Pro-life gets hip in new campaign

posted at 3:30 pm on January 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Students for Life wanted to find a catchy title for their new campaign against the Freedom of Choice Act.  “Fight FOCA” seems too pedestrian and more than a little hackneyed.  No, they wanted a fresh take, one that would connect with college and high-school students.  So SFL IM’d their BFFs, and OMG, came up with the WTF campaign — as in What The FOCA?! From the FAQ:

Why ‘What The FOCA?!’ ?

When you heard about the Freedom of Choice Act was your initial reaction something like…”WTF?!”  That is the reaction most people have on both sides.  This legislation is extreme and it will not pass if we have an informed and active public.  This site exists to encourage YOU to be active in spreading your astonishment and indignation about the Freedom of Choice Act.

Isn’t ‘What The FOCA?!’ Offensive?

Yes, it references a phrase that is offensive.  However, unrestricted abortion is much, much more offensive.  Using this phrase points to that fact.  In addition, “WTF” is common to the language of the culture.  If we say… “Stop the Freedom of Choice Act!” that is meaningful to those of us who know about FOCA, but it is meaningless to those who do not.  If we say…”What the FOCA?!” it piques the interest of the culture and conveys the ridiculousness of the Freedom of Choice Act all in just three words.  Then, you can start to elaborate through dialogue.

Want to say WTF to FOCA?  Today is their Day of Action.  Get the word out by talking to friends about FOCA, hosting an event on campus using their handy checklist, or even buy a T-shirt.  The site has several embedded videos explaining the campaign and the issues.

I’ve written several posts about FOCA and the danger it represents to life.  Don’t miss an opportunity to spread the word, and the word can even be a three-letter abbreviation like WTF.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It’s the Mother FOCA act.

With the “Mother FOCA” act.. you don’t have to a… Mother… You can just kill your baby… c-i-l-l… your baby…

Skywise on January 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM

I’m there.

Mommypundit on January 28, 2009 at 3:34 PM

LOL.

The kids are alright.

Wethal on January 28, 2009 at 3:37 PM

I am buying two of those shirts, maybe more when I get home. Excellent campaign.

Cindy Munford on January 28, 2009 at 3:38 PM

Standing by for thuja to starting talking about how a fetus is not a baby in 5..4…3…

kingsjester on January 28, 2009 at 3:39 PM

From the link:

The Freedom of Choice Act would force no restrictions on the rest of us.

Eh?

lorien1973 on January 28, 2009 at 3:40 PM

This just in:

The Democratic-led U.S. Congress Tuesday gave final approval to what may be the first bill signed into law by President Barack Obama — a measure to reverse a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision that made it tougher to sue for wage discrimination.

So I guess they can reverse Roe v Wade just as easily. Huh.

Akzed on January 28, 2009 at 3:41 PM

:)!

canditaylor68 on January 28, 2009 at 3:43 PM

WTF?!?! awesome.

hockey2k5 on January 28, 2009 at 3:50 PM

Great campaign! Go to the link and sign their petition. Let’s support ‘em.

Christian Conservative on January 28, 2009 at 3:58 PM

I thought conservatives were all about freedom of choice. Freedom to drive big trucks, own guns, worship, and all that jazz. All good. But freedom to choose in this instance – not so good. I guess this is what is called “naunce”.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:00 PM

Make that nuance. lol

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:01 PM

I thought conservatives were all about freedom of choice. Freedom to drive big trucks, own guns, worship, and all that jazz. All good. But freedom to choose in this instance – not so good. I guess this is what is called “naunce”.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:00 PM

There’s a subtle difference between a truck and a “bundle of cells” that has its own distinct DNA.

But I guess that distinction is a bit too “nuanced” for you.

cs89 on January 28, 2009 at 4:03 PM

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:00 PM

Yeah we draw the line at Freedom to kill the defenseless. Don’t you agree, you former fetus you?

Patrick S on January 28, 2009 at 4:07 PM

I oppose the Funding of Coerced Abortions Act.

BKennedy on January 28, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Patrick S on January 28, 2009 at 4:07 PM

+1

mrsmwp on January 28, 2009 at 4:09 PM

But I guess that distinction is a bit too “nuanced” for you.

