The other day I wrote about how a reporter for Fox News let Governor Mitt Romney off the hook when Romney suggested that he is “pro-life.” I expressed my puzzlement that the reporter did not ask the obvious follow up question which would have flushed out exactly what “pro-life” meant. I argued that it was one thing to say you’re “pro-life,” but it’s another thing to say that, as President, you are going to fight to make abortion illegal in this country again.
Well, this duplicity works on the pro-choice side as well.
First of all, like Mitt Romney (who used to be pro-choice), there are many politicians who have flipped from the pro-life side to the pro-choice side. I’ll never forget years ago, when the Reverend Jesse Jackson indicated his interest in securing the Democratic Party’s nomination for President. Until that point, Jackson had been openly pro-life. But he could read the tea leaves and he knew that the Democratic Party activists, i.e., the ones who would name the nominee, were overwhelmingly pro-choice. So, Jackson simply switched his position. There are others who did the same. Congressman Edward Markey of Massachusetts once got the notion of being a U.S. Senator from that state. Markey, a strong Catholic, had voted pro-life for many years and it served him well in his heavily Catholic district. However, when he started to focus on a statewide seat and looked at the polls, he knew he had to switch to pro-choice. He did, but still didn’t get the nomination. Interestingly, he remained in Congress and voted pro-choice from then on with no damage to his office. Then, there was Senator Edward Kennedy who, in the early days, argued that “life begins at conception.” Ultimately, however, he made the slow switch over to the pro-choice position.
But what does it mean to be pro-choice? Here’s where you have to be careful. There are a number of politicians who say they are pro-choice, but that just means that they would not make abortion illegal in this country. Ultimately, however, his or her constituents might discover that their Member of Congress actually supports parental consent laws, 24 hour waiting periods, informed consent laws and other proposals that restrict access to abortion services. Sorry, folks, I forgot to tell you about that one!
So, when some politician gets up and says they are pro-life or pro-choice, don’t let them off the hook! Ask the follow up questions, just like the reporters do at the White House press conferences. Delve into their feelings about the issue. After all, chances are very high that that politician will never get a chance to vote on the legalization of abortion, but they will be voting on the ancillary issues, on proposals that practically make the right to abortion null and void.

June 4, 2010 at 7:49 am
Abortion is too complicated a topic.
Politicians from the above post service their own agendas or change there opinion sincerely without facts.
Are doctors stupid?
No?
Why do 95% of Board Certified OBGyns say they are agreeable to abortion being legal. Why are not the experts asked.
A lot of those Doctors are
conservative and think abortion is OK, and up to the women.
They routinely dispense the abortion pill in their offices.
If you trust your doctor with your life, might you trust their expert opinion on abortion?
Plus there are so many circumstances around abortion one does not have a clue what some says/means when they are prolife. As most would allow an abortion under a lot of circumstances.
Abortion is a procedure that reporters know little about – and a good Abortion follow up question and answer. Will never happen.
The justices, one rarely can know except from their general record of decisions if they had been judges.
Woman must be trusted to make decisions about abortion for themselves.
No alternative.
This blog as I read it reveals over and over prolife misogyny, and a disregard for women to make good choices dot their body.
LikeLike
June 4, 2010 at 8:58 am
If someone had told me a kayhaitchr could write about the issue clearly and forcefully, I would not have believed him. Then I discovered Pat Richards.
LikeLike
June 5, 2010 at 8:31 am
John,
I must be dumb, I cannot understand most what you say.
Are you writing in a riddle format?
LikeLike
June 4, 2010 at 10:53 am
I got to agree with Todd!!! The reporters often don’t research anything that will be asked on interviews and usually goes with the flow of the conversation, and when something like what Romney said gets the report off guard he just goes to the next comfortable question for him…
I agree that women should have the right to decide what is the best option for her at that particular moment, but not to do that a habit of getting pregnant just because there is an “easy” option out there…
LikeLike
June 5, 2010 at 8:28 am
Abortion choice,
Thank you for the accolade if I do understand.
However, one cannot constrain a women, even if it is easy.
Abortion is her choice still. The alternative is that you legislate away the self determination of women to make abortion choices for themselves.
Most women make good abortion decisions for their own body.
Who are we as non experts to decide that?
Women talk to doctors and counselors before an abortion.
They sign an Abortion informed consent form.
Abortion is > 10 x safer then pregnancy.
Not trying to be antagonistic –
By what mechanism do you propose to legislate what a women can do to her own body?
Catholic doctrine dissallows contraception. Shall we let the > 1,000,000,000 tell women what to do?
