From http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2006/03/post.html#comments
« previous entry return home
March 10, 2006
Harvard fetusphobia: Pro-aborts destroy Elena posters
Most interesting about the controversy surrounding Harvard Right to Life's preborn poster campaign is what pro-abort students are saying about its "Elena" poster series. This educational effort has resulted in repeated vandalism....
From the Oh Harvard blog, February 16:
I think I have a right to not see that crap on my way to breakfast, lunch, and dinner....Ethically charged posters like that have no place in common spaces. Quite simply, if one is pro-choice, they make you uncomfortable and annoyed.... Some things aren't suited to cute posters with girly fonts and doodles. Some things don't serve a real purpose.... _______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
From an article entitled, "Pro-Life Posters Spark Debate: Students rip down controversial pro-life posters in protest," in the Harvard Crimson, March 6:
"I personally find the image disgusting and don't want to walk past it everyday,"†said Nichele M. McClendon '06, who said she did not tear down any posters. "It doesn't have to do with abortion as an issue or free speeh; it's about being decent and not being disgusting."
Jamie R. Smith '08... said in a phone interview that she felt the combination of a shocking picture and controversial message made the posters disagreeable to students. However, she felt that groups have the freedom to poster about causes that are important to them.
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
From an editorial entitled, "The Right To Reason: Recent campus abortion posters are purposeless," by Harvard Crimson staff writer Alexandra Atiya, March 10:
The "Elena posters" are the newest tactic of Harvard Right to Life. They feature a little fetus saying, "Oh, HI! I was just celebrating all my organs and me being 56 days alive!" I am not a fan....
They seek to cause anger, not excitement. In doing so, they reveal their antagonistic purpose, implicitly admitting that their primary function is to irritate pro-choice supporters on campus.
This kind of purposeless aggression is a hurtful and unproductive way of expressing opinions....
[I]t is simply a statement of anger to express your ideas in the way of the "Elena Posters".... [I]t's unnecessarily divisive.... [T]his deliberately flattens an intensely painful and complicated issue. It also happens to misrepresent the pro-choice members of this campus as bloodthirsty baby killers.
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
I'm reminded by this story of the recent flak created when a newspaper considered ultrasound photo ads "too graphic" to run.
The pro-life movement has apparently discovered something infuriating to pro-aborts: ultrasound photos of preborn humans.
_________________________
From http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/03/send_in_the_clo.php#more
Send in the Clowns: the farce, the lie and the unwavering commitment to kill
By Judie Brown - March 10, 2006
Hyperbole dressed up like fact continues to interest me, especially when it emanates from the culture of death's chief analysts. That's why William Saletan's commentary on the future of Roe v. Wade caught my eye. The man presents himself as a serious thinker, and indeed much of what he has written over the years is quite thoughtful even though misguided. His writings have been, I think, most helpful to the more practical leadership in the pro-abortion movement.
For those unfamiliar with Saletan, his most recent work, Bearing Right: How the Conservatives Won the Abortion Wars, details quite a bit of the factual evidence upon which the history of the "abortion wars" has been based. Of course he is a total supporter of abortion, but he does make an effort to be reasonable. Thus his recent commentary fascinated me.
But the reasons may surprise you. First, on the day I happened upon his analysis of what abortion supporters could possibly do to save Roe, I received a link to a blog, "Molly Saves the Day," containing information on how to provide do-it-yourself abortions. The author of the blog included a list of the medical instruments you would need were you to open your own personal underground abortion shop. She even tells you what you would have to do to prepare the mother for the planned execution of her baby.
I couldn't stomach reading the entire manual, but I did find it interesting that the Internet has become the host for fanatics who take their love of abortion so seriously that they will tell you, among other things, how to sterilize your instruments and how to determine precisely how large the uterus is. And all this time we thought medical schools had a purpose.
The contrast between Saletan and "Molly Saves the Day" is stark at first, but after thinking it through, I have come to the conclusion that the goal of both presentations is the same: protecting death no matter what it costs, no matter how many details and facts have to be massaged in the process.
While "Molly" is right out there with her clear and unwavering commitment to killing babies, she never uses the word "mother" and she steers clear of the word "baby" in an effort, I am sure, to soften the blow for those who might fall prey to the enforcers of her plan.
Saletan, on the other hand, is a bit less confrontational, sticking to clever terms that lead one to believe he really is making a sincere effort to get people thinking about the future of Roe and abortion itself. And that's where he got my attention.