Yes, of course. Freedom for me but not for thee – based on my view of cells with DNA. My point exactly. You can’t have it both ways. Either champion individual freedom, or champion laws based on theocratic ideals.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Just because you call it murder, doesn’t make it so. But you want your view to become law to overrule all other views. That is not in keeping with the ideals of conservatism.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:11 PM

Just because you call it murder, doesn’t make it so. But you want your view to become law to overrule all other views. That is not in keeping with the ideals of conservatism.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:11 PM

Just because you pretend a child in the womb isn’t alive, doesn’t make it so, eh, former fetus? That’s not in keeping with human history.

Patrick S on January 28, 2009 at 4:13 PM

President Ronald Reagan in 1982:

“Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

mrsmwp on January 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Just because you pretend a child in the womb isn’t alive, doesn’t make it so, eh, former fetus?

The solution therefore is for you to refrain from abortion, and me to go the other way. Arguing about abortion is pointless because we are arguing philosophy.

The point that does need arguing is whether my view or your view should supercede the rights of the other by becoming law. My argument is that you should have the right to not engage in abortion if it violates your moral universe. You should have that right. Nobody should force you to do otherwise. That is the libertarian view. However, you don’t extend to others the same respect. You want your views to become law and to apply to everybody else.

There’s the rub.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Freedom to drive big trucks

Hmmm, no murdered humans.

own guns

Nope, no murdered humans.

worship

Shucks, no murdered humans there, either.

Your point was?

CDeb on January 28, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Sweet!
Getting some of those tees.

jencab on January 28, 2009 at 4:19 PM

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Fine. I’ll stick to my morality. You stick to yours. Who speaks for the baby?

kingsjester on January 28, 2009 at 4:20 PM

“Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

mrsmwp on January 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM

It is a living organism from the moment of conception. It can be proven what level of development the fetus has at each week of pregnancy. Where people differ is over what criteria to use in order to grant individual rights to the unborn.

dedalus on January 28, 2009 at 4:20 PM

You want your views to become law and to apply to everybody else.

So you are an advocate of anarchy? EVERY law on the books is based on someones view of right and wrong.

Next.

CDeb on January 28, 2009 at 4:21 PM

That is not in keeping with the ideals of conservatism.
keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:11 PM

Huh, and here I thought that recognizing that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with life, was a conservative principle.

Akzed on January 28, 2009 at 4:21 PM

This is a good idea, I support this Freedom!

Now, who will go against the Union sponsored ad blitz for their Freedom [sic] act…WTF, I can’t remember the name of it…

kirkill on January 28, 2009 at 4:26 PM

Huh, and here I thought that recognizing that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with life, was a conservative principle

.

Don’t be too proud of that. The guys who wrote that didn’t extend that philosophy to women or blacks, so I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t extend it to a throbbing mass of protoplasm the size of a fingernail.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:27 PM

It is a living organism from the moment of conception. It can be proven what level of development the fetus has at each week of pregnancy. Where people differ is over what criteria to use in order to grant individual rights to the unborn.

dedalus on January 28, 2009 at 4:20 PM

Really? The other day you were saying that the discussion must be expressed in terms of dollars and cents.

Hopefully, compassion for life will be the criteria, not the endless shuck-and-jive perpetrated by your ilk solely to confuse the central issue….RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE.

jay12 on January 28, 2009 at 4:27 PM

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:00 PM

And you’re all about preventing government restrictions on health care choice, guns, car mileage regulations, the design of bathroom toilets… right?

It’s an essential difference in values. Conservatives value human life. For the Left, self-determination trumps the unborn child’s life, but does not extend to self-determination in other areas.

obladioblada on January 28, 2009 at 4:29 PM

Really? The other day you were saying that the discussion must be expressed in terms of dollars and cents.

