Eminent Domain Stuff
New London Update (2/24/06)
Bad NLDC!
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)
Friday, October 29, 2004
More On Abortion
Continuing my thoughts from before...
I've been trying to decide what I learned from the What is Choice? panel. Beforehand, I already knew their stances on abortion and the 'right' to choose. I did, however, learn two things. The first thing I learned added to my understanding of the 'other side' in a quantitative sense.
This first new understanding came out of the statement from the elder abortion provider that I mentioned in my previous post: The fetus derives its right from the consent of the mother until birth. While I knew that Planned Parenthood (and similar groups) drive towards the goal of making abortion legal and accessible for any woman at any time for any reason, I did not realize just how deeply that attitude was entrenched in the mindset of the run-of-the-mill abortion supporter. That blanket statement did not seem to surprise or upset anyone other than me in the room (and I was watching for reactions).
The second bit of enlightenment I picked up was the fact that of three experienced, pro-abortion physicians there were zero who seemed to have any awareness of or belief in negative future outcomes for women who have abortions. Their answer to my question really surprised me. All they mentioned was that the link to breast cancer had been debunked. This may be true (although it's very hard to prove the nonexistence of a thing), but they did not seem to be aware of the studies that claim (links to this one and more can be found at After Abortion):
In the end, all of the specific arguments are, in my opinion, moot. The fact is that the pro-Life side of the argument believes 100% in a woman's right to choose. The only question is when that right is applicable. Since our side defines life as beginning at Conception, then there is no way one can defend abortion because it is, quite simply, the murder of an innocent human being. That, as I have said before, is the ground on which the argument must be won. Anything else is just semantics and relatively unimportant details.
|
I've been trying to decide what I learned from the What is Choice? panel. Beforehand, I already knew their stances on abortion and the 'right' to choose. I did, however, learn two things. The first thing I learned added to my understanding of the 'other side' in a quantitative sense.
This first new understanding came out of the statement from the elder abortion provider that I mentioned in my previous post: The fetus derives its right from the consent of the mother until birth. While I knew that Planned Parenthood (and similar groups) drive towards the goal of making abortion legal and accessible for any woman at any time for any reason, I did not realize just how deeply that attitude was entrenched in the mindset of the run-of-the-mill abortion supporter. That blanket statement did not seem to surprise or upset anyone other than me in the room (and I was watching for reactions).
The second bit of enlightenment I picked up was the fact that of three experienced, pro-abortion physicians there were zero who seemed to have any awareness of or belief in negative future outcomes for women who have abortions. Their answer to my question really surprised me. All they mentioned was that the link to breast cancer had been debunked. This may be true (although it's very hard to prove the nonexistence of a thing), but they did not seem to be aware of the studies that claim (links to this one and more can be found at After Abortion):
"...the risk of dying within a year after an abortion is several times higher than the risk of dying after miscarriage or childbirth."Whether or not such links are accurate, these pro-abortion docs seem to take the stance that: All medical procedures have risks and abortion is no different. While true I don't think this is a defense in favor of abortion. The way to argue this point (from either side) is to find the studies that do or do not link abortion to higher risk than full term delivery.
In the end, all of the specific arguments are, in my opinion, moot. The fact is that the pro-Life side of the argument believes 100% in a woman's right to choose. The only question is when that right is applicable. Since our side defines life as beginning at Conception, then there is no way one can defend abortion because it is, quite simply, the murder of an innocent human being. That, as I have said before, is the ground on which the argument must be won. Anything else is just semantics and relatively unimportant details.
|
