Pro-aborts really don’t like the moniker of “pro-life” because they fear that poll numbers are shifting against abortion mainly because we have the cooler name.
So in their effort to diminish the nomenclature advantage Politics Daily has a piece by Eleanor Clift on how one can be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time.
“It drives me crazy when people say we’re pro-abortion,” says Jen Bluestein, communications director for EMILY’s List, which works to elect pro-choice Democratic women. “You can be pro-life and pro-choice,” she explains, meaning you would not seek an abortion yourself or advocate for one, but would not want to take away the right from someone else, or criminalize the procedure.
Ha! So let me get this straight. The head of Emily’s List which is designed solely to raise money for the most extreme candidates committed to keeping even ninth month abortions legal is saying she’s pro-life? Folks, we’ve got them on the run. Make no mistake, even thought we’ve suffered some horrible defeats recently pro-choicers know that their stranglehold is slipping.
Clift writes of this fear by abortion advocates:
Twenty-five years later, attitudes about abortion are a lot more nuanced. Just about every woman has seen her own or someone else’s sonogram, and it’s not so easy to insist that no laws need apply. Younger women have a more complex view of abortion, and they don’t view the issue as passionately as their mothers. “If you ask them if they support abortion rights, they say they don’t know or they don’t want to answer that question,” said Jen Bluestein, Emily’s List communications director. For an organization created around the core mission of promoting reproductive choice, that could be a problem…
Let’s hope so. And that’s why we’re getting stories about how pro-choice is really pro-life. But increasingly people are seeing the truth and no nomenclature shell game will work.
June 23, 2010 at 7:59 pm
The above view is nothing new. Back in my undergrad days around 1998, the CMU (Pittsburgh) Objectivist Club put on this lecture, "Pro-Choice Is Pro-Life: The Philosophical Basis of a Woman's Right to Abortion" by A. Bernstein. The ideas in it are nothing new then or now.
Plus, I think I have more arguments against the currently best pro-choice (now "pro-consent") arguments here and here. ("Pro-consent" arguments are scary (see quote at bottom of post); lays groundwork for right to gov't money for abortion.)
June 23, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Sadly enough, Ms. Eleanor is right to a certain extent, though I do agree that views are progressing towards the pro-life side. It's amazing how many people drive friends/family/neighbors to abortion mills who say, "Yeah, I'm against it, but I'm here for moral support!?" Then there's the "I think it's wrong, but don't believe the current law should be changed" canard. If it's wrong because it's murder (why else would it be wrong?), then dat dem dere law…we might aught to tink bout changin it!! Let us pull our heads out, here fellas.
June 23, 2010 at 8:27 pm
"It drives me crazy when people say we're pro-abortion,"
I always use the term pro-abortion when discussing abortion. Glad to know it's effective!
June 23, 2010 at 11:02 pm
"But increasingly people are seeing the truth and no nomenclature shell game will work."
Coming soon; newer, slicker shells!
June 24, 2010 at 12:47 am
I was floored (but really shouldn't have been looking back) when a Monsignor scolded me once for using the word "pro-abortion".
That being said, I wish the writers of this blog would not vacilate between using "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion". Call a spade a spade and stuff the euphemisms.
June 24, 2010 at 3:08 am
No of course Emilys List wants every woman to have this "right". And, since Sin Makes You Stupid, they cannot see the internal inconsistency of the statement that "you wouldn't seek an abortion for yourself but wouldn't want to take away that right" blah blah.
Ok, so, to help them connect the dots, let's put it this way:
"You wouldn't want to steal that diamond necklace from the jeweler yourself but you wouldn't want to take away that right etc."
Does not make any sense, does it, because no has a right to steal. So, for 35 yrs, I've been trying to figure out how it is that I have a right to kill my own kid but not to steal something.
They really just don't get it!