Hopefully, compassion for life will be the criteria, not the endless shuck-and-jive perpetrated by your ilk solely to confuse the central issue….RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE.

jay12 on January 28, 2009 at 4:27 PM

I don’t recall making a case for or against abortion from a monetary standpoint. I don’t think it should be a criteria.

dedalus on January 28, 2009 at 4:30 PM

so I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t extend it to a throbbing mass of protoplasm the size of a fingernail.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:27 PM

You do realize that your moral equivalency is ridiculous don’t you? How many babies are arborted at that early stage? The baby has a heartbeat at day 25, so put that in your libertarian pipe and suck it.

kirkill on January 28, 2009 at 4:31 PM

You do realize that your moral equivalency is ridiculous don’t you?

The equivalency idiocy is all yours. You are preaching that a tiny organism is the same as a full blown sentient human being.

At any rate, this is your right to believe such. It is also your right not to have an abortion if you don’t want one. It is NOT your right to stop others.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM

I thought conservatives were all about freedom of choice…But freedom to choose in this instance – not so good. I guess this is what is called “naunce”.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:00 PM

Seriously! After all, why shouldn’t I be able to kill someone if their existence is inconvenient for me? Fascists!

Now, choosing what kind of light bulbs I can use**, or whether I should allow smoking in my business place**, that’s the sort of choice I need the gub’mint to make for me; but killing my child? Don’t tread on me!!

/sarc

————————————-
** I use CFLs to save money, and I hate smoking and would never choose to allow it in my place of business. My point is that taking away these choices — where free people will live with the consequences of their choices — is tyranny; taking away the choice to kill is protection. Why don’t liberals get this?

RegularJoe on January 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM

You can’t have it both ways. Either champion individual freedom, or champion laws based on theocratic ideals.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Tell ya what, I think I’ll just keep championing individual freedom as long as it doesn’t interfere with the individual freedom of others, including the unborn.

And from your other comment (“the size of a fingernail”) my children passed that point pretty early in the gestational period.

cs89 on January 28, 2009 at 4:38 PM

My argument is that you should have the right to not engage in abortion if it violates your moral universe. You should have that right. Nobody should force you to do otherwise.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:17 PM

However we may disagree on abortion overall, if this is your belief then you surely must be opposed to the FOCA. One of its provisions is that medical facilities (and practitioners) will not be able to decline to perform abortions.

RegularJoe on January 28, 2009 at 4:40 PM

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM

I’ve got a challenge for you. When a person is declared dead, the normal criteria for this determination is generally either the cessation of a heartbeat or of neurological function. Both the heartbeat and brain activity can be recorded quite early in pregnancy.

Is it your contention that a fetus with a functioning brain and heart are not a living person, but a terminal patient with minimal brain or cardiac activity is?

cs89 on January 28, 2009 at 4:42 PM

LIFE, MOTHER FOCA!

chunderroad on January 28, 2009 at 4:42 PM

… based on my view of cells with DNA.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:09 PM

Just a clump of cells with DNA?

Hah! Bet you’re too scared to look.

IrishEi on January 28, 2009 at 4:46 PM

Is it your contention that a fetus with a functioning brain and heart are not a living person, but a terminal patient with minimal brain or cardiac activity is?

My criteria for a human being is a sentient self-aware entity. In fact, it goes further. I believe what makes us special is not our heart or brain, but our soul – the human mind. And souls are not created at the moment of conception, they are made through a lifetime of work, suffering, tribulation, joy and sorrow. And a lifetime of experience. A fetus does not have a soul. Once it is born, that process slowly begins.

But again, we are arguing philosophy which is pointless. The argument should be whether your philosophy should trump mine in the eyes of the law in a free country.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Hah! Bet you’re too scared to look.

IrishEi on January 28, 2009 at 4:46 PM

If your criteria relies on external appearance then you are excluding fetuses that are less than a month.

dedalus on January 28, 2009 at 4:52 PM

A fetus does not have a soul. Once it is born, that process slowly begins.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Is that some sort of Wiccan thing?

IrishEi on January 28, 2009 at 4:53 PM

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:51 PM

A fetus does not have a soul? Wrong again, Skippy.

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you. Before you were born I set you apart…

Jeremiah 1:5

kingsjester on January 28, 2009 at 4:54 PM

dedalus on January 28, 2009 at 4:52 PM

Not at all. I could have linked to a fetus at 8 weeks, or 24 weeks or even at term. It’s a slide show. I recommend you scroll through.

