LifeNews.com is reporting on an essay by Frances Kissling "Catholics" for a Free Choice about the abortion debate.
The essay is available online at the CFFC web site under "What's New". It's long and full of a lot of pro-abortion baloney but read it. It lets you into the mind of someone who's been advocating legal abortion for a long time but seems to dislike the efforts of other pro-abortion organizations and seems to be growing tired of the debate (it's because she's losing and her position makes no logical sense).
Kissling says some very unusual things for a pro-abortion advocate. Ertelt at LifeNews presents the essay as questioning pro-choice tactics but the essay also takes numerous cheap shots at the prolife movement. In usual Kissling fashion, they are mostly unsupported assertions. Ertelt has covered the things the pro-choice movement might take offense to. I will attempt to cover some of the pro-abortion comments that fly in the face of reason and reality
Kissling says, "This obstinate insistence on an absolute legal ban is the major obstacle to what might have been the development of an abortion praxis that combined respect for the fundamental right of women to choose abortion with an ethical discourse that included the exploration of how other values might also be respected, including the value of developing human life."
This is similar to what Anna Quindlen quoted her as saying recently in Newsweek. It makes absolutely no sense unless you believe that the unborn aren't living human beings or don't really believe that their lives have value. Could I say, "We need to come to a compromise where we combine the respect for a woman's right to kill her toddler yet explore how other values might be respected including the value of the toddler's developing human life."
Note to Frances: How can we as a society value developing human life if we allow the legally killing of these lives?
Later on, "This brings us to the second value of a good society: respect for life, including fetal life. Why should we allow this value to be owned by those opposed to abortion? Are we not capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time; of valuing life and respecting women’s rights? Have we not ceded too much territory to antiabortionists by not articulating the value of fetal life?"
Is she that dense? She's spent probably that last 30 or so years of her life doing everything she can to devalue the lives of unborn children yet now she's asking why pro-choicers haven't articulated the value of fetal life.
Quick answer for Frances: The main crux of the pro-choice position is that fetal life doesn't have value (or at least enough to merit legal protection) and that is why women should be allowed to have abortions (end the lives of their unborn children). Once pro-choicers start admitting that the unborn are living human beings and their lives have value it becomes exponentially harder for them to defend the taking of these lives.
More: "Is there not a way to simply say, “Yes, it is sad, unfortunate, tragic (or whatever word you are comfortable with) that this life could not come to fruition. It is sad that we live in a world where there is so little social and economic support for families that many women have no choice but to end pregnancies." (my emphasis)
"No choice?" Huh? Isn't your organization called Catholics for a "Free Choice?" So maybe the decision to have an abortion isn't really then a "free choice" but something women feel forced into because they feel they have no place else to turn.
When discussing the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2004 Kissling says, "The bill includes a mandated script that doctors must read to women seeking abortions and specific written consent forms they must sign. The wording of the script doctors are required to use is cruel. It is not completely accurate, is highly judgmental and completely negates the basic principles of good patient care, in which a health professional needs the freedom to decide how best to convey important information to patients."
Read the text of the bill yourself. It's accurate and honest. Kissling may not like the term "unborn child" but just because women may not like the fact that they are deciding to end the life of a child that maybe able to feel pain doesn't mean that the legislation is innaccurate or cruel. The act of killing a pain-experiencing unborn child without giving that child pain-medication is what is truly cruel.
She continues, "To the extent possible, abortion should be a humane and compassionate procedure and although it involves the termination of fetal life, we approach that termination with respect and compassion. Thus, we would recommend that those who provide abortion provide the option of fetal anesthesia."
"To every extent possible toddler termination should be a compassionate procedure and although it involves the termination (why not say killing?) of toddler life, we approach that termination (again, why not killing?) with respect and compassion. Thus, we would recommend that those who provide toddler termination provide the option of toddler anesthesia."
The logic is a little off, wouldn't you agree? Or maybe it's her moral compass?
There are numerous other assertions I take offense to but this post is already too long.