Right now, anti-choice is wiping the floor with pro-choice.  Pro-choice is always on the defensive, and never on the offensive.  Prochoice is tending goal and Prolife is always taking shots.  This can only go on so long before one gets in the net, and we’ve been seeing that happen lately.

This is probably worth keeping in the back of our heads at a time when most pro-lifers feel like we just lost a big one on Health Care. But the point is that, in the big picture, pro-lifers continue to chip away at the pro-abort monolith through education and pro-life regulation. To an extent, this is to be expected, and one can only take so much hand wringing from the other side without rolling our eyes in boredom.

Abortion on demand is the law of the land, the pro-life position is not the law of the land. So…yes, if the “goal” is public policy, then pro-aborts are rather obviously the one’s on defense, with pro-lifers on offense. To continue

Pro-choice needs to stop addressing the question of morality question all together. The only question that should be addressed is whether or not abortion should be legal, and the best way to do that is to clearly show the country what the effects of a ban on abortion would be.  Pro-choice needs to make sure that everyone in this country can  imagine the effects of an abortion ban on women, and is vividly reminded of what was going on in this country prior to Roe v Wade.  Prior to Roe v Wade hospitals had entire wards full of women injured or dying from illegal untrained abortion.  This is incredibly compelling, yet Pro-choice gives it a back seat to a pointless argument about morality.  Pro-choice needs to make it clear that despite the huge number of people that argue that abortion is wrong, the same people seek abortion when they need it just like those who believe that it is acceptable.  Despite their advertised belief, when the rubber hits the road many of them feel differently.  The country needs to understand this – that the moral objection to abortion is not the same thing as wanting to make abortion illegal.

There are other problems as well.

Pro-choice also needs to stop pretending that abortion is not destroying life. Pro-life argues that abortion is murder, and in response we hear from pro-choice is that it is not life, but a potential life.   This is not a compelling argument.   A fetus, from any scientific point of view, is alive.  Claiming that a fetus is not alive is inaccurate, and this somewhat vampiric idea paints Pro-choice in a bad light in the eyes of the middle ground population that might be convinced to support their cause.  Pro-choice must recognize that abortion is destruction of life, but is still a justified thing.  Parallels must be drawn between abortion and other justified destruction of life.   It is ironic that the conservatives who are the greatest detractors of abortion are often also the greatest supporters of war, and in so are the greatest supporters of killing.  To be a supporter of war and then to claim abortion cannot be justified because it is killing a life is a very bad argument, and the weakness in this position must be capitalized on.

Pro-choice is also losing because they are not aggressive enough in marketing. There are billboards all over the place promoting pro-life ideas.  I never see billboards promoting pro-choice ideas.  This is a problem.  I don’t know why this is, but I think it has something to do with pro-choice believing that their side is morally justified and does not need to be defended publicly.  I believe this is folly.  The position must be defended aggressively.   Pro-life is also very effective in promoting their cause through picketing of abortion clinics.  While they probably don’t scare off too many patients, their presence is a constant and vivid advertisement for their cause, and can draw support from the important middle ground.  Why isn’t pro-choice doing the same?  Every time there are picketers outside an abortion clinic, pro-choice supporters should have picketers out there peacefully promoting the opposite message.  Pro-choice should be picketing Crisis Pregnancy Centers EVERY DAY.

Go for it.

While this is just one blogger, it would be interesting to see the pro-abortion movement re-brand itself. As a rule of thumb, when debating a pro-abort, you can tell you’re making headway in the argument if they switch arguments from the “moral” aspect of the argument to the “pragmatic” grounds of “it may not be a good thing, but it needs to be legal to help women.” A necessary evil. We’ll happily take the concession and proceed to debate on the pragmatic grounds. The science on Fetal Development was getting clearer by the day anyway, that debate was getting boring. More room for us to go educate all the undecideds out there. If it’s not a point of contention anymore, we should all be able to talk about it without controversy, right? Right.

The other piece of advice for pro-aborts, that they need to be better at “marketing” is indicative of deeper problem the pro-aborts have always suffered from. Thinking of it as “marketing” is too businesslike, too much of the top down corporate notion of approaching a problem. To pro-lifers, the issue is about saving lives, to pro-aborts, at most it’s a moral issue of helping women. It’s not product placement. The pro-life movement doesn’t “market” itself. It spreads Truth. Calling it “marketing” is just an admission that there’s a particular package, a particular angle, that needs “selling.” Not the best word choice. In any event, bill boards are more tangential to the problem. The pro-life advantage in bill boards is the consequence of the deeper pro-life advantage. Boots on the ground.

