of pro-life Americans continues to grow.

According to a just-released poll by Zogby International, the sizeable majority of Americans, 56 percent, take pro-life positions, believing that abortion should only be legal when the life of the mother is at stake or in cases of rape or incest, or supporting even more restrictions. A study commissioned by Faye Wattleton, the former president of Planned Parenthood, found that seven out of every 10 women want stricter limits on abortion, and a majority would ban it in almost all cases.

On the other hand, only 13 percent of Americans support the completely unrestricted abortion policy that NOW, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and other pro-abortion groups advocate. Ironically, the "women's movement" has set itself in opposition to the majority of women.

These facts shed light on the never-ending court battles over abortion.

Since the American people are nowhere near supporting the extreme pro-abortion agenda, abortion advocates have to make sure that democracy is never permitted.

The next time you hear the Democrats lambaste Bush's judicial nominees for opposing Roe v. Wade, know that they must do that, for they're afraid of what might happen if people were able to vote on the issue.

Unrestricted abortion rights depend upon illegitimately denying the American people the right to choose their own laws regulating abortion.

So just remember this the next time you hear pro-abortion protesters talk about extremists against choice: They're inadvertently describing themselves.


 http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/2004/04/29/Opinions/Abortion.Backers.Operate.On.Illogic-674674.shtml

 http://www.dailytrojan.com/main.cfm/include/displayIssueArticles/issue_date/20040429.html

homepage: homepage: http://www.dailytrojan.com

"pro-abortion protesters"?!? "abortion backers"??!? 02.May.2004 19:03

talk about ILLOGIC.

if you are against abortion,

DON'T HAVE ONE

.

hilarious 02.May.2004 19:07

ed harley

that was a real hoot... thanks for the laugh.

pro choice is not pro abortion 02.May.2004 19:53

mom

I am repeating my earlier comments here because the antichoice-ourchoice only-prolifers seem to be on a role tonight.



pro-choice is not pro-abortion 02.May.2004 17:48
mom link

This debate is very sad. Women marched because the right to choose is the only alternative to the life abhoring measures put through by 'pro life' legislators.
Pro life cannot begin with prohibitions, it must begin with many 'yeses' ---- yes to healthcare for all people, yes to housing, yes to decent wages, yes to safe environments, yes to quality education, yes to equality, yes to peace .... When such a world exists, abortion will become infrequent.
The trouble with 'pro lifers' is that they think their narrow idea of life is reality. Life is larger and more complicated. I think that there are many 'prolife/prochoice' women like myself who simply consider the legality of abortion to be necessary to prevent illegal unsafe proceedures against desparate poor women --- rich women or women with wealthy lovers, always have the choice. I have met many women who have had abortions. I have never met a "pro-abortion" woman or one who took the proceedure lightly. The answer to ending the need for abortion is to really become 'pro life' in all of life's many facets.
I have a number of children myself and I wrote most of this holding a teeny newborn grandchild. I love children. I am not 'pro abortion' and I deeply resent the label that the self righteous use for those of us who will not vote single issue and only their way. I will continue to vote for pro choice candidates as they seem more able to recognize the larger issues of life than the narrow view held by the self proclaimed 'prolife' candidates.

pro-choice 02.May.2004 20:47

self defense

Pro-choice is a form of self defense. Its a choice when there is no other choice. Its a choice that is reasonable when you live in the US-leagal or not.

oh the irony 02.May.2004 22:28

ben maras

The irony of a fundamentalist who is for death in so many ways (war, death penalty, etc) unless it involves something that could debatingly be called a person. Only in America.

It also could be said that "pro-life" means "anti-choice". Just to put it in perspective.

And I just need to reiterate the fact that none of us are PRO abortion, if I was faced with such a choice, i would not choose to have an abortion, but the choice is not up to me, its up to the woman, her doctor, and her spouse (if applicable).

peace, love, revolution
-ben

an afterthought to all the fundamentalists 02.May.2004 22:31

ben maras (again)

God gave man freedom of choice, why can't you?

Middle road 02.May.2004 22:41

A male who probably shouldn't even be discussing this

I take the middle road. I think women should obviously have the right to choose if they get an abortion or not. For example, a woman who is raped would probably want one. I was always staunchly pro-choice until I picked up a CrimethInc book describing how to do a DIY abortion, and took the attitude of using an abortion as back-up birth control. In fact, the author said she had about three DIY abortions a year, on average. Abortions are something that sometimes need to happen, but when you have one, you are killing a fetus. On the other hand, this may just be one crazy person, and shouldn't skew my judgement. I think people just need to take abortions very seriously.

So, the choice and right to be an assassin are also valid 02.May.2004 22:43

Tra

Has the murderer the right to kill? It's also his/her choice. He/she chooses to kill.

Condoms and Birth Control for All 02.May.2004 23:58

Wrap It Up Baby

Why when we discuss choice and abortion do we not discuss the need for birth control for all! Birth Control should be free to anyone and everyone who wants it, no matter what the age or economic status.