A fetal heartbeat is detectable at 6 weeks, which is contemporaneous with a woman being 2 weeks late. That’s just about the time most women would take a pregnancy test.

IrishEi on January 28, 2009 at 4:58 PM

A fetus does not have a soul. Once it is born, that process slowly begins.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Where do I find this information? Do you have a link, or was it in a book? Ahh, a propagandic source!

allrsn on January 28, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Jeremiah 1:5

There’s two problems with that. One, the obvious, that you are relying on ancient religious scripture that only some people consider as meaning anything. Second, it is widely open to interpretation to mean anything. For me, this passage means that before we are born, Christ has a number for us. But until we live our life and make decisions with free will, we are not souls to be judged. After all, you can’t judge a fetus. It has never done anything. It has no free will, and no soul.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 5:00 PM

A fetal heartbeat is detectable at 6 weeks, which is contemporaneous with a woman being 2 weeks late. That’s just about the time most women would take a pregnancy test.

IrishEi on January 28, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Those seem like reasonable criteria. My point was that they do not include fetuses that are less than one month from conception.

dedalus on January 28, 2009 at 5:01 PM

Remember to email the petition link.

INC on January 28, 2009 at 5:02 PM

Believe what you will. Act according to your beliefs. But in a free country, when there is a debate that hinges on philosophy, especially one where one side quotes religious scripture, arguing that criminal law should be predicated upon one philosophy vs another, is more in keeping with Islamic countries rather than the United States.

But as a libertarian, I shall fight to the death for your right not to have an abortion.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 5:03 PM

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:51 PM

“The soul is not the brain but the human mind” ‘The soul is created by lifes experience’.

Are you confusing ‘soul‘ with ‘personality‘?

allrsn on January 28, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Don’t be too proud of that. The guys who wrote that didn’t extend that philosophy to women or blacks, so I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t extend it to a throbbing mass of protoplasm the size of a fingernail.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:27 PM

He didn’t come up with the concept out of the blue. He based on the philosophy of someone else; someone who had all humankind in mind. I’ll let you figure out who this other person is.

baldilocks on January 28, 2009 at 5:06 PM

I was adopted as a baby. I’ve never met my birthmother, I don’t know if she was raped, molested, or just too young to take care of a baby. But I’m here, living, breathing, with my husband and children, because she made the choice for my life. It wasn’t just a “mass of cells”… it was me.

When I was 18, and not married, I got pregnant. I had the choice and the means to “get things taken care of”, and I made the choice to keep my son. It wasn’t just some “protoplasm”… it was him. A unique human being. Even if I got pregnant later and had ten more boys, none of them would be *him*.

You can rationalize, justify, judge, and name call on all sides, but nothing erases that fact. If you scrape out those cells, that person disappears.

And it shouldn’t be called “pro choice” because nobody I’ve ever talked to who has had an abortion has ever felt like they had any other choice. THAT’S the problem, or at least a big part of it.

Boudica on January 28, 2009 at 5:07 PM

Those seem like reasonable criteria. My point was that they do not include fetuses that are less than one month from conception.

dedalus on January 28, 2009 at 5:01 PM

My point is that abortion is legal for babies that are far more developed than 6 weeks, in fact, perfectly viable babies are born in the sixth month.

Personally, I believe that life begins at conception.

Anyone who has bought a box of condoms knows exactly when life begins.

IrishEi on January 28, 2009 at 5:10 PM

A fetal heartbeat is detectable at 6 weeks, which is contemporaneous with a woman being 2 weeks late. That’s just about the time most women would take a pregnancy test.

IrishEi on January 28, 2009 at 4:58 PM

When I tried to tell a pro-abortionist that I saw my child’s heartbeat on ultrasound seventeen years ago when I was seven weeks pregnant (I miscarried), he wouldn’t believe me at first and that said I had imagined it. I held onto my temper and mentioned that the nurse/technician had pointed out the heartbeat to me. The pro-abortionist ignored what I said and kept asserting that a fetus wasn’t human–”a clump of cells” he said (as if that isn’t what we all are outside of the womb).

