La Shawn is all thrilled she got ink in Nation magazine. I guess it's one of those cases where you're welcomed to say anything you want, as long as you spell the name right. ;-)
The article, as usual, made me laugh -- not intentionally.
Christina Dunnigan, who runs a site called Cemetery of Choice ("For some reason, my calling is the dead"), refers to the self-righteous pro-lifers who wave pictures of bloody fetuses as "banshees" who suffer from the sin of pride.
Perhaps there's more to her argument than the article presents. But, at surface level, here you have it again: the left doesn't merely disagree with the opposition, but in fact, confidently claim to know their innermost motives and sins, claims to have weighed them, and judged them lacking.
Um, who is judgemental again?
Much of the talk was focused admiringly on sites like Afterabortion.com (which has more than 10,000 registered users) and Afterabortion.blogspot.com that encourage women to tell their own stories about experiencing abortions--as long as they follow a storyline of loss, regret, emotional trauma and healing through Christ...
LOL! You've got to be kidding! This is a criticism? Is the author similarly incensed that Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and their big-media supporters (The New York Times, for example) only present abortion stories as long as they follow a storyline of emanicipation, resolve, and relief?
Look, try to understand: the pro-life movement is a reaction to the perceived excesses and manipulation of the pro-choice movement. Thus they try to tell "the other side" which has been neglected in the press. If it's a sin to present half the story, as an obvious reactionary partisan group, then shouldn't you be as offended when the mainstream media suffers the same myopia, only without admitting the bias?
For that matter, does this Nation magazine article present any of the counter-evidence against abortion? Does it mention, for example, studies showing most women who experience abortion suffer depression and loss and other debilitating complications?
No? So the author is accusing her opponents of the very thing she does. Again.
For years, watchers of the far right have been tracking this shift in the antiabortion movement. The rise of so-called "crisis pregnancy centers," which deceive women about their mission...
The one I'm most familliar with is "Birthright", which runs huge billboards all over St. Louis. The "B" is shaped like a pregnant woman, with a phone-shaped cutout overlay. From what I hear, they have nearly a thousand member clinics, so they're an incredibly major player. I do not see how anyone could ever look at a birthright ad and honestly call it "deceptive". Which part of "birth right" confuses you?
Once again, the left is accusing the right of some sin (here, deception) while apparently doing that very thing (lying about whether all or most CPCs are deceptive).
Egads, it's like clockwork: Project, project, project.
... the crowd was with Yoest when she said, "You can't make abortion go away with laws. You have to reach people, and reach women when they're hurting." Wasn't this was once the prochoice line, that criminalization wouldn't end abortion, just push it underground?
Yes, you ninny, and the fact that are writing to oppose a group who echoes your own alleged philiosphy -- make abortion safe, rare, but yet still legal -- ought to tip you off to the moral bankruptcy of the modern "pro-choice" movement.
Perhaps the March for Life week's triumphant pro-lifers have begun to suspect that "post-Roe America" will entail grappling with the fact that they hold the minority view. "Some 65 percent of Americans are prochoice," Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL...
But a similar number also believe abortion should be restricted in some way. It's not as neat as either side wants to make it. Yes, those who want to criminalize all abortion are in the minority. But so are those who oppose all restrictions to abortion-on-demand.
And, guess what? The right is more mainstream on this issue. Whereas the many mainstream conservative activists aren't vowing to make all abortions illegal -- as the author just admitted -- the entire core leadership of the left resists even such sensible and popular restrictions as banning partial-birth abortions, placing them firmly in the extreme fringe.
But the movement's new hubris is most hilariously on display in the much-linked "Battle of the Babes", which purports to settle the reproductive rights debate once and for all by posting photos of marchers from the recent Walk for Life in San Francisco and asking "who is cuter--the prolife gals...or the pro-choice womyn?"
The author is out of her mind: the "babes" article (which is just page three in a multi-page photo essay -- see the other pages for some rather disturbing psychology on public display) is obviously tongue-in-cheek, as you can see for yourself. It no more "purports" to settle the debate than Jay Leno "purports" to be a serious news anchorman:
Which side has the best-looking women? This measure of political power has for decades been the only surefire way to gauge the strength of any social movement.
The author took this seriously??? I can't decide which is funnier. (And never mind that the photographer himself won't take any public pro-life/pro-choice stand.)
Sheesh, if that's the author's best and parting shot on what's wrong with the "pro-life" movement in America then it's no wonder her pet cause is losing public respect.