He tells his readers that contraception holds the promise because "contraceptive use rose 22 percent from 1982 to 2002, and during this period the abortion rate dropped by about 30 percent." He assures his readers that not only is contraception more common, "it's more effective." He applauds injectibles, implants and other methods that, he tells us, result in "no pregnancies."
But wait. What is he actually marketing here? Is he writing about "foolproof" contraception, or is he selling the idea that chemicals designed to kill preimplantation human embryos do the best job of "contracepting" by intercepting babies before their moms even know they are there?
Saletan doesn't like the idea of second and third trimester abortions (his words) and thinks the folks on his side should do all they can to convince expectant moms (pregnant women, as he puts it) not to wait that long for their abortions. He says the public doesn't like those later abortions either and so abortion promoters could be seen as compassionate if they worked to convince women that earlier aborting is better aborting.
Get the picture? I sure hope so, because the plan is evil, deceptive and cunning. You can see the devil in the details without a whole lot of thought.
If the public agrees that nobody is home in the mother's womb for the first eight days of an actual pregnancy, then all those preimplantation aborted children won't count and the body count will continue to go down.
If the public agrees that the first few weeks of "established pregnancy" are simply a time when that "blob of cells" is insignificant, then the body count will go down even more. At least that is what Saletan wants us to believe.
He is wrong. There is no such thing as a more acceptable abortion. If a human being is present at his beginning, and his mother ingests a chemical (whether she is or is not aware of the way her implant or injection works), and that human being goes silently to his death, that is still abortion.
The only reason the surgical abortion rate is descending is that the chemical and medical abortion rates are going through the roof. Let's be clear on that point, because in the coming weeks, particularly during the debates and discussion of laws like the new South Dakota abortion ban, facts are going to be critical.
If the public continues to be swayed into believing that early human beings are non-persons, the result will be bad for those people who are living the first days of their lives.
If the public continues to sleep during the Biology 101 lesson that every pro-lifer worth his salt should be giving right now, victory will be shallow and meaningless, regardless of what the media may say.
To put it simply, Roe v. Wade, which was spawned by the Griswold v. Connecticut decision of 1965, is based on a lie. Abortion is a crime, not a right. But the most fundamental fact is that abortion at any time, whether one moment after a person begins or two weeks after a person begins is just as serious, just as ghastly, and just as cruel. A dead baby – a child robbed of his right to life – is no less to be mourned because of his age.
The public does not believe that – not yet, anyway. It is our job to make sure they do believe it. For as uncomfortable as it may be to expose the lie that "contraception" can be "abortion," that is the fact that remains hidden from view. And that is what Saletan, and perhaps even wildly outrageous Molly, both want. They want pro-lifers to accommodate contraception and be silent about its abortive effect. They want pro-lifers to quietly buy the lie that pregnancy really does not begin until the baby is eight days old.
Remember the words from Stephen Sondheim's "Send in the Clowns":
Don't you love farce?
My fault, my dear.
I thought that you'd want what I want.
Sorry my dear.
But where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns.
Don't bother; they're here.
Abortion is the farce; it is a lie. But if we pro-lifers fail to assure that each of our fellow Americans understands the truth about who dies and why no mother or father should desire such a dastardly fate for their child, even if that child is one moment old, then what we want will never occur. If we want what we know the babies want – freedom from imposed death – but fail to spend ourselves in defense of these basic, simple truths ...
Well, the clowns are here.
Judie Brown is president and co-founder of American Life League, the nation's largest Catholic pro-life educational grassroots organization. She is a recognized expert on the sanctity of human life, member of the Pontifical Academy for Life and the author of three books.
Posted by tim at March 9, 2006 08:06 PM
Subscribe with Bloglines Prior Articles:
Fighting Abortion - Mar 09, 2006
Ectopic Pregnancies - Update - Feb 28, 2006
Klusendorf Responds to Ultrasound Article - Feb 26, 2006
Why Are You Pro-Life? - Feb 24, 2006
Preparation - Feb 20, 2006
The Modern day Holocaust Denied - Feb 17, 2006
Just say 'no' to blood money - Feb 17, 2006
New Stanek column on WND: "Barbequed sacred cows" - Feb 15, 2006
______________________________________________
http://www.lifenews.com/state1485.html
http://www.lifenews.com/state1484.html
http://www.lifenews.com/bio1374.html
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2135.html
No comments:
Post a Comment