Abortion as a moral good?

Most arguments for abortion have treated it as a tragic but sometimes necessary choice, something regrettable.  The goal should be to make abortion “safe, legal,” but also “rare.”  But tolerating a morally questionable practice is no longer enough; now that practice must also be affirmed as good.  A new book, Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights by Katha Pollitt, argues that we need to start thinking of abortion as something that is morally good, just as good as letting the child be born. [Read more...]

Abortions for men

A Texas pro-abortion organization, Fund Texas Women, has announced that it is changing its name to Fund Texas Choice.  This is because the reference to “women” excludes trans-sexual individuals who now identify as “men” but who still have female reproductive organs and who may thus get pregnant and “need” an abortion.  This is from the announcement:

In order for our organization to provide quality abortion services, we have to make sure that everyone who needs help traveling for their abortion is able to get it. But with a name like Fund Texas Women, we were publicly excluding trans* people who needed to get an abortion but were not women.

[Read more...]

“Stop treating abortion like a moral issue”!

Pro-abortion folks typically go on about how abortion is a “difficult decision” that is only taken reluctantly.  But now a pro-choicer is waxing indignant about pro-choicers who do that.  She says that if women talk that way, it makes it sound as if abortion is a moral issue. [Read more...]

A lawsuit against pro-life religions

A woman had a complication in her pregnancy that would normally (by today’s standards) be treated with an abortion, but she was in a Catholic hospital that did not give her that option.  So she is suing the hospital.  But that’s not all.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is handling her case, is also suing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for the pro-life teaching that caused the hospital to not offer the abortion.

Columnist Seth Lipsky of the New York Post says that this represents a new front in the battle against religion:  Suing religious institutions themselves for the content of their beliefs. [Read more...]

Sex Strike

As the abortion battles shift to the states, pro-abortionists are all fired up over Texas, which passed a bill banning the procedure after 20 weeks (that’s 5 months!).  This despite a  filibuster by Texas lawmaker Wendy Davis, who has become the new hero of the pro-abortion movement.  But a writer for the Huffington Post, Vivian Norris, is proposing a new tactic.  She is calling on  women to refuse to have sex with husbands or boyfriends who do not believe in late-term abortions.

Maybe pro-lifers should stand in solidarity with their opponents and honor this picket line with a Lysistrata tactic of their own.  Men should refuse to have sex with a woman who would take the life of the child they might conceive.  And women should refuse to have sex with a man who would pressure her to have an abortion. [Read more...]

Party squelches pro-life Democrats

Washington Post columnist Melinda Henneberger on pro-life Democrats trying to get a hearing at the platform committee but getting shot down.  She comes up with an interesting parallel, that abortion is to Democrats what gun rights are to Republicans, an untouchable issue that allows for no compromise:

Democratic dissenters on the issue of abortion have made their case to the platform committee, arguing that the party should change its language enough to allow for some diversity of opinion on the matter and return to the “big tent” approach of the Clinton years.

The effort is probably doomed; NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan is on the committee, and those pushing for the change were happy just to get to testify; they weren’t even allowed to do that four years ago.

This time around, Janet Robert, who founded Minnesota’s progressive talk radio station AM 950, with talkers such as Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann, was given seven minutes to make the case, and she used it to argue that the party simply cannot win back Congress without Democrats who differ from the ’08 platform on this one issue. She cited a slew of stats, including a Gallup poll from last year in which 44 percent of Democrats said abortion should only be legal “in a few circumstances.”

The plank they want to rewrite says the party “unequivocally” supports Roe v. Wade and spells out that “we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” .  . .

There’s no question that Democrats won the House in ’06 by running more moderate candidates in districts the party would otherwise have lost to Republicans.

But the abortion rights lobby writes big checks and wields such unlimited power that I’ve long thought abortion rights have become to the Democrats what the Second Amendment is to Republicans — who are so terrified of the “slippery slope” that even the most common-sense gun restrictions are out of the question. Nobody wants to buck the lobby with bucks.

via Democratic abortion foes push for change in platform – She The People – The Washington Post.

The last time Democrats won big, they courted social conservatives and ran some moderate candidates.  Another theme of this column is that Democrats aren’t going to do that this time.

Democrats claim to be the party of compassion and social justice, championing the marginalized and supporting the little guy.  I can’t take that seriously as long as they so uncritically support abortion.  What is so “liberal” about being for abortion?  Women’s rights?  But isn’t that more of a libertarian way of thinking, the sort of individualist mindset that leftists condemn when they see it in conservatives?  At any rate, I can respect pro-life liberals, when you can find them, as being generally consistent in their principles.  But pro-abortion liberals are sort of like those early Americans who believed passionately in freedom, despite their glaring inconsistency of also believing even more passionately in slavery.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X