Thursday, January 27, 2005

Laura Berman promoting Hillary's baloney

Detroit News columnist Laura Berman is at it again. Her latest column comments on Hillary Clinton's speech to pro-choice advocates which I lazily linked to other posts about here.

Berman says, "Because nobody is "for" abortion in a cheerleading, rah-rah sort of way, the forces who would like to see it banned altogether have a psychological advantage they've deployed with skill, drawing their own line in the sand.

You're either with us, the cooing baby people, they suggest, or with them -- the bloody fetus folk. Take your pick."


Why is nobody for abortion in the rah-rah sort of way? Because it takes the life of an unborn child and scars women emotionally? Is it a psychological advantage for the prolife side or a truth advantage?

Berman continues, "In response to Clinton calling for a way to find "common ground," for example, Barbara Listing, the president of Michigan Right to Life, told me bluntly: "I doubt there is room for common ground. The opposition is very strong (against) the idea of restoring civil rights for the unborn child."

Her point was clear: "We have a very narrow focus," she said. The truth is there are no "rights" of the unborn child to restore -- those are new rights her political lobby would like to install. "


No rights to restore? New rights? How about the 100+ years when abortion was illegal, Laura? What about the numerous prenatal protection laws that currently exist and pro-choicers opposed?

"What I hope is that Clinton's fellow Democrats recognize the senator's shrewdness. Seeking "common ground" -- even if it's a strategy -- is a better way to reach consensus than exulting in being "narrow."

Note how Berman doesn't really care if Clinton is lying aka being "shrewd." If it's a strategy (pretending you care about the unborn when you really don't) that works - the Democrats should go for it, regardless of whether they really believe their own baloney. Who cares if "narrow" is right? Who needs to take a stand for what is morally right when we can "compromise?"

Interestingly, the prolife movement in Michigan has hoped to reach common ground on a variety of common sense measures such as informed consent, stopping tax dollars from paying for abortion, and protecting children who are born after "failed" abortions but these measures have been rejected time and again by pro-choice people like Berman.

Even a measure to help college women who want to keep their child and continue their education was opposed by Michigan's NARAL affiliate.

People like Berman are so inundated with the pro-choice philosophy and rhetoric that they can't take their heads out of the sand for a second to see who they're standing next to. Guess what, Laura? You're with the bloody fetus folk.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment