The Pro-life movement needs to step back from Planned Parenthood.

[Koharu]

If the pro-life movement were intellectually honest about Planned Parenthood, then by now they would have created an organization that did everything Planned Parenthood does except abortion.

They haven't done this because they aren't concerned about women's health or protecting the unborn. They just want to vilify women and take the money that goes to their healthcare and spend it on tax cuts for the rich.

Sure, just ignore the hundreds of Catholic health centers around the country....

Catholic health centers do not provide birth control.

[Person Man]

If the pro-life movement were intellectually honest about Planned Parenthood, then by now they would have created an organization that did everything Planned Parenthood does except abortion.

They haven't done this because they aren't concerned about women's health or protecting the unborn. They just want to vilify women and take the money that goes to their healthcare and spend it on tax cuts for the rich.

Sure, just ignore the hundreds of Catholic health centers around the country....

Catholic health centers do not provide birth control.

I mean, that's a great idea if only making abortion illegal is a goal among other things but not necessarily to reduce the number of abortions that are happening.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If the pro-life movement were intellectually honest about Planned Parenthood, then by now they would have created an organization that did everything Planned Parenthood does except abortion.

They haven't done this because they aren't concerned about women's health or protecting the unborn. They just want to vilify women and take the money that goes to their healthcare and spend it on tax cuts for the rich.

I might agree to this to a point, but the pro-choice movement avoids answering the question as to where HUMAN life actually begins.  They deliberately refuse to answer the question, by and large.

That being said, I believe that the pro-life movement needs to back off the Planned Parenthood issue and focus on doing the hard job of convincing people that HUMAN life begins at conception and that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life.  Those who would murder innocent unborn children deserve vilification in this life.  The only mitigating factor for them is the fact that many of the parties involved in abortion are honestly deluded into thinking that they're in the right.  "Father, forgive them; they know not what they do!" certainly applies to millions on this issue.

More should be done to reduce infant mortality, improve the health of pregnant women and their children, before and after birth.  Indeed, more should be done for the health of all Americans.  That more is not done does not make the children killed in abortion any less human and any less innocent then they were on the day others chose to kill them in a manner in which the innocent unborn children would feel physical pain.  The kind of pain one of my grandchildren felt in their abortion. 

[100% pro-life no matter what]

If the pro-life movement were intellectually honest about Planned Parenthood, then by now they would have created an organization that did everything Planned Parenthood does except abortion.

They haven't done this because they aren't concerned about women's health or protecting the unborn. They just want to vilify women and take the money that goes to their healthcare and spend it on tax cuts for the rich.

Didn't you just describe pregnancy resource centers, which outnumber Planned Parenthoods 20:1?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

If the pro-life movement were intellectually honest about Planned Parenthood, then by now they would have created an organization that did everything Planned Parenthood does except abortion.

They haven't done this because they aren't concerned about women's health or protecting the unborn. They just want to vilify women and take the money that goes to their healthcare and spend it on tax cuts for the rich.

Sure, just ignore the hundreds of Catholic health centers around the country....

Catholic health centers do not provide birth control.

I'm Southern Baptist, so I can't speak for the Catholic perspective, but many believe that hormonal birth control IS an abortion in that it stops a fertilized egg from implanting.  If you believe that life begins at fertilization, some forms of birth control can cause death of a baby through their secondary measure of attempting to "prevent pregnancy".

[Badger]

Now let's hear from all the pro-life women on Atlas.

<crickets>

Hmmm. That's....awkward.

If you think this is an argument than you need to reevaluate your debate-style. How many women are there total on atlas?

That's...kinda the point. The only reason pro-life policies are even remotely entertained as reasonable for the general age and education demographic on this forum, is because it's also a near total sausage fest largely lacking a balanced female input.

Also worth noting that among the women who are here, none of them wished to participate in this "pro-life" discussion. Coincidence? I think not.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Now let's hear from all the pro-life women on Atlas.

<crickets>

Hmmm. That's....awkward.

If you think this is an argument than you need to reevaluate your debate-style. How many women are there total on atlas?

That's...kinda the point. The only reason pro-life policies are even remotely entertained as reasonable for the general age and education demographic on this forum, is because it's also a near total sausage fest largely lacking a balanced female input.

Also worth noting that among the women who are here, none of them wished to participate in this "pro-life" discussion. Coincidence? I think not.

Most polling shows that there is a negligible gender gap on abortion.  I know tons of pro-life young women.

[Badger]

Now let's hear from all the pro-life women on Atlas.

<crickets>

Hmmm. That's....awkward.

If you think this is an argument than you need to reevaluate your debate-style. How many women are there total on atlas?

That's...kinda the point. The only reason pro-life policies are even remotely entertained as reasonable for the general age and education demographic on this forum, is because it's also a near total sausage fest largely lacking a balanced female input.

Also worth noting that among the women who are here, none of them wished to participate in this "pro-life" discussion. Coincidence? I think not.

