Bam. The column is called “It’s been a tough week for pro-choicers.” Only gonna get harder. Think about it: Science just won’t conceal those pesky babies in the womb. Women writers fail to fall in line with feminist mantras. Laws being passed that recognise fetal pain.
Convincing people that a pregnancy does not involve two people when any two-year-old can see it does is tough work. It must be hard to be on the wrong side of history.
by 
Great article, love the concluding statement by Naomi Wolf, she really does nail it.
As they say, the truth will win out in the end.
This article gives me warm and fuzzy hope. The current arguments are failing, but when I remember articles like this one from Peter Singer http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/peter-singer-abortion-the-dividing-lines/story-e6frfifo-1111114264781
I recognize that their are new arguments out there, that haven’t been used because they portray a ‘cheapened view of human life’ in all its forms. I wonder if they’ll start creeping up in the pro-choice lexicon soon.
The Peter Singer article noted by Jennifer is a typical unreasoned illogical presentation of a pro choice advocate. His position is that there really is no reason to argue against abortion because the ‘fetus’ isn’t really a human, a person, and therefore there is no reason to oppose their termination. He contends that the ‘fetus’ is not ‘conscious’ nor possesses ‘self awareness’ or the ability to ‘feel pain’ until after 20 weeks gestation and therefore is at the most a ‘potential person’. Given Singers criteria for ‘personness’ one must wonder if all the adults who suffer congenital insensitivity to pain must be considered non persons. Similarily, all those who are lacking self awareness, some psychotics, dimentia sufferers, those in a coma and even those who are asleep must be labeled non persons. After all, Singer argues, given over population ‘do we really want every potential person’. Singer is grasping at some way to justify abortion and gives us relativism mumbo jumbo that is simply and arbitrarily deciding who should live and who should die. Somehow some people can always find some ‘reasons’ for justifying the ending of others’ lives. As you note elsewhere; any two year old knows a person when they see one. The problem is not in defining ‘personness’. The problem is we are living in a culture that sees that someone else’s living or dying is questionable.
You’ve nailed it David. If you haven’t already, see the article posted by Brigitte, A Remarkably Honest Abortionist (April 15). Without the myth of choice propaganda, Peter Singer (who still teaches at Princeton) and this abortionist will be the kinds of pro abortion (and pro euthanasia) spokespeople we’ll be seeing in the future. If they begin to argue that a fetus lacks the same personhood as others, because it’s not self aware, what about me, when I’m sleeping? When does this personhood begin and end? And WHY exactly doesn’t “mere potential give a being a right to life”? That is the reason we as a culture find the deaths of children so much more painful than the deaths of the elderly (though they’re incredibly painful too). It’s that very potential we’re mourning.
There’s no real weight behind his arguments, and as you’ve so rightly concluded “The problem is we are living in a culture that sees that someone else’s living or dying is questionable.” Peter Singer is in sync there with “mere membership of our species doesn’t settle the moral issue of whether it is wrong to end a life”.
This is why Stephanie Gray bases all of her arguments on what is the fetus? nothing else will stand in the final analysis. If they are not human, then eliminate them. However, she proves time and again that they cannot be anything other than human, therefore abortion is plain and simple the killing of a human person.
“Singer is grasping at some way to justify abortion and gives us relativism mumbo jumbo that is simply and arbitrarily deciding who should live and who should die.”
There *is* nothing other than relativism. The distinction is only between those who openly admit it, and those who make up arbitary rules and then try to pretend they are somehow trancendant.
“There *is* nothing other than relativism.”
Then you obviously have no basis for telling pro-lifers that they are wrong.