These people will assert a woman’s “right” to murder her child beyond all reason. That’s what makes me believe that it is a spiritual battle we’re fighting just as much as it is an earthly one.

baldilocks on January 28, 2009 at 5:17 PM

A fetus does not have a soul. Once it is born, that process slowly begins.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Even if this was true (which it isn’t), you are still destroying innocent human life in a very excruciatingly painful way.

Maxx on January 28, 2009 at 5:19 PM

See? The right is not a bunch of prudes.

These kids are on the right track.

madmonkphotog on January 28, 2009 at 5:21 PM

baldilocks on January 28, 2009 at 5:17 PM

Excellent post as usual. You are exactly right. It is a spiritual battle.

kingsjester on January 28, 2009 at 5:21 PM

My argument is that you should have the right to not engage in abortion if it violates your moral universe. You should have that right. Nobody should force you to do otherwise.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:17 PM

My argument is that you should have the right to not personally participate in enforcement actions against abortionists once abortion is illegal, if it violates your moral universe. You should have that right. Nobody should force you to do otherwise. I think you can agree that that’s a very fair compromise. It’s all about choice!

Matteo on January 28, 2009 at 5:27 PM

Maybe, MAYBE, I could give pro-abortion advocates a teensy bit of slack if we didn’t have the benefit of ultrasound and intrauterine photographs. But how can anyone, even the staunchest atheist, look at those photographs and say it is not a life? That’s why I linked to the photos even though I knew none of them would look–they don’t want to know…just like the pro-abortionist you encountered.

”a clump of cells” he said (as if that isn’t what we all are outside of the womb).

How true!

That’s what makes me believe that it is a spiritual battle we’re fighting just as much as it is an earthly one.

baldilocks on January 28, 2009 at 5:17 PM

Yes, indeed.

IrishEi on January 28, 2009 at 5:33 PM

Anyone who has bought a box of condoms knows exactly when life begins.

IrishEi on January 28, 2009 at 5:10 PM

They certainly know when pregnancy begins. A cell is life, and even when the fetus is just a few cells it is an organism that possesses all of the information it needs to be born.

dedalus on January 28, 2009 at 5:33 PM

It’s all about choiceabortion!

Matteo on January 28, 2009 at 5:27 PM

Call it what it is.

IrishEi on January 28, 2009 at 5:34 PM

I thought conservatives were all about freedom of choice. Freedom to drive big trucks, own guns, worship, and all that jazz. All good. But freedom to choose in this instance – not so good. I guess this is what is called “naunce”.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:00 PM

You are correct. I do not support the freedom to murder. That’s why I’m a conservative and not a libertariananarchist.

Darth Executor on January 28, 2009 at 5:40 PM

IrishEi on January 28, 2009 at 5:33 PM

They don’t say it’s not life. They say it’s not “personhood” which they loosely define based on some arbitrary criteria.

Darth Executor on January 28, 2009 at 5:41 PM

especially one where one side quotes religious scripture,

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 5:03 PM

And which scripture do these guys quote?

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

Darth Executor on January 28, 2009 at 5:43 PM

They don’t say it’s not life. They say it’s not “personhood” which they loosely define based on some arbitrary criteria.

Darth Executor on January 28, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Yeah, I’m guessing it’s something like that “slowly developing soul process” that keep the change talked about.

LOL. Good grief.

(Good link btw. How the heck did you find that?!)

IrishEi on January 28, 2009 at 5:49 PM

You are preaching that a tiny organism is the same as a full blown sentient human being.
keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM

That’s a dark and dangerous path you’re ethics are traveling down.
Life to me, and most conservatives, is a light switch. You are either alive or you are dead. Leftists believe that life is a dimmer switch. Subjectivity in the definition of something that sacred and important is quite scary.

Lebensunwertes Leben, indeed.

warden on January 28, 2009 at 6:22 PM

About a 3rd of hospital are run by the catholic Church; many of these serve the inner cities. The Catholic bishops have already declared that they would close these facilities – close, not sell – if forced to perform abortions.

We know that Obama is extremely pro-abortion but is he really so committed to this liberal sacrament that he would side with the abortion industry at the cost of so many health care facilities?

