First, the piece shows a new strategy regarding how pro-choicers argue about abortion. Don't focus on abortion (at least at the start). Instead, belittle abstinence education (how could teaching kids that they should save sex for marriage be moral), talk about rape victims, tax payer dollars defending legislation (but don't mention what the legislation does), continously use the word "health" without ever explaining the meaning of it, etc. Second, if you do talk about abortion, completely ignore the possibility that there is something in the womb. Just forget that the unborn exist. Treat abortion like a tooth removal.
A few tidbits, I'd like to comment on:
" Indeed, what is moral about forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy when she is unable to care for a child? When she wants to finish high school or isn't financially or emotionally ready to become a parent?"
Here's a few - right off the top of my head - 1. Saving the life of the child (in my crazy world saving the lives of innocent human beings is moral) 2. Saving the woman from dealing with the death of her child 3. Providing the opportunity for the pregnant woman to place her child in the loving arms of a couple looking to adopt
"The moral value that I cherish is a world in which every child is a wanted child. The moral value that I cherish is a world in which physicians and health care workers can offer the best medical treatment needed and possible to their patients."
Is every born child necessarily 'wanted' by their parents? If some born children aren't 'wanted,' does that mean that their parents should be able to kill them? By 'best medical treatment' do you mean abortion? Their patients? Do you mean the woman they've never seen before and possibly won't see again, who they had their nurse prep, and who they spent maybe 15 minutes on? Could the unborn be "patients" too?
"The moral value that I cherish is a world in which every woman is able to freely exercise her most basic right to make decisions about her body free from governmental interference and with the best medical information possible."
Her body? I wasn't aware that the unborn were part of her body. I thought they were distinct human beings with a completely different DNA code who are merely located inside their mother's body for a period of months. Best medical information possible? Is that why pro-choice advocates like you opposed informed consent laws.
I try not to despise pro-choice advocates. I want to love them and reach out to the goodness that is hopefully somewhere in them but people like Kary Moss make it tough.
I can't help myself. I need to come back and make some more comments on this ridiculous editorial.
More tidbits and comments:
"As he begins his second term, and following the weekend celebrations of the 32nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we should ask whose moral values are we talking about?"
Celebrations? Do you mean the 100,000+ people who go to Washington, D.C. every year to protest the decisions. Do you mean the hundreds of events in local communities to mourn the deaths of 44 million unborn children since 1973? Or do you mean the few hundred (if that) people that come to NOW's rally in D.C.? What world does this woman live in? A world where she and her friends have a cocktail party on January 22 every year to celebrate their
"There is no conclusive evidence that abstinence-only programs work, although there is evidence that they deter sexually active teens from using appropriate protection. Despite this reality, and despite testimony from parents of school-aged children rejecting this approach, the Michigan Legislature recently passed legislation that dismantles a comprehensive sex-education curriculum used in public schools."
Odd that she mentions the "testimony" of a few parents but doesn't rely on any polls concerning parents and abstinence education. Why? Because parents favor abstinence education. Why doesn't she provide any conclusive statistics on how well comprehensive sex education works? Especially if there isn't any conclusive evidence on abstinence education.