Two links that deserve wider circulation:
I don't usually write on this topic, yet I don't think it is because I don't care. Mostly, I am cautious because I find people do not hear clearly what I say (or write). Or similarly, they have their Key Point that goes off whenever someone comes near the subject in their presence, setting off a predictable chain reaction off other people reciting their Key Point in response.
I am pro-life, and am happy enough with the bright line being drawn at conception, but I don't find I am as deeply distressed as other prolife folks at the idea of drawing the line at implantation, or brainwave, or heartbeat. After that I sound about as declarative as any stricter prolifer.
I have operated for years on the general division that 20% of Americans oppose all or nearly all abortions, 20% consider any barrier to abortion a threat to civilisation, and the remaining 60% are in support of some restrictions, greater or lesser. The current numbers are a bit different, according to Gallup, and quoted in this National Review article. There is the 21% that oppose all abortions, but 38% that oppose nearly all - more than is commonly reported, I think. Those who believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances now number 26% - also more than I had thought. Between that 38% and 26%, then, there are people who identify as prolife who would allow some abortion, while some who identify as prochoice would prefer some restrictions. Most surprising to me was that about 26% - nearly all of the remainder between the two (statistical) extremes - thought abortion should be illegal after the first trimester.
I know that number is under-reported, whatever else is.
The NRO link has more discussion, plus a link to NYC41, a site which reports on NYC abortion statistics zipcode by zipcode. The "41" is included in the name because 41% of all pregnancies in NYC are aborted.
There is an additional point which comes up in recent political discussions - Planned Parenthood. There is a general impression on the prochoice side, which they try to convey to the general public, that Planned Parenthood is mostly an information and contraception organisation that does some abortions and refers out for others, but is persecuted by prolife and other conservative groups who don't want people to even have basic information. Let me mention an example of this. Planned Parenthood claims that abortions are only 3% of their services. They arrive at this number by counting every contact as equal. If you come in for a condom, or a pregnancy test, or an abortion, it is all counted the same. Left out of the calculation is the fact that they make much more money from the last-named service than the others - over half their budget. Which is more than 3% isn't it? Imagine a car dealership that made 90% of its money from auto sales, 10% from parts, claiming that because 50% of their customers came in for parts, that was "half their business." Faith magazine has an article about PP and similar PR accounting and reporting tricks. The research looks pretty solid, and it's pretty damning.
They are essentially not an honest organisation. For me, that's case closed.
3 comments:
PP has shown it's real face to the country with the Susan Komen brouhaha.
They are pro-choice, they say, but apparently only if your choice agrees with their choice. And, they are vicious about it.
And as you said, dishonest about it, too.
Acch - I had forgotten about the Susan Komen angle. Thanks.
What I think is interesting is that they find it necessary to pretend that abortion is less of their business than it is. They seem to have an excellent grasp of public opinion on that touchy subject, even though they speak as though they firmly believed that prolifers were a tiny radical fringe.
Post a Comment