Most polling shows that there is a negligible gender gap on abortion.  I know tons of pro-life young women.

a) Most polling does NOT show that, but I'm sure it comforts you to think otherwise that it's not fundamentally about imposing a male and elderly viewpoint on younger women;

b) anecdotal evidence, isn't.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The problem is the numbers. The reason they go after it is because it is easier to convince people that an organization is profiting/violating/abusing its way along the path to providing this service than it is to convince people that abortion should be banned at all stages.

There are a lot of people who are pro-choice generally speaking and support it being legal for a set period of time but at the same time think it is an unfortunate practice and are most certainly against late term abortion. By focusing on planned parenthood, they can unite both this group and the firm pro-life advocates such as yourself in righteous indignation and ride that right into office, or at least that is how it plays out in the script.

Going to the heart of the matter, has the opposite effect, it narrows the support base. If you play out the second and third order of events, narrowing the support leads to the other side winning and confirming judges who are most certainly not on the side of the pro-life community.

So to make a long story short, it is political strategy motivated by political expediency, to attempt to move in the desired direction without having to face the electoral consequences (and thus by extension the resulting road blocks to said progress that is losing an election) of actually trying to focus on the root issue itself.

I understand the theory behind your argument, but I'm not sure that I agree. According to Gallup, 48% of Americans identify as pro-life, and 48% identify as pro-choice. At the same time, 62% of Americans have a favorable view of Planned Parenthood. Doesn't it hurt the pro-life brand to focus so heavily on an organization that so many Americans support? Would it not be better to step back and focus on the big picture and try to win hearts and minds that way?

Most Americans claim to be pro-life, but polls are sometimes a little bit off (see 2016).  It's kind of like how the majority of people in Norway claim Christianity while the majority of people in Japan claim Shintoism or Buddhism (or both).  Yet both societies are thoroughly secular.  In the 19th century, most northerners were opposed to slavery, but they didn't mind its continued existence as long as it was happening far away from them.  Most Americans today think that abortion is something people probably shouldn't do, but when they think about all the inconveniences that would spring from those babies not being aborted, they stop caring.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Now let's hear from all the pro-life women on Atlas.

<crickets>

Hmmm. That's....awkward.

If you think this is an argument than you need to reevaluate your debate-style. How many women are there total on atlas?

While we don't quite match the statistics of the real world, there are plenty of women on Atlas, including myself. Badger's comment is something to consider.


As someone who used to be pro-life as a teenager, I would actually agree that pro-life folks could do better if they stopped trying to attack Planned Parenthood. They'd do even better if they stopped attacking family planning and birth control availability. I understand why Catholics are against it (even though it's based on the most ridiculously legalistic reading of the story of Tamar ever--the "don't do this" was because it was taking advantage of a relationship, not because semen not ending up in a vagina is a sin), but evangelicals being anti-birth control and family planning is just ridiculous. More birth control = less abortions! Tada!

And then just because maybe it'll get more attention in this thread, I'll quote what I said a while ago:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am a 30-something woman, happily married for over 10 years, who struggles with infertility and plans to adopt. Even still, I realize that abortion is a necessary thing and the way it is done in this country is not murder. It's certainly better than leaving babies out to die to exposure, which was done in biblical times and was still never mentioned specifically in the Bible despite some other, very specific laws (including sacrificing children to Molech).

The issue of birth control is separate from the issue of abortion, except when the birth control means chosen kill a fertilized egg.

I, personally, don't particularly object to employer mandates for birth control in health insurance plans (the Hobby Lobby thing) but I do get Evangelicals wishing to resist proposals that violate the religious beliefs of persons.  Such a belief does violate the religious beliefs of Catholics who subscribe to Catholic doctrine.  That I get it doesn't mean that I agree with it.  Quakers would have religious objections to being taxed for our wars and our defense in general.  That's just one example, but people don't have the right to not being taxed for policies that conflict with their religious convictions.  (In that regard, I view the Hobby Lobby ruling as erroneous, and I view Hobby Lobby's owners as folks who just wanted to get out of Obamacare, period, as their real motivation.)

Abortion is a necessary thing?  Just exactly why is that necessary?  Was it necessary that my grandchild was aborted, especially when all parties involved knew full well we would raise any child no questions asked (not that our willingness impacted the humanity of that child)? 

[7,052,770]

One thing I like would like the anti-abortion side to do is to stop using the term "conception," which is ambiguous (can mean either fertilization or implantation), and use the word they're actually talking about.

And then I would like for them to pick one of those and stick to it.

[Karpatsky]

Now let's hear from all the pro-life women on Atlas.

<crickets>

Hmmm. That's....awkward.

If you think this is an argument than you need to reevaluate your debate-style. How many women are there total on atlas?

That's...kinda the point. The only reason pro-life policies are even remotely entertained as reasonable for the general age and education demographic on this forum, is because it's also a near total sausage fest largely lacking a balanced female input.

Also worth noting that among the women who are here, none of them wished to participate in this "pro-life" discussion. Coincidence? I think not.

Most polling shows that there is a negligible gender gap on abortion.  I know tons of pro-life young women.

a) Most polling does NOT show that, but I'm sure it comforts you to think otherwise that it's not fundamentally about imposing a male and elderly viewpoint on younger women;

b) anecdotal evidence, isn't.