Rush divisive? He doesn’t come close to the FOCA crowd and their presidential cheer leader.

Laurence on January 28, 2009 at 6:23 PM

My criteria for a human being is a sentient self-aware entity. In fact, it goes further. I believe what makes us special is not our heart or brain, but our soul – the human mind. And souls are not created at the moment of conception, they are made through a lifetime of work, suffering, tribulation, joy and sorrow. And a lifetime of experience. A fetus does not have a soul. Once it is born, that process slowly begins.

But again, we are arguing philosophy which is pointless. The argument should be whether your philosophy should trump mine in the eyes of the law in a free country.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:51 PM

So, let me get this straight – if YOUR philosophy is allowed to trump MINE, it’s a wonderful thing.
But MINE should never, ever, be allowed to trump YOURS???
Oh, and by the way – who the f*** cares what your personal criteria is for a human being – yeah, my philosophy trumps yours, I win, game over.

uncivilized on January 28, 2009 at 6:45 PM

I thought conservatives were all about freedom of choice. Freedom to drive big trucks, own guns, worship, and all that jazz. All good. But freedom to choose in this instance – not so good. I guess this is what is called “naunce”.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:00 PM

You don’t have the freedom to choose to beat your toddler to death.

There isn’t a generic issue of choice here. The debate is over the particular act of abortion.

aikidoka on January 28, 2009 at 6:51 PM

Who’s going to fight to the death for my right to own slaves?

JohnJ on January 28, 2009 at 7:00 PM

…when there is a debate that hinges on philosophy, especially one where one side quotes religious scripture, arguing that criminal law should be predicated upon one philosophy vs another, is more in keeping with Islamic countries rather than the United States.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 5:03 PM

My scripture tells me that murder and theft are wrong, too. Does that mean we shouldn’t have laws against those things?

I was pro-life LONG before I was a Christian. Yes, I find the pro-life position entirely consistent with and somewhat supported by the Bible; but its rightness was apparent to me on strictly humanitarian grounds, quite apart from religious faith. I still find those arguments much less ambiguous (and more universally compelling) than the scriptures.

Reagan came to the same conclusion I did: if we lack clarity as to “human-ness” (as our forebearers lacked clarity as to the human-ness of Africans and Indigenous Americans), we should err on the side of liberality.

The day will come (should the Earth continue another hundred years or so) when people will look back at the practice of abortion the way we today look back at slavery or the Trail of Tears — times a couple-hundred thousand. Those of us who oppose abortion will be seen the way we now see abolitionists (also led by Christians — could that be a coincidence?) People who argued for killing babies because it was economically advantageous, or “for their own good” (because after all they’re not really human like we are) will be viewed the way we, today, view slave-holders. Times a couple-hundred thousand.

By the way, you never did say whether your emphatically stated support for my right not to participate in abortion means that you will oppose FOCA. I’m very interested to know whether you meant what you said, or if that was just meant to placate the proles. After all, if folks on your side of the argument DON’T support a pro-life choice for medical providers, I have to wonder how soon WOMEN will lose their choice — how soon abortion will be chosen FOR them, “for their own good”.

Time for me to head for Church. I’ll try to check in later.

RegularJoe on January 28, 2009 at 7:09 PM

Gives new meaning to Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

Me likey.

powerpro on January 28, 2009 at 7:10 PM

Just on the offhand chance that “keep the change” is being sincere, the problem is that people disagree about whether there is a baby involved. Most people actually agree that anyone should be free to do whatever they want as long as they are not hurting someone else. But arguing for abortion as a matter of “choice” is as fruitless (no pun intended) as arguing for slavery as a matter of “choice”. The problem is actually very similar. With slavery, the question is whether or not the person in question is entitled to certain basic rights and liberties. With abortion, the question is the same. Of course, if you’ve already reached the conclusion that there is no hurt involved, then you would support the freedom of people to engage in that action if they choose. However, if you believe there is a hurt to someone involved, or even if you’re just not sure, then you’re going to want to restrain people from doing something that would hurt someone else.