LikeLike
June 4, 2010 at 10:54 am
Come on abortion is a horrible thing to do…
LikeLike
June 5, 2010 at 8:36 am
Abortion is legal Mary.
Blogging is about discussing abortion, not indoctrinated dogma.
Support your position on abortion.
Why comment on abortion otherwise?
No one cares that some generic name thinks it is wrong (or right) without real opinion on abortion.
Why don’t you give it another try?
LikeLike
June 4, 2010 at 10:56 am
who are we to condemn somebody else decision…
ABORTION ALWAYS!!!
I got a girlfriend pregnant and if wasn’t for the option of her having an abortion i would have made the biggest mistake in my life…
LikeLike
June 4, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Todd: If you research aborticentrism, you will see how the so-called “pro-lifers” re-packaged it as a tool to make themselves feel better about their own death– the unaddressed issue in the whole debate is how they have been so successful for so long in distracting so many.
Mary: Ted Bundy suffered a horrible fate, being born to face life on his own. Because he was neither nurtured as a child nor aborted as a fetus, more than 31 women were killed.
LikeLike
June 5, 2010 at 9:41 am
Abortion shall always be available.
Abortion is legal and available.
John I cannot understand you.
LikeLike
June 5, 2010 at 12:17 pm
I’m John Dunkle. John is somebody else. So, I guess the only one above who is referring to me is Todd in #2. The confusion there, Todd, stems from the fact that I use the word “kayhaitcher” for “killer’s helper.” A killer’s helper is anyone who wants to keep abortion legal. And Pat Richards is the only kayhaitcher I know of who is able to write clearly, calmly, and forcefully on the topic of abortion. And I had thought I would never find anyone who could do that. Everybody else sounds like Reandra here; you know, it’s legal, go away, you’re stupid, etc.
LikeLike
June 6, 2010 at 9:38 am
Thanks for the new abortion vocabulary word.
I have yet to find a prolifer who speaks to Abortion in the way you describe Pat Richards.
Your own use of inflamatory, difficult to understand, and lack of cohesive thoughts are a perfect example.
It seems like you may be a smart person but have accomplished nothing.
Why not donate your time, energy, funds to helping children dying of poverty in your own community?
You could actually have a positive impact compared to what appears as nothing you have acheived in Abortion.
Almost all Americans agree that abortion is OK in some circumstnce. You have 0% chance of changing all those
minds as do I .
But I help with food, mentoring, schooling in my community. That makes a difference.
Why not make a positive difference?
LikeLike
June 6, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Todd, an aborticentric cannot engage in the activities you suggest because he doesn’t have the energy to do so. The underlying motivation for his self-described “pro-life” stance is that he has not yet developed a mechanism to deal with his knowledge of his own mortality.
People who are unable to develop a way of coping with it would be unable to function. (Read Ernest Becker, “Denial of Death.”) Most of us use religion, philosophy or despair. The so-called “pro-lifer” tries to use heroism in the belief that if people see him as a hero he will transcend death by living on in their memory. He uses the fetus as a symbol for himself, abortion as a symbol for death. Because this allegorical struggle is so important to him, he simply does not have the energy or perspective to care for the children he claims to have “rescued.”
So, your suggestions fall on deaf ears for the most part.
LikeLike
June 5, 2010 at 2:07 pm
I think what always bothers me is that people on both sides of the issue generally just speak in absolutes, as if abortion is just black and white. I’m as pro-choice as they come, but have issues with very late term abortions or sleazeball clinics that rip off women. Then there are the pro-lifers who do not support birth control. I could go on and on. The bumper stickers just dont capture it all.
LikeLike
June 5, 2010 at 6:07 pm
The reason so-called “pro-llifers” speak in absolutes is aborticentrism; the reason many “pro-choicers” speak in absolutes is they don’t understand what lies behind their opponents’ behavior and hence are unable to think and speak with the flexibility necessary for strategic success.
LikeLike
June 6, 2010 at 9:07 am
I think that’s right, CG. We just take our positions and never even think about our opponent’s. Most people would certainly never give their opponents any credence at all. We are just so locked into our positions in this country, there are no real conversations going on (except on this blog)…
LikeLike
June 6, 2010 at 9:48 am
Agreed on Abortion conversations.
Am I wrong though?
Abortion discussion here from my perspective appears a great disparity between people “pro abotion ” trying and asking to understand- while anti abortion people just never reply coherently.
I see most people agreeable to Abortion as I read these threads understand it is not a dichotomous topic. Abortion has a multitude of gradient beleif systems.