[TPIG]

But does that reflect the actual state of the law? The poll also shows 66% of respondents want current law to either remain as it is (37% satisfied, 10% despite unsatisfied) or become less strict (19%). This number is quite compatible with the Pew numbers I posted earlier.

Well, given the incompatibility of the conflicting numbers, it would seem that some portion of that 66% are not fully aware of the current law. The reason I think the 66% figure is flawed and not my 53% figure (those who desire illegality for abortion on demand in the first trimester ) is due to the vague nature of the question, whereas the question that produced the 53% figure was quite specific.

That is plausible - if that is the case though, to return to your original point, wouldn't you say that there is a strategic value is focusing on a specific organization in that it can show people that their perception of law is incorrect? It seems to me if that concept is accurate, the potential problem of returning to a more broad stance is that it will not motivate even those who agree with it if they don't believe that the problem exists.

That's actually a very good point. My intention with this thread was not to say that Planned Parenthood shouldn't be highlighted at all but rather to say that pro-lifers shouldn't be so concerned with fighting out the finer details of PP's financials and activities that they cede the larger point of the movement. Perhaps, a good middle ground can be found between the two approaches.

To be honest, I think the greatest strategic weakness of those in favor of increased abortion restrictions is the positions most identified with it and committed to it are those most extreme. I think any interpretation of these numbers will find that even if there is theoretically a majority in favor of more restrictions on the current system, there is almost certainly not a majority in favor of the sort of constitutional amendment you suggest - and abortion is not the sort of issue you can really 'convince' on one way or another. Worse, to try to refocus on the sort of restrictions which might gain majority support would risk alienating the religiously-motivated base which is most committed. Do you think it politically feasible to overcome this catch-22 in the current climate, or are you hoping for a generational shift in attitudes?

Would you mind expounding upon your theory of this catch-22 a bit more? Which abortion restrictions that a majority of Americans would support do you think would simultaneously alienate religious conservatives. I'm having a hard time thinking of examples of this.

I don't mean any particular restriction, but the strategy of pursuing marginal restrictions rather than going directly for your 'more difficult goal' - one example on this forum is ExtremeConservative, who for some time had that C avatar.

I can't speak for the entire pro-life movement, obviously, but I feel that many religious conservatives and strong pro-lifers would support and champion any new restrictions on the practice, even if they don't end the practice, once and for all. Eventually, as abortion becomes less and less of an acceptable and tolerated practice, due to changes in the law, the ultimate goal of a constitutional amendment becomes more likely. The pro-life movement is in it for the long game.

[Crumpets]

Just imagine how ridiculous it would be to have Democrats standing outside of Cabela's around the country, harassing everyone who goes in on the off-chance they might be buying a gun.

[MasterJedi]

I think if they want to be pro-life they should be, not just pro-birth because their policies are "just be born, then you can die if you need assistance, that's socialism".

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think if they want to be pro-life they should be, not just pro-birth because their policies are "just be born, then you can die if you need assistance, that's socialism".

I've never not agreed with the above sentiment.  I do believe that folks should be responsible and abstain from sexual activity until they are married and (presumably) able to support a child, but I understand that things happen in life.  So, yes, I am for a safety net.  The problem is that the current safety net encourages out-of-wedlock births; indeed, it rewards them and penalizes births to married couples, albeit not intentionally.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

If the pro-life movement were intellectually honest about Planned Parenthood, then by now they would have created an organization that did everything Planned Parenthood does except abortion.

They haven't done this because they aren't concerned about women's health or protecting the unborn. They just want to vilify women and take the money that goes to their healthcare and spend it on tax cuts for the rich.

BINGO!

[Fuzzy Bear]

If the pro-life movement were intellectually honest about Planned Parenthood, then by now they would have created an organization that did everything Planned Parenthood does except abortion.

They haven't done this because they aren't concerned about women's health or protecting the unborn. They just want to vilify women and take the money that goes to their healthcare and spend it on tax cuts for the rich.

BINGO!

It's not the Pro-Life movement's job to do anything but advocate for legislation that protects the rights of unborn children.  The correctness of that particular stance, the stance that a child is fully human from the moment of conception, is not dependent on what social services for children, born and unborn, that the movement advocates for.

While I agree that government should provide a safety net of health services for unborn children and for infants and children to boot, that is a separate issue.  The legitimacy of Pro-Life advocacy is in the correctness of its stance, and not in what services it advocates for mothers that bear children.  It's about the humanity of the child. 

The PitssburghSteels and Indy Texases of the forum raise a false issue.  In truth, they would not change their positions on abortion one iota if the Pro-Life movement funded prenatal and neonatal health services for children and mothers at no cost to the patient.  Abortion is the Feminist Power Issue from which all power issues flow from.  I'm Pro-Life.  I don't answer to people who, when all is said and done, are all for infanticide of the the unborn on demand and without apology.  And while I advocate universal healthcare for all Americans, my stance would be no less correct if my position on healthcare was as awful as that of the Freedom Caucus.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Just imagine how ridiculous it would be to have Democrats standing outside of Cabela's around the country, harassing everyone who goes in on the off-chance they might be buying a gun.

That sounds like it would be more deadly than the number of babies killed each year.