By and large, the pro-life movement does things on the cheap, pro-abort interest groups and lobbies raise and spend money like…popularly demonized unethical big corporations…

The difference is the so-called “enthusiasm gap,” down at the bottom. Planned Parenthood is a billion dollar a year organization. The average crisis pregnancy center is a small group of all volunteer staff which sometimes gets money from private donations. The latter can only operate with broad support on the local level by dedicated individuals. There is no real counterpart on the other side, more a small group of aging feminist activists or recent victims of the tragedy of abortion trying to justify their actions. Pro-lifers continue to slowly win over the culture at large because the undecided majority is just that; undecided or apathetic. Most haven’t had fetal development explained to them, or know about the often tragic consequences of abortion for the mother, or they just don’t want to think about an unpleasant topic.

Also, picketing a PP clinic may rile up pro-aborts, but it’s easy to make the case that “these people do it because they feel strongly that innocent lives are being destroyed.” The controversial nature of them is well understood. But are Crisis Pregnancy Centers equally controversial? If pro-abortion proponents favor “safe, legal, and rare,” then oughtn’t CPCs be a good outlet for helping ensure the “rare” part, while doing nothing to harm the “safe, legal” part? Demonizing CPCs seems like a losing PR issue, so if pro-aborts want to start picketing them, they’re more than welcome to.

Assuming they can find enough people to protest that is.

This recent satellite image confirms that at least hundreds of pro-life avatars now roam the country apparently all facing East.

Said one avatar, “I don’t understand what I’m supposed to do now.  One minute I’m virtually making a difference, the next I’m trapped in cyberspace with no outlet for my political conviction.”

Not all of these avatars have been left shiftless and wandering.  Some of the more industrious ones have managed to gather together and form farming communities, bakeries, and even fish tanks on Facebook.

Stacy Lee, TN, says, "I don't know what I would have done without Farmville. After the March, I think we all felt we needed something we could really DO."

]]> http://www.postnatalreport.com/2010/03/24/virtual-pro-life-marchers-left-without-direction/feed/ 1 http://www.postnatalreport.com/2010/03/23/funding-abortion-is-the-new-pro-life-thing-to-do/ http://www.postnatalreport.com/2010/03/23/funding-abortion-is-the-new-pro-life-thing-to-do/#comments Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:07:27 +0000 3rd Trimester http://www.postnatalreport.com/?p=280 Forget for a moment the fact that any idiot with 5-minutes access to Google could tell you otherwise, and the crap that supposedly pro-life candidates who voted in favor of the pro-abortion healthcare bill are spewing makes total sense!

Rep. Bart Stupak attempts to express spatially Speaker Pelosi's capacity for tolerating dissent.

Here’s WV Rep. Rahall who argues that despite protests from National Right to Life and other pro-life organizations, his vote in favor of massive government funding of abortion is the most pro-life vote he’s ever made!  Well, you go girl.  Just cause you’re saying it doesn’t make it true though.

In fact, Weekly Standard put together an array of quotes from the weekend vote that sums it up nicely: abortion is in there, unless you’re pro-abortion in which case it’s not (but, pssst, it really is).  Notice that Planned Parenthood missed the memo about moping and accidentally celebrated their victory a little too soon.

MSM is drinking the koolaid big time and follows doublespeak suite with gems like CNN saying “the Obama plan resembles the Senate version on how to block subsidies from funding abortions”…except it does no such thing.  A Newsweek blog entry suggests that Obama’s proposals will test whether House Dems are prepared to vote on “strict abortion language”…except they already voted overwhelmingly in favor of pro-life language AND Obama’s proposals are as lax as they come, laxer still than what the pro-abortion Senate proposed.

Pro-lifers are not having it.  National Right to Life points out:

If all of the President’s changes were made, the resulting legislation would allow direct federal funding of abortion on demand through Community Health Centers, would institute federal subsidies for private health plans that cover abortion on demand (including some federally administered plans), and would authorize federal mandates that would require even non-subsidized private plans to cover elective abortion.

And it’s true.  Obama’s proposal increases funds where they will do the most damage to innocent human life:

object classid=”clsid:166b1bca-3f9c-11cf-8075-444553540000″ width=”560″ height=”400″ codebase=”http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/director/sw.cab#version=8,5,1,0″>

While not supporting pro-abortion license plates, one can’t really oppose the idea in principal, free speech after all. But pro-life legislators in Virginia have noted that where the funds raised from such plates actually go, is another matter. While the version of the bill which passed the State Senate contains language directing the proceeds from the “Trust Women/Respect Choice” plates go to Planned Parenthood, pro-life lawmakers in the State House passed an amendment to their bill authorizing the funds from sales go to a state fund for helping women who face unplanned pregnancies.

So…same thing right?

Not according to the pro-abortion side of the isle, who’re a tad bit rankled. One might think that with all the money Planned Parenthood gets anyway every year from donations, fees for services, and government subsidizing, that it maybe the money from the plates isn’t as big a deal for them as money for pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, which tend to be entirely free, staffed by volunteers, and entirely reliant on private donations. Besides, the money would still go to helping pregnant women, which is the ostensible point of the “Trust Women” plates anyhow.