Pro lifers as I think CG suggests, cannot reconcile this implicit logical quandary about abortion in their mind:
Abortion they demonize and want to be rid of this very real world issue, however, they cannot reconcile how obviously correct the decision of Abortion is in thousands of
instances. The dissonance they experience is too great for an inflexable mind.
LikeLike
June 6, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Or like Todd in #8 and #11
LikeLike
June 7, 2010 at 6:33 am
On Abortion you make no sense whatsoever.
Any position I take I will support. You on the otherhand have no coherence to thought and are not understandable.
Is there not a gradient of thought on abortion?
Do prolifers tend to dissapear when asked the right questions?
This site reveals a lack of prolife support of position on abortion.
Are you not at the fringe of anti abortion beleif systems?
Are you persuadable by fact?
Have not seen it. I am. Quite easily.
Happy to be shown otherwise.
LikeLike
June 7, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Todd, the so-called “pro-lifers” can’t afford to yield an inch on the abortion issue. Think of a man hanging by his fingers from a cliff. To relax the muscles of just his one little finger might cause him to fall to his death.
The so-called “pro-life” movement is largely composed of people whose issue with their own mortality is so great that they are trying to make themselves heroes by portraying the fetus as a being worth of rescue. This is their grip on the cliff. To yield just one point would be to risk yielding all points, and then, their grip totally loosened, they would fall into the abyss of despair. They simply cannot afford to be anything less than absolutely rigid.
LikeLike
June 7, 2010 at 6:45 am
Todd, talking in public ain’t yo thang. Contact me privately, jdmd@ptd.net, and I’ll bet we can have a fruitful discussion. Charles is another who is much better with email, and he and I have been talking a long time now that way.
LikeLike
June 7, 2010 at 3:35 pm
I think you’re right, John. Like CG, who I love, sometimes I dont know what Todd is saying. And sometimes it’s confusing when one poses ten different questions in one post. Ask one question, then let the person answer the damn thing. Don’t try to win arguments by filling up the page with random comments and we’ll have a much more fruitful “conversation.” And, good for you and CG, John, for having a private conversation. That’s very cool.
LikeLike
June 7, 2010 at 11:49 pm
Simple examples refuting Dunkle’s statement. CG seemed to get it.
I have only seen Dunkle dodge, evade, Questions. He reveasl his cowardly misogyny towaard women.
He reveals indoctrinated Dogma – an inflexable brain.
Not so hard to understand his absense of intellect, with cryptic notes, asking for private correspondence? From a fringe person like him – forget it.
John, go ahead and lay out how abortion should be treated by law in America. Everything I have read of yours lacks integrity of thought.
LikeLike
June 8, 2010 at 6:59 am
Todd, you have to be careful not to let your anger drive you the way the so-called “pro-lifers” let their fear drive them. It gets in the way of your message. I have that problem myself sometimes.
Study aborticentrism to get a more thorough understanding of their limitations. When you understand how needy they are, you’ll have enough compassion for them to argue your points with less passion and more clarity.
LikeLike
June 7, 2010 at 6:08 pm
I’m getting to the point that I’m even going to tell my wife that I love you.
LikeLike
June 8, 2010 at 6:11 am
John,
what are you talikng about?
Todd makes perfect sense. You are impossible to understand.
Why do you beleive I cannot control my body and have an abortion? Did I read somewhere in this blog that you would even vote against birth control because it some times causes an abortion?
LikeLike
June 8, 2010 at 7:01 am
Only five children, John, and you’re a self-proclaimed “pro-lifer?” I don’t mean to delve into your personal life, but surely your colleagues don’t know contraception might have been involved? That could ruin your reputation with them….
LikeLike
June 8, 2010 at 7:18 am
Folks, you are almost making me feel sorry for John with the constant slapping him around. Frankly, whenever anyone sends me a post, an email, etc. with lots of opinion and several questions, I often just blank it all out instead of trying to answer everything. Also, I give John credit for even being on this blog. He is the only consistent pro-lifer on it. Indeed, John, you need to recruit some more of your folks!
LikeLike
June 8, 2010 at 10:52 am
Lisa, I’ll skip the fluff and get to your last sentence. I would vote against contraception not only because thousands of people are killed that way but also because the practice itself demeans the parties involved. Births should be spaced through control, not through indulgence.
Pat, you know I enjoy the attention.
LikeLike
June 8, 2010 at 11:04 am
I know you enjoy the attention, John!
How are “thousands of people” killed through contraception? What am I missing?
LikeLike