"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

TIME.com: When Is an Abortion Not an Abortion? -- Page 1

TIME.com: When Is an Abortion Not an Abortion? -- Page 1: "The strategy was to chip away at Roe to try to shrink it, change its shape, and over time promote a culture of life that would view abortion less as a right than a tragedy, perhaps eventually a crime. That gradual approach requires a certain level of hypocrisy or at least a willing suspension of moral belief because if you truly equate abortion with murder, its hard to settle for slowing it down rather than stopping it altogether, right away: the Purist approach. "

What approach, with the exception of what SD has done, is not hypocrtitical, especially in the political world. Isn't much of the "pro-choice," world hypocritical; beginning with the term "pro-choice?"

This does sound as though it is quite a leap, hopefully it is discussed rationally though it is very naive to expect.

The slippery language used often creates the misconceptions we all may have. In reference to the health of the mother, Representative Roger Hunt said '“If we were talking of pure, serious health concerns,” that would be one thing. But “health” can mean economic health, mental health. “It becomes an open barn door for anyone who wants an abortion. We might as well not have the legislation at all”'

One issue in the argument of abortion that bothers me and does not seem to get much press/publicity is the possibility of damage to the mental health of those that do undergo abortions. As the article states regarding the "Task Force To Study Abortion," compared the experience of women that went toPlanned Parenthood as opposed to those that visited crisis pregnancy centers. According to the task force through Time, '"women are “misled” by abortion providers,(Planned Parenthood in this article) who dehumanize the fetus (calling it “tissue” or “the contents of the uterus”) and do not reveal that “the procedure will terminate the life of a human being.” An epidemic of remorse and depression results. At the crisis pregnancy centers, nearly a third of women arrive considering having an abortion, but barely 2% go forward after they are counseled about the nature of fetal development. “We do not know the cost to our society,” the report states, from “the pain and anger resulting from abortion, but we fear it is far worse than what we are able to comprehend.”'

I would like to hear more on this side of the argument and lately I have, but not nearly enough.

Which side of the argument is the correct side to be on? I have always had difficulty with the idea of telling someone what they can or cannot do, yet we do that everyday. Having said that, in order to make a responsible decision as to where one stands, the arguments must begin with honesty and I find that the "pro-choice," or rathe the "pro-abortion" side tends to play more of a verbal manipulation game; which always tends to strike me as suspicious.

Personally I cannot imagine that the newly conceived life is not just that; a life.

More here.


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks