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.
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
June 8, 2010 at 11:09 am
Lots of contraceptive devices prevent the young person from attaching herself to the uterine wall and she starves to death.
LikeLike
June 8, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Ok, John. I gotta ask – if you think procreating is just to make babies, then how many times have you procreated over the years? Five times???
LikeLike
June 8, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Sexual intercourse is not only to make babies even though that is its primary purpose. It’s also for mutual enjoyment. Neither purpose should be ignored. In other words, someone should not engage in it if her sole purpose is to conceive, and another should not engage in it if his sole purpose is joy. Me? not too many pro-creations but lots of joy.
LikeLike
June 8, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Pat, he must have used this prayer:
*******************
Can you identify this prayer?
Father, send Your Holy Spirit into our hearts.
Place within us love that truly gives, tenderness that truly unites,
Self-offering that tells the truth
And does not deceive,
Forgiveness that truly receives,
Loving physical union that welcomes.
Open our hearts to you, to each other
And to the goodness of Your will.
Cover our poverty in the richness
Of Your mercy and forgiveness.
Clothe us in our true dignity
And take to Yourself our shared aspirations,
For Your glory, forever and ever.
Mary, our Mother, intercede for us.
This is a prayer from The Catholic Truth Society of London’s book, Prayer Book for Spouses. It is to be recited by couples before having sex. It was included in “Praying for Sex” by author Luis Granados, in the March/April 2010 issue of The Humanist (pp. 22-25). Granados comments, “It’s too easy to come up with jokes about this (like, whatever happened to a simple “Oh, God!”?). What’s more interesting is the light it sheds on Christian totalitarianism, which seeks once again to impose itself on one of the unholier joys of life.”
Interesting that JD assigns to the woman the sinful intent to have sex solely to conceive and to the man the sinful intent to have sex solely to enjoy. It fits in with the misogynism of the Catholic Church treated in in Professor Ranke-Heineman’s “Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven.” But then, I’m a recovering Catholic, so maybe I”m just grinding an axe…
LikeLike
June 9, 2010 at 6:55 am
But, John, my friend, I’m still confused. Yes, sex is for mutual enjoyment but did I not understand correctly that you do not believe in contraception? So, if that’s true that means when you have/had sex you didnt use protection. And you “only” had five kids?
LikeLike
June 9, 2010 at 7:07 am
Where do you get this stuff, CG? Honestly, what is your background, educationally, socially, etc.? I picture you in some kind of rustic house in Vermont with a beard and your sociology degree is hanging on the wall.
LikeLike
June 9, 2010 at 8:28 am
One of us wanted to stop at three — I won’t say which one — but we’re practicing Catholics. What the cynics call “Vatican roulette” worked fine for us.
LikeLike
June 9, 2010 at 8:51 am
If Dunkle is referring to Rhythm method,
it is well known that this is not effective.
Pat, he still did not answer your question.
Does Dunkle want to dissallow women contraception?
Why can’t he just answer a question?
LikeLike
June 9, 2010 at 11:32 am
Womano a mano, Lisa. Take it or leave it: jdmd@ptd.net
LikeLike
June 13, 2010 at 11:27 am
What does that mean?
LikeLike
June 9, 2010 at 11:55 am
Pat, I think I’ve told you all that before, and it hasn’t really made a difference.
Lisa M, you are aware of course that there is a name for couples who use the rhythm method for contraception: “parents.”
After the first seven kids, my parents used it thereafter. It only failed them four times in seven and a half years.
So don’t go knocking it!!!!!
Aborticentrism being what it is, John D. cannot afford to do anything but oppose any form of contraception. Why?
As is common in many other things, the less a person has, the more he will hold onto what remains. One example is the “South shall rise again” mentality of our own Southerners. The poverty and degradation they experienced as a result of the loss of the Civil War left them with nothing but their honor.
You will find this true of most of today’s poor, both North and South: When you don’t have two nickels to your name and The Man can knock you down any time he wants, you find something to cling to– your family name, your blackness, your religion, your manhood– because if you can’t hold onto that, then you truly are NOTHING. And since it’s a mental construct more than anything else, it’s a cheap life preserver.
With aborticentrism (google it and learn about it), the pyschological poverty of the so-called “pro-lifer” compels him to not give an inch on contaception, because if he yields on that, it’s the equivalent of the Georgia cracker compromising his sense of honor or manhood.
Don’t expect John D. to make himself look bad to the rest of his ilk. From his perspective, it would be both foolish and fatal.
LikeLike
June 10, 2010 at 8:52 am
I know that John does not answer the questions sometimes. For that matter, the same goes for CG as well and maybe others. But in John’s case, I do want to say that at least he is on this public blog, defending (to some extent) his case. At least he’s got the guts to do that…
LikeLike
June 11, 2010 at 5:49 am
Pat, I’m looking for where you say that the confusion of some comments makes response difficult — as usual you said it much better than I could. But I can’t find it. That’s the only time I don’t answer questions.
As far as my having guts, you know better than that.
LikeLike
June 11, 2010 at 6:35 am
No, John, I’m just saying that i dont think it’s very constructive when someone comes onto this blog and just starts peppering you with questions. I like just asking maybe one question at a time to give the responder the chance to think and breathe, versus having to answer every friggin question…..
LikeLike
June 11, 2010 at 9:51 am
Yeah! I knew you could say it better than I. This time I won’t lose it and will send it to anyone who peppers me with questions. If you want to debate, I concede. I stink at debating.
LikeLike
June 13, 2010 at 11:32 am
It’s not a debate to “win.”
it is to understand our fellow Americans so we can under our governance come to conclusions.
A question is not a slap. You misunderstand the point of dialogue.
So many easy questions remain.
Is one cell a baby?
It is or it isn’t. Baby is a well defined term as is one cell.
LikeLike
June 13, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Finally, a question: “Is one cell a baby?” It depends on the context. If one is dividing the human race into adults and babies, a one-cell human being is a baby. Usually, though, people use the word “baby” to name a young individual who’s wanted. To avoid having “pro-choicers” jump all over me, therefore, I call someone at the start of her life, before she becomes two cells and even if nobody wants her, a young person.
LikeLike
June 13, 2010 at 4:44 pm
“Is one cell a baby?” The answer you get depends on whom you ask.
For a so-called “pro-lifer,” the answer invariably indicates his or her desire to win over the uncommitted, using advertising techniques to arouse fear, guilt, passion, whatever. John Dunkle’s nomenclature is a variant of the “unborn human” and “innocent angel” terminology so fully identified with that crowd. Some of his ilk will even assert that an egg or a sperm is a potential baby, if not a baby of some other sort.
For the average “pro-choicer” the answer is usually “no,” which avoids the difficulty of having to subsequently cope with “killilng a baby” if he or she chooses to have an abortion.
For a pregnant woman, she has the right to answer, “yes,” if she so chooses– even if scientific knowledge proves that it is not. She has the right to make it otherwise, because she is the only person in charge of her pregnancy. And if she changes her mind, her new decision is equally valid.
LikeLike
June 14, 2010 at 4:24 am
#9 for Elana — I had told Lisa, Elana, that I would no longer talk to her publicly, only privately by email, because, like Charles and Todd, for whatever reason, I could not understand her on this blog. I never heard from Todd, but Charles and I talk regularly now and we talk clearly and get along fine. I changed my mind with Lisa because she started making sense right here. (As for “womano a mano,” that’s just me trying to be clever, as so many of you have commented on.)
LikeLike