Birth Control ads and public service announcements should be run during prime time for free.

Parents should not allow their children MALE and female to leave the house after the age of 13 without Birth Control.

Schools should have health clinics that give out birth control and students should have health education that discusses it.

Until we accept that the only way to stop unwanted pregnancies is more birth control, the choice battle will blaze on with little or no affect on what really counts and that is reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.

Condoms fail up to 30 percent of the time 03.May.2004 01:24

GRINGO STARS

Are you heterosexual? Then get to know your partner. If you're male, know how your partner feels about reproductive rights and the expected role of the biological father. The ideal strategy is to make sure your partner is an excellent human you will enjoy having contact with for the next couple of decades.

Sex WILL happen from time to time. Birth control WILL fail from time to time. Abortions WILL happen from time to time. Birth control should be universally available. Abortions should be legal, hence safe. Outlawing abortions on sexist "moral" grounds condemns some women to death.

An interesting article about condoms and their effectiveness:
 http://www.aliveandwell.org/index.php?page=CondomEffectiveness

Teenage Girl Shot By Boyfriend At Women's Clinic 03.May.2004 04:29

Palm Desert, California

Teen shot at women's clinic

Suspect, 17, apprehended without fight near Indio

By Jeff Donaldson and Darrell Smith
The Desert Sun
April 30, 2004

A teenage girl was shot in the neck inside a Palm Desert medical office Thursday morning, and her boyfriend was arrested hours later after a standoff with police at his Indio home.

As reported first on thedesertsun.com, Riverside County sheriff's deputies began searching for Jeffrey Cameron FitzHenry, 17, after he allegedly opened fire inside the Women's Health Clinic on Painters Path at Highway 111.

The girl, whose age was not released, was hit "an unknown number of times," according to deputies, but was conscious when she was taken to Desert Regional Medical Center around 1 p.m.

She remained in critical condition Thursday night, a sheriff's deputy said.

A woman who identified herself as a nurse at the Woman's Health Clinic said a young man entered about 11:30 a.m. and demanded that a young woman sitting in the lobby "get out."

The witness, who would not release her name, said the young woman refused to leave, and the man left and returned with a small handgun. He opened fire, hitting the girl at least once in the neck.

"It was hysteria. The people in the lobby were scared -- they didn't know where to go, where to hide," she said.

Police said the girl's family insisted that no information be given out about her.

Normally the names of juveniles are not released to the public; however, deputy Tim Brause said police considered the search for FitzHenry "an emergency situation" because he was armed.

Police later received a 911 tip that FitzHenry was holed up inside a home on Rancho Los Cerritos Drive in Indio Hills. The home belongs to Jeffrey and Evelyn FitzHenry, owners of FitzHenry Funeral Home in Indio. Their relationship with Jeffrey Cameron FitzHenry is unconfirmed.

Riverside County deputies cordoned off a large area around Adams Street and 39th Avenue and called in hostage negotiators, who tried to make contact with FitzHenry. A spokeswoman said initially police were not sure he was there.

Following a two-hour standoff and after receiving consent from FitzHenry's parents, deputies entered the home about 5:15 p.m. and arrested him.

"We brought the suspect out -- he appeared to be under the influence of some unknown substance," said Sgt. Shelley Kennedy-Smith, sheriff's office spokeswoman. "He was coming toward the front of the home when we entered. There was no struggle."

Kennedy-Smith said FitzHenry was taken to a local hospital for evaluation and that he later would be booked into the Riverside County Jail in Indio.

Police did not find a weapon. Kennedy-Smith said police believe a 9 mm pistol was used in the shooting.

Neighbors in the rural area along Adams Street, full of small single-level wood homes and rows of chain-link fence, said they did not know the FitzHenry family, but that the occupants of the home were "always quiet."

Dolores Acuna sat in her car with two boys along Adams Street watching police. She said she was concerned to hear FitzHenry might have been armed.

"It's a little scary, especially because we got a cell phone call from my son's friend who said the guy was out running around," Acuna said. "I told him to lock the windows and don't come out."

Jon Gaffney, assistant superintendent of personnel services at Desert Sands Unified School District, said FitzHenry used to be a student at one of the district's high schools, but that he had not attended since January.

In a call to FitzHenry Funeral Home in Indio, owner Jeffrey FitzHenry declined comment about the younger FitzHenry and then hung up.

Brause confirmed that an argument took place in the lobby of the clinic between the young man and young woman, who he said "were in a relationship."

Bystander Efrain Gutierrez of La Quinta was standing outside the clinic, where he said he protests at least three to four times a week.

Gutierrez said he heard a gunshot and saw the suspect leave.

"When he came out, he didn't say nothing at all," Gutierrez said. "I heard the gunshot, saw the expression on his face ... he was angry.

"It was horror, you know, horror."

