Supreme Court Ruling Brings Split in Antiabortion Movement
This is exactly the reason I changed my long standing pro-choice position. After deciding it is better to not ban something like abortion because all circumstances cannot be predicted and it may be appropriate for matters other than birth control for dummies, there were limited occasions for review of that stand. Then the situation changed dramatically, at least for me.
After the Gonzales v Carhart decision and reactions to it made the news, everything seemed to change. Even though it was more accurately my failure to keep up with an adequate number of details. It started with Ginsberg’s dissent and complaint opposing the decision and comments by ‘leaders’ like Pelosi. There statements characterizing the Supreme Court decision as a defeat for women’ s rights appalled me. Since vast numbers of people have proven to me they approve of abortion on demand with no responsibility attached and as a convenience masked as women’s rights, my position changed. For the rare circumstance that an abortion may be reasonable, the large number of them being performed and the willingness of many to accept ’skull crushing’ partial birth procedures demands public outrage and a total ban on abortion.
This recent report on this issue involving the various organized participants in the public debate and lobbying strengthens my recent choice. The quagmire of interpretation and the bickering between special interest magnify the need for a total ban on abortion and to end the argument once and for all. If you are too stupid to have sex without needing an abortion to eliminate a common undesirable outcome, then perhaps your skull should be crushed rather than an infant who had no choice in the matter.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Supreme Court Ruling Brings Split in Antiabortion Movement
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 4, 2007; A03
In a highly visible rift in the anti-abortion movement, a coalition of evangelical Protestant and Roman Catholic groups is attacking a longtime ally, Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson.At the center of the dispute is the Supreme Court’s April 18 decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, a federal law against a procedure in which a doctor partially delivers a late-term fetus before crushing its skull.
Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, Committees of Correspondence, Mark My Words, Big Dog’s Weblog, Maggie’s Notebook, DragonLady’s World, the so called me, Webloggin, The Bullwinkle Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Pet’s Garden Blog, third world county, stikNstein… has no mercy, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
June 4th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
I’m not split. I’ve always been anti-abortion, with rare exceptions.
Those exceptions are for rape, incest, and to save the life of the “mother”. The first two of those aren’t even really palatable to me, because the person being aborted didn’t commit the rape or the incest and shouldn’t be punished for it. The third is only justifiable because the “mother” could be considered to be more “viable” than the unborn baby that might die anyway.
All human behavior has consequences. Using abortion as a convenient remedy to promiscuous behavior is, and always has been, the ultimate act of selfishness. To take the life of the defenseless for mere convenience is no less than murder in my eyes.
June 4th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
If a person can’t get there on principle, to oppose abortion, at least the PBA’s, all that should be needed is to read the procedure. Truly cold blooded. Pardon me for being candid here, but I really meant the last line in my commentary. The person or persons allowing that to happen should have their skulls crushed. And the same people are probably shocked by terrorist events. But then again, maybe they’re not. Ok, turn off my motor.
Thanks for stoppin’ Perri.