Take a look at Rachel Larris’ post at RH Reality Check:

Planned Parenthood of Virginia is the sponsor of the “Trust Women, Respect Choice” plates for that state and would ostensibly receive money from the sale of the plates to provide services to low-income women, men, and youth seeking basic reproductive and sexual health care, such as family planning, screening for sexually transmitted infections, Pap smears and the like.

Later on, after detailing more of the legislative proceedings, Larris lists information from Guttmacher:

According to the latest statistics from the Guttmacher Institute:

• In Virginia, 846,100 women are in need of contraceptive services and supplies. Of these, 371,640 women need publicly supported contraceptive services because they have incomes below 250% of the federal poverty level (251,710) or are sexually active teenagers (119,930).
• In Virginia, 11% of women aged 15-44 have incomes below the federal poverty level, and 18% of all women in this age-group are uninsured (i.e., do not have private health insurance or Medicaid coverage).

Aye, there’s the rub, an interesting twist on the argument. According to the pro-abortion establishment line, this issue is about contraception, that’s why Planned Parenthood needs the money, for ” basic reproductive and sexual health care, such as family planning, screening for sexually transmitted infections, Pap smears and the like.” (Emphasis added)

But if that’s the case, why “Trust Women/Respect Choice?” Since when did “choice” not mean abortion? There seems to be a disconnect between the slogan used, and the official rationale given. Also, if we are supposed to “Trust Women,” why is Planned Parenthood painting crisis pictures of all the women in Virginia who apparently can’t be trusted to make good decisions for themselves and need the help of benevolent organizations like Planned Parenthood.

I do not mean to demean the plight of women in need in Virginia, nor am I taking a position on contraception (as a pro-lifer, I’d say abortion ranks higher than contraception as an issue of concern. Reasonable, sincere, and devoted pro-lifers can disagree on contraception, no sense rocking the boat.) It just seems that the official pro-abortion line is spinning a nice line to obscure the true issue at stake here, because openly touting abortion just doesn’t sell as well to the general public as they might like us to think.

Ultimately, this may very well be a completely academic issue. While “Choose Life” plates have been very popular everywhere they’ve been authorized, pro-abortion plates haven’t quite flown off the shelves. In Pennsylvania, a grand total of twenty-two peopel have purchased the Planned Parenthood sponsored plate.

It’s even possible one or two of the customer’s don’t even work at a PP clinic.

Congratulations to Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.

Hmm...well, there is that whole survival of the fittest thing.

In case you haven’t noticed, liberal societies and governments have become increasingly enamored of the idea of population control.  It’s nothing new.  This is when you should dust off your old copy of The Population Bomb so you can get up -to-speed on the latest trends and arguments on the pro-abortion, pro-population control side.  And that’s the whole point, that there’s nothing new at all to the idea of the need to control.  Look at this broad list of population control methods Wikipedia lists:

It’s all about control, and it’s all about pessimism.

Consider American opinion of China as an emerging superpower.  China has an enormous population, and recent cracks in its communist ideology have allowed them to take advantage of it and their economy has grown at incredible rates.  But beneath that façade are several fatal flaws: forced abortion reinforced by international support, the killing of millions of unborn baby girls, unsustainable ratio of men to women, and an aging population likely to implode.  China is truly the worst of communism and of capitalism rolled into one.

But there you have it: the pessimistic, pro-death control freaks can control something to death and they plan to.

Boston Phoenix: New & Improved Mitt Romney

“…the new Romney is now de-emphasizing social issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and illegal immigration.”

The Columbus Dispatch: Right-to-life orator to be honored on House floor

In which the pro-abortion Ohio Speaker of the House finally gives in to pressure from pro-lifers and the ACLU and allows the winner of NRLC’s 2009 Oratory Contest to receive a state honor.

Boston Globe: Final score: Tebow ad 1, detractors 0

“But some women’s groups foolishly took the bait offered by abortion opponents. When they learned about the ad, they tried to bully CBS into pulling it. That generated a super-sized pre-Super Bowl controversy that helped anti-abortion forces gain even more publicity.”

iBerkshire.com: Anthony Museum Plans Opening Ceremony Sunday

“The house has been restored to reflect her childhood with exhibits looking at the wide-ranging legacy of Anthony including Quaker life, temperance, opposition to slavery and abortion, women’s suffrage, and 19th Amendment…”

How does that saying go again? "I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield!"

So, to recap: Obama will pretend to settle for health care reforms that already exist after they come out the other end of a fake-y bi-partisan summit.  Why didn’t he just say that to begin with?  Oh wait, he’s been chomping at the bit to pass this pro-abortion health bill since last year.