Do you want to see a 21st-century Inquisition? Watch the Ashcroft confirmation hearings. Indeed, President Bush brought to the front burner another steadfast American willing to be singed over his beliefs, primarily on abortion, America’s most contentious issue. And just as well. With the Slick Willie scandals now relegated to the mass pardons (and sweet book deals), we need not compromise our moral intellect by dismissing abortion as a "private" matter–just as we ultimately resolved to deal with the fallacy of tobacco and the "privacy" of one’s lungs. We took the helm in slamming the once-untouchable sultans of smoke; we must once again regain our moral stewardship and show the world that abortion also is more than just a "privacy" issue.
Note the political dirt sullying the confirmation debate. Sen. Ted Kennedy and his abortion compatriots are grilling Ashcroft mercilessly and insidiously. The senator paraded Americans who were allegedly victims of Ashcroft’s racism–except that those witnesses denied any racist behavior on Ashcroft’s part!
Abortion sling-fests that slam principled individuals–and mislead America–are hardly limited to the Senate chambers in the other Washington. A Seattle university recently sported an abortion forum, hosted by its Women’s Action Coalition (WAC). Reported as a "balanced" debate, one is baffled considering the hoops it made the pro-life side jump through just to participate and that WAC is avowedly pro-abortion.
Ultimately, two speakers flanked each side of the university panel. The pro-life side, however, did not appear to have many supporters in the audience, but such was expected in the given milieu. But more incredible were the illogical–and alarmingly untrue–claims staked out by the pro-abortion duo. Indeed, notwithstanding an official acknowledgement by a former NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) official that "lying" was part of the modus operandi–including one canard that "5,000 deaths per year were attributed to back-alley abortions" in the pre-Roe v. Wade era–the pro-abortion side insidiously re-cited this "5,000 deaths" lie in depicting the consequence of a renewed ban.
The pro-abortion side at that WAC farce then asserted that the "state has no right to regulate or interfere with an individual’s body." When yours truly pointed out that this "individual" mentality would mean the state then also has no right to restrict teens from tobacco and alcohol, the abortion side contented: "Your analogy involves ‘risk factors,’ whereas abortion is a totally safe procedure."
But hey, abortion is hardly a "totally safe procedure." Compelling research screams of ominous links between abortion and breast cancer–a minimum 30 percent risk-increase factor, resulting in 30,000 deaths attributed to abortions every year in the United States. But instead of a factual rebuttal, the abortion side simplistically dismissed all such data by citing conclusions of the Alan Guttmacer Institute, the nation’s leading champion of abortions in America–something analogous to the Tobacco Institute debunking all research linking cigarettes to cancer, coronary disease and impotence.
Impotent is the pro-abortion side’s selective reliance on "Supreme Court" decisions. Constantly chanting Roe v. Wade, they are strategically silent over the high court’s decision in 1999 that effectively permitted scientists to assert that "abortion is the single-most avoidable risk factor in acquiring breast cancer."
One pro-choicer then argued, "The church did not outlaw abortion until the 1800s." Even the inherent logic here is frightening: women’s rights were only legislated in the 1900s; does this mean that such rights are unwarranted? If abortion is virtuous because it was not condemned until the 1800s, then slavery must also be virtuous because we OK’d it until the 1800s.
This is no Freudian slip given that African-American women comprise just 6 percent of our population, yet account for 34 percent of the abortion industry’s lucrative business. Pretty consistent with Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s "eugenics" philosophy, calling for the elimination of the "weaker species!" Similarly, the abortion enterprise is aware that college-aged women (20- to 24-year-olds) represent their largest clientele. And that some aborted fetuses are bartered by abortion "brokers" to pharmaceutical companies–and university labs–for up to $4,800 per fetus! As ABC’s "20/20" recently reported, these brokers even sport glossy brochures, detailed "parts lists," and toll-free numbers.
At least 16 studies point out the alarming rate of "substance abuse" among women who have an abortion. But abortion defenders need not do any weed–the surrender of their intellect is already apparent: one of them asked how a pro-lifer could be against killing an early fetus "which is only a cell" and "yet support cancer treatment that kills body cells." Do cancer cells have brain waves? Are fetus cells natural-born killers, like their mature cancer siblings? Another choicer similarly insisted, "Congress has no business regulating a women’s life since Congress is only 15 percent female!" OK. So until we get a 50/50 balance, let’s scrap all our "equal protection" laws for women.
One pro-abortion panelist actually pronounced that post-abortion trauma was "OK" and "normal" and equated such with a routine divorce involving a child. So much for the "compassionate" attributes of the pro-choicers! And again confirming the reckless attitude of the left, that speaker went on to advise that when contemplating an abortion, "Your first reaction is the best reaction." First reaction? Suicide? Shoot your boyfriend?
As for the rest of us, since some fetuses are traded to universities, many taking a biology or medical course at several schools could be experimenting with a friend’s fetus. Unwitting, 21st-century Frankensteins… Ugh!
This article was imported from The Falcon’s Records
If you find an error, mistake, or omission due to the import process, please contact us.
Original Metadata about the article can be found below
Title: Abortion-rights advocates rely on poor logic | Author: Val Studer-gomes | Section: Opinions | Published Date: 2001-01-31 | Internal ID: 1778