The clinic's owner, Joseph Durante, was in a back office when the shots were fired. The 75-year-old physician walked into the front lobby to a bloody scene.

"She was shot in the neck. There was quite a bit of blood all over the place," Durante told reporters outside his clinic Thursday afternoon, adding the victim was "bloody, but coherent" and struggled to breathe as Durante and others tended to her and called for emergency crews.

Three to four others were in the lobby during the gunfire, but no one else was injured.

Durante said there was no security at the clinic and that he had no plans now to institute security measures.

Dan Putnam, 30, of Rancho Mirage was heading to work at a nearby restaurant when he saw the pickup speed, tires squealing, north on Painters Path.

He shrugged it off, he said, until he saw the rescue crews.

"I thought it was just somebody squealing their tires, then I heard that somebody got shot by their boyfriend," Putnam said.

Durante has practiced medicine since 1960 and has run the clinic since 1973. He's seen picketers, irate boyfriends, arguments and confrontations, but "no one's ever committed violence like this before."

The clinic offers pregnancy testing, birth control, family planning and abortion services, Durante said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


The irrelancy of "when life begins" 03.May.2004 06:01

Mike stepbystepfarm <a> mtdata.com

I would like "right to lifers" who think that "when life begins" is sufficient to settle the matter to consider the following scenario.

Suppose there is a person (a live human being) who suffers from a medical condition, one that means that they will surely die unless......... well there is a way they might be kept alive. There is another living human being who IF the first is surgically attached to the second for nine months the first will survive. While unpleasant and somewhat painful, the risk of death for the second person is relatively small (1 per thousand?) and the risk of permament medical problems small but not negligible (a couple percent).

NOW -- if that second person is willing, no problem. But suppose that second person is NOT willing. Are you comfortable with the idea that she should be drafted, subject to criminal penalties if she refuses and likewise any who would assist her escape? Rememember, there is no possibility of substitution of a differwent "host", she is the only person on the planet able to keep that first person alive.

We consider a person praiseworthy if they save the life of another at risk to their own. But we do not ordinarily consider blameworthy one who does not, not even when the risk to themselves is fairly minimal. What precisely is different about THIS situation? Yes I understand that you DO consider that there is something different about it, but do you at least agree that it's NOT a quetsion of when life begins?

why are Men so vocal about this issue?? 03.May.2004 06:38

Bailey

I am always amazed that men are the most vocal about this issue. Quite frankly, what could you know about this choice many women are faced with? I was confronted once by a man with one of those horrible pictures of an aborted fetus. As he yelled his BS at me I asked him how many unwanted children he had adopted so far and how many he planned on adopting in the future. That shut him up fast, he had no answer.
It is an unfortunate fact that there are MANY children in this world that are born into horrible situations. While I am not "pro-abortion" as so many like to think all of us Pro-choicers are, I think at times abortion is a more humane answer than bringing a child into a world where they will not be taken care of. Or will be starved, abused, pimped, neglected and worse.
I would appreciate it if I ( and other women) could be given the respect I deserve for making the appropriate choice for my family. I am an intelligent woman capable of knowing what is best for my child and myself, thank you very much. You wouldn't have a clue about my situation or the reasons I once chose not to have a child.
My honest thought is that men are threatened somehow by a woman having such a choice. I believe that men hate losing control in this way. I know this is a generalization, but so is this entire discussion. How about we take the choice away from men instead? Would that be more preferable? Maybe all males could be sterilzed somehow until they are mature enough and financially able to take care of ALL of the children they will father. The government could somehow control this just like they do women's lives.
It takes two to tango, as they say, so I think there should also be more discussions about how men should help in controlling unwanted pregnancies.
I agree with the posting above:
If you are against abortion DON'T HAVE ONE!!!
And, quit injecting your religious beliefs, "morals", and self righteousness into my life. You have no idea who I/We women are and why we make the choices we do!!!

mind your own featus 03.May.2004 13:37

mind your own featus

mind your own featus. mind your own featus. mind your own featus. mind your own featus.
mind your own featus. mind your own featus. mind your own featus. mind your own featus.
mind your own featus. mind your own featus. mind your own featus. mind your own featus.
mind your own featus. mind your own featus. mind your own featus. mind your own featus.
mind your own featus. mind your own featus. mind your own featus. mind your own featus.

ENJOY THE ART OF PROTEST. 06.May.2004 12:26

Eat a queer fetus for jesus.

I love the phrases the pro-choice protesters have on their signs. It gives the protest some spunk and it also bugs the MAN that wrote that load of crap at the top of this page. There is passion behind this issue and these signs are an expression of women's rage due to MEN trying to control women's lives. Women defending themselves always seems to piss men off. If you take a trip down to the clinic you would find a buntcha white old men holding large, airbrushed, and faulsified photos of "aborted fetuses" and yelling about hell and hate. Hummmm....your sooo right that whole "cuntry" thing is wayyyy outta line.