Where do you see opportunities for winning people over?
One new element is that pro-abortion groups seem to be getting increasingly extreme.
Interestingly, they’re dropping the theme of “pro-choice” they’ve had for 40 years, preferring to talk about “women’s health,” which I suppose makes it easier to oppose conscience rights. They’re also tending to press for semi-permanent methods [of contraception and abortion], such as injections and implants, that last for months. Women can’t remove them on their own; they need a doctor’s help.
Women’s freedom is being demoted, not only as a theme, but in reality.
It’s an increasingly coercive agenda, which I think gives us an opportunity to win people over by asking, “Is this what the movement formerly known as ‘pro-choice’ actually means?"
________________
The only downside to this interview between John Allen, Jr. and Richard Doerflinger is that JAJ insist on using the term 'anti-abortion' rather than pro-life, as though the movement formerly known as 'pro-choice' somehow gets to decide what the pro-life movement calls itself. John, just in case you were wondering: if you're only anti-abortion, you're not pro-life, because being pro-life means respecting human life from womb to tomb. The 'women's health' movement is actually profoundly anti-woman, so if we're calling a spade a spade, why don't we go with that term?
Anti-Woman Pro-Abortionists are trying to make 'anti-abortion' sound like it's a bad thing. Is it a bad thing? They might argue that using the term pro-life implies that the other side is anti-life, or pro-death, but is there any other outcome to the choice being upheld by law?
Supreme Knight Carl Anderson makes an even better pitch here:
No comments:
Post a Comment