Of course, the reason why we’re having this ridiculous debate is because the Supreme Court decided they would make up a right to abortion and proclaim that the Constitution mandates it, and no, you’re not allowed to know where the clause is. The Supreme Court knows where it is and we just have to take their word for it. Whenever the Supreme Court makes decisions like this, they just create rifts between people.

JohnJ on January 28, 2009 at 7:14 PM

Ed,

Just ordered a black small shirt. I’m wearing it to Mass first chance I get. I’m itchin for stares from those ‘cafeteria’ Catholics.

A throwing the moneychangers out of the Temple moment.

Sapwolf on January 28, 2009 at 7:40 PM

Just because you call it murder, doesn’t make it so. But you want your view to become law to overrule all other views. That is not in keeping with the ideals of conservatism.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:11 PM

Correct. Just because he calls it murder doesn’t make it so. It is so because it is self-evident murder, as in duh!

Watch “Silent Scream” ALL of it on YouTube, and then come back here and tell us it isn’t murder.

You have a right to life. We conservatives believe in a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberals don’t.

Sapwolf on January 28, 2009 at 7:46 PM

The solution therefore is for you to refrain from abortion, and me to go the other way. Arguing about abortion is pointless because we are arguing philosophy.

The point that does need arguing is whether my view or your view should supercede the rights of the other by becoming law. My argument is that you should have the right to not engage in abortion if it violates your moral universe. You should have that right. Nobody should force you to do otherwise. That is the libertarian view. However, you don’t extend to others the same respect. You want your views to become law and to apply to everybody else.

There’s the rub.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Wrong.

No you are not arguing philosophy, just life vs. murder for convenience.

The question is: What right are you talking about? The right to murder an unborn child?

Your non-existent right does NOT supersede the right to life of the unborn child.

I’m gonna assume you are a man or boy.

Next question: Did you ever counsel a woman you impregnated to get an abortion?

You don’t have to answer it, but you sound like an apologist for the pro-abortion movement by totally ignoring the fact that an unborn baby is a human being. This has been confirmed now by science, not just religion.

Even true libertarians are pro-life because it is a civil rights issue.

Sapwolf on January 28, 2009 at 7:55 PM

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Thanks for the answer.

There is a danger in your criteria for human being as a “sentient self-aware entity,” however. Does this include a fetus which responds to pain? A preemie who was born early, lives outside the womb but doesn’t yet know how to suckle? A toddler? Mentally challenged adolescent? Etc.

Bottom line, I view a fetus as an unborn human being. This is based on my faith, my personal experiences, and my professional experiences. You apparently do not, and your perspective is also based on your worldview.

Society as a whole needs boundaries to allow human freedom within the limits of “unacceptable” behavior, which every culture has examples of. The rub is in agreeing on a value framework foundation (which all cultures also have) and what the implications are for that society.

cs89 on January 28, 2009 at 8:40 PM

I can just hear them chanting as they march across campus–

Nobama! Barakah!
Fight the FOCA suckah!

That’ll get the lefties’ panties in a bunch.

smellthecoffee on January 28, 2009 at 8:53 PM

About time conservatives got some street cred campaigns going.

ex-Democrat on January 28, 2009 at 9:27 PM

Standing by for thuja to starting talking about how a fetus is not a baby in 5..4…3…

kingsjester on January 28, 2009 at 3:39 PM

As the Wikipedia says, “Oil of thuja contains the terpene thujone which has been studied for its GABA receptor antagonistic, with potentially lethal properties.” Thujas need the thujone to fend off deer and Engrailed and Juniper Pug caterpillars. Killing is a basic function of life even for trees that look like cedars.

thuja on January 28, 2009 at 9:38 PM

@kirkil of 4:31PM
Thank you so much for pointing out the fact that an unborn baby has a heart beat within the first month of conception.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_12.asp#When%20does%20the%20heart%20begin%20to%20beat?

Thanks to IrishEi as well for the link that shows the development of the foetus in such graphic detail. This link says that by the 12th week, doctors should be able to detect the heartbeat.

