Abortion: Sunshine on a rainy day or not?

We come back to asking why an abortion proponent would want abortion to be rare, a dangerously moralesque view first expressed by Bill Clinton.

The Obama administration is trying to build on this. According to abortion advocate Christina Page in the Huffington Post April 7:

Some historic moments are short and sweet. That was the case last Friday with a call the White House organized on common ground in the abortion conflict. In a never before attempted event, the Obama administration merged dozens of leaders from the pro-choice and pro-life movements onto one conference call line and, wisely, muted us. …
[T]he intent is to focus on the areas in which, theoretically, both sides share a common interest. And there are many: preventing unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reducing the need for abortion, strengthening supports for struggling families with wanted pregnancies, making adoption an option as accessible as any other, and saving lives by improving maternal and child health.

Actually, not to nitpick, but as far as I know only two pro-life groups were invited on the call, Concerned Women for America and Democrats for Life.

Whatever – the dicey (pardon the pun) question for the other side is why care about "reducing the need for abortion"?

"The Emerging Brave New World" covers the gradual dehumanization of human beings that has invaded American culture

If abortion is morally neutral, even morally superior – a "blessing" and "holy work," according to new Cambridge Episcopal Divinity School pro-abort President Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale – why aren't proponents working to increase the need for abortion? It makes no sense to decrease it.

Recognize this is a concession. If America is as pro-abortion as the other side likes to say, there is absolutely no reason to "reduce the need for abortion." So don't let them gloss over this point. Stick on it. Solutions can't be determined without understanding the problem. What exactly is the problem with abortion?

If they state the problems are merely financial or inconvenience, they lose, because they alienate the vast unwashed they are trying to woo by denying what the vast unwashed consistently polls it knows: Abortion is the taking of a human life.

If they admit there is a moral problem with abortion, they lose by opening a can of worms with both the public and the abortion industry. The next question obviously is, "What is the moral problem with abortion?" And they never ever want to be pinned into going there.

(And by the way, as CWA President Wendy Wright wrote me, don't use their terminology. "Say 'number' rather than 'need,' because 'need' is subjective, whereas 'number of abortions' is quantifiable," stated Wright.)

Even the title of Page's column is questionable: "The call for common ground on abortion." Why seek common ground? If our side holds the losing position, why give a whit?

Always remember, the ones seeking compromise know they are losing, and Obama knows his radical pro-abortion position is a loser.

This is why, even as Obama behind the curtain is living up to our pre-election analysis as the most pro-abortion president ever, he is still trying to conceal himself, now by attempting to pseudo-engage pro-lifers.

Obama is continuing a public relations campaign launched – successfully – prior to his election to placate those uncomfortable with abortion.

So even as we know Obama's radical pro-abortion position is a loser, we must acknowledge Obama may continue to entice the masses by subterfuge.

Our opposing worldviews on abortion and its common antecedent, sexual relations outside of marriage, are irreconcilable. We can only continue to make the irrefutable case that moral behavior is healthiest and safest.

But this position is not popular. Thousands of fallen cultures throughout history testify to this sad fact from the dust. As Dr. Laura Schlessinger recently wrote, "[I]n the overall scheme of humanity, why do so many people wish to push away the enormous protective power of moral values?"

I know I am not alone in experiencing an uncanny and increasing sense of urgency, as if we are running out of time. This means we must work ever more vigilantly to draw as many to the narrow path as we can while we can.

Remember the abortion issue is but a vehicle to show people The Way.

Contact: Jill Stanek
Source: WorldNetDaily
Publish Date: April 8, 2009
Link to this article.  
Send this article to a friend.

Illinois Federation for Right to Life Blog  Visit the IFRL on Facebook  Bookmark and Share

The IFRL is the largest grassroots pro-life organization in Illinois. A non-profit organization, that serves as the state coordinating body for local pro-life chapters representing thousands of Illinois citizens working to restore respect for all human life in our society. The IFRL is composed of people of different political persuasions, various faiths and diverse economic, social and ethnic backgrounds. Since 1973 the Illinois Federation for Right to Life has been working to end abortion and restore legal protection to those members of the human family who are threatened by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. Diverse though we are, we hold one common belief - that every human being has an inalienable right to life that is precious and must be protected. IFRL is dedicated to restoring the right to life to the unborn, and protection for the disabled and the elderly.   Click here to learn more about the IFRL.


Illinois Federation for Right to Life