It looks like Democrats want to reduce the number of abortions without restricting abortion access:
WASHINGTON -- Reaching out to more moderate, church-going voters with misgivings about abortion, House Democrats plan to unveil legislation on Thursday that sets a public policy goal of reducing abortions in America.
The proposal, to be announced at a news conference attended by House Democrats' national campaign chairman, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), would not restrict access to abortion. Instead, it promotes such preventive measures as funding for contraceptives and expanded sex education geared toward avoiding pregnancy as well as support for adoption and services to new mothers, according to several people familiar with the legislation.
The legislation targets voters who have concerns about abortion but who are not absolutely opposed to the procedure. Its introduction follows extended discussion in Democratic political circles about improving the party's image with traditionalist voters and public efforts by prominent Democrats to fashion an approach to abortion with broader appeal.
I'm glad that the Democrats are at least TRYING to do something about abortion, even though it's somewhat weak.
The thing is, the language of the debate has not favoured pro-lifers in one way.
It's called "the abortion debate". But it's not about abortion. People think it's about abortion, but it's not.
What is the thing about this debate that makes it a debate?
It's the question of the moral status of the unborn child.
It's really a fetal rights debate.
I've had pro-aborts tell me that it's a debate about a woman's right to autonomy.
Pro-lifers don't have a problem with that as long as women don't hurt others.
If unborn children were not considered humans by pro-lifers, there would be no debate. I and, I supect, many pro-lifers are not about to start massive culture wars over what women do to their own bodies-- if women want to get tatoos, liposuction, get their tubes tied-- whatever-- I strongly suspect most pro-lifers wouldn't stop them, and they wouldn't sink the resources that we do to the pro-life cause.
If a fetus had the same moral status as these body parts in the eyes of pro-lifers, there would be no debate.
Many pro-aborts are so blind, they can't even see or admit that this is the debate.
They know that as long as the debate is on unborn children, they will lose. They want the debate to be entirely phrased in terms of "it's a woman's body, it's her choice!". Because the second the notion that the fetus is a human being enters the picture, they know they've lost. That's why they write articles saying that it's a fallacy to focus on the fetus.
You do not kill another person in the name of personal autonomy. I've seen feminists try to use self-defense as an excuse to kill an unborn, but the baby isn't a real threat. Considering the fact that most women who get pregnant do so through voluntary sexual acts, it's a bit disingenuous to say the baby is some kind of invader. The baby isn't going to kill the mother. The baby didn't choose to be there. The baby is only waiting to be loved by his mom.
Even if someone were being especially clingy to me, that's still no reason to kill him. The aggression is not proportional to the threat. Same thing with unborn children. Whatever threat they may pose-- and that's very rare and dubious at best-- you don't kill him.
Let me get back on track-- the point is the debate has been termed "the abortion debate". But it would be much more effective for pro-lifers to call it "the fetal rights debate". Because then pro-aborts would be forced to address the issue: "Do you believe in fetal rights?" Not "Do you believe in a woman's right to choose"?
It's about time people started asking that question.
From the article:
Abortion providers would be required to notify patients of the risks of abortion procedures. In the past, abortion rights groups have often fought such patient notification proposals because they considered the wording to be overly alarmist. But the abortion providers would fashion the notifications through guidance from medical groups, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which does not oppose abortion rights.
I'd be really interested in seeing what that's all about, whether they are thorough in their description. Perhaps some American readers can follow up on that.
Check out the Big Blue Wave Message Board