If any one watched the movie Marley and Me, John Grogan(played by Owen Wilson) takes his wife(played by Jennifer Anniston for a medical check up in the 9th/10th week of her pregnancy, only to be told by the doctor that the baby has lost its heartbeat and sometimes “it happens”. The movie is based on the true life experience of the Grogans.

It is very interesting to note that “KeepTheChange” keeps arguing that an unborn baby is a mere group of cells and that it is mere philosophy to say that it represents a life – well, it isnt philosohpy. It is a fricking FACT – when you have a baby with a heartbeat within the first 12 weeks of conception, what do you call it ? An unborn baby.

Within 20 weeks the baby has a fully formed circulatory system, heart and its other vital organs already in development. Roe v Wade allows a woman to abort UNTIL it becomes viable .i.e. 28th week typically.

Are we still talking about a “bunch of cells” ?

Even more disingenuous is the argument that a 5 month old baby does not have a “soul”. Huh? I am Hindu and I do believe in the concept of a soul, but give me a fricking break !

Gandhi clearly believed that foetal abortion was a crime – it goes beyond sinning for him.
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/art-abort-badkarma.html
I would bet a million dollars that MLK had the same view – cannot confirm this. Ditto Dalai Lama or any practising Buddhist.

If “personhood” is the criteria to justifying abortion, then why should killing a five month or five day old child be considered a crime ? After all an infant has no sense of self, personhood etc… Is it still life to the pro-choicers ?

For the longest time, i have given the benefit of doubt to those people who claimed that we couldnt conclusively prove that a foetus was life. But even THEN, no one had a satisfactory answer to the question ” when does life begin ?” – and if you dont know the answer to that question, why WOULD YOU NOT take the side of caution ? – abundant caution.

For a few people,abundant caution only means taking the oath of office of POTUS twice.

Abortion is clearly a grave and serious crime. Not because I philosophize about it, but because of the medical facts that hit you like a ton of bricks.

And yet look at how pro-choice people have drummed it into people’s heads that an unborn foetus is only a bunch of cells.

In the last election cycle, Ron Paul talked about the rights of an unborn child – he used this a stand to differentiate himself from traditional libertarians even though he sides with them on almost EVERY OTHER ISSUE.

Here’s a better slogan that would really hit at pro-choicers and make them sit up and think – What would Gandhi do ? What about MLK? What about a Buddhist like Dalai Lama – what would he do?

Of course please dont ask the question “what would Jesus do?” – that only gives them a choice to say how a “secular” debate has been made “religious”.

If Obama pushes for FOCA inspite of opposition from Catholic organizations and forces them to provide abortion services, it will show us what i suspected about him all along – an abortion extremist and left wing idealogue.

But given the fact that this moron would allow a born alive infant to die, would anyone be surprised if he signed FOCA into law ?

The Orwellian nature of the left – “free employee choice act”, “freedom of choice act” – it is truly revealing.

nagee76 on January 28, 2009 at 10:27 PM

So you are an advocate of anarchy? EVERY law on the books is based on someones view of right and wrong.

Next.

CDeb on January 28, 2009 at 4:21 PM

THANK YOU!

inviolet on January 28, 2009 at 10:52 PM

Very creative. I’ve been calling extreme abortion supporters “FoCKers” (Freedom of Choice Kooks) for years but “WTF” is a much more mainstream expression than “Kook”. I hope this has legs.

On the other hand, it is worth noting that, four weeks into the 111th Congress, FOCA has still not been introduced, despite the invitation by Obama that it would be the first legislation he would sign. Are the FoCKers savoring the moment or do they just know that this is radioactive? You know, Fear of Success can be cured.

JackOfClubs on January 29, 2009 at 3:29 PM

Yes, of course. Freedom for me but not for thee – based on my view of cells with DNA. My point exactly. You can’t have it both ways. Either champion individual freedom, or champion laws based on theocratic ideals.

You can argue for or against abortion from the perspective of individual freedom. If you grant human rights to a fetus, you’ll be against abortion. If you don’t grant human rights until birth, or viability, you’ll be for abortion. Both come from a human rights perspective. There’s no easy answer: you have two human organisms inhabiting the same body.

Mark Jaquith on January 29, 2009 at 5:10 PM