Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

A "choice" of tactics

Expand Messages
  • Gus Morrow
    America s Darkest Day On January 22, 1973 five of nine men on the Supreme Court, using incredibly broad interpretations of the 9th and 14th amendments to The
    Message 1 of 1 , May 10, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      America's Darkest Day

      On January 22, 1973 five of nine men on the Supreme Court, using
      incredibly broad interpretations of the 9th and 14th amendments to
      The Constitution, claimed that these amendments established a right
      of privacy, which was "broad enough" for them to rule that a woman
      may legally abort her own unborn child.
      In dissent, Justice Rehnquist wrote that the ruling of those five
      justices "partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a
      determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth
      Amendment."
      Today, millions of Americans who have read, for themselves, neither
      the ludicrous arguments used in justifying the decision, the dissent
      of the justices who disagreed NOR The Constitution proudly announce
      that they have a "Constitutional right" to abort human life.
      They say these words as if this rationalization by five men
      transformed such method of ending a human life into a moral one, even
      a "freedom" worthy of celebration.
      The belief that any act becomes moral or ethical solely because this
      appeals court deems it to be legal is one born of ignorance. Those
      who hold such views should be reminded that slavery, segregation and
      torturing animals were once perfectly legal.
      In a brilliantly executed plan to sway public opinion in favor of
      behavior which had, for centuries, been unspeakable by most in polite
      society, proponents of human abortion immediately labeled the
      decision a "pro choice" decision. After all, how could any American
      be against "choice" or against "a woman's right to choose"?
      Roe v Wade granted no woman the "right to choose" life. That right
      and responsibility of every mother was the expectation of every
      civilized society in history.
      Roe v Wade granted ONLY the legal right of a woman to kill her unborn
      child, with no other criteria than her desire to do so.
      The only "choice" granted by Roe v Wade was the choice to end human
      life in the womb.
      Proponents of abortion, many of whom foresaw the gold mine in the
      business of aborting human life, succeeded in convincing millions of
      women that they would now be "empowered" by the right to kill their
      unborn child.
      This "empowerment" would allow them to avoid the ultimate
      responsibility that any woman, through her own behavior and
      regardless of social class, freely obtains.
      Abortion proponents knew that the decision to legalize such a
      deplorable method of birth control would be under constant attack.
      They rallied these "empowered" women, and men happy to be granted
      this legal escape from fatherhood, to support only those politicians
      who lacked the moral character to stand against the abortion of
      innocent human life.
      Pro-abortion forces began a well-orchestrated public relations
      campaign, using carefully selected words and phrases, designed to
      desensitize the public to aborting human life.
      They started by referring to an unborn child only as a "fetus" (the
      Latin word for "child").
      Some went so far as to continually refer to a human embryo as "just a
      blob of tissue".
      No intellectually honest person, who has viewed a, legally abortable,
      live human being in utero, via ultrasound, witnessing the new life's
      heart feverishly beating within, could utter such a description.
      This breathtaking sight can leave no person of conscience unmoved.



      Abortion advocates constantly strive to further rationalize the idea
      of ending a human life by referring to the act as simply the "Right
      to Choose", never describing, in any detail, exactly what the
      procedure is that they are choosing to do.
      Any attempt by anyone to disseminate educational photos or actual
      video of a human abortion is vehemently attacked. Abortion proponents
      want the public to have a "right to choose" but not a right to know
      or, God forbid, a right to see an actual human abortion procedure.

      Women's Health?

      Proponents of legalized abortion have succeeded, by design, in
      turning abortion on demand, regardless of reason, into a "woman's
      health" issue, as if pregnancy is caused by a virus or is a routinely
      adverse condition which occurs through no "choice"of the woman.
      Proponents cite the "mental health" of a woman "forced" to bear her
      own child, while never mentioning the mental health affects on a
      woman who chooses to kill it.
      Many combat veterans and cops have been forced to take a life in
      defense of their own. In spite of the fact that they had no choice,
      many suffer life long stress and feelings of guilt. The idea that
      most women who kill their own unborn child, for reasons of mere
      convenience, will not suffer the same agonizing fate is asinine,
      illogical and dishonest.

      The rape excuse.

      Proponents of abortion cite rape as a reason to support legalized
      abortion for every pregnant woman, never mentioning the fact that
      only an extremely tiny percentage of pregnancies are the result of
      rape or the fact that, in most states, abortion was already legal in
      cases of rape or incest.

      The tactical errors of the Pro-life movement:

      Those who oppose legalized abortion for moral, ethical or religious
      reasons have, ironically, played right into the hands of those who
      support it.
      By parroting the same catch phrases in debate, such as "pro choice",
      right to choose" and "fetus", by referring to doctors who commit
      abortions as doctors who "perform" abortions, the opponents of
      abortion are unwittingly participating in the relentless campaign of
      pro-abortion zealots to manipulate public opinion..
      These are the very phrases which are specifically designed to put a
      positive spin on legalized human abortion, to make it, in the eyes of
      the public, seem like nothing different than removing a tumor.

      Holier-than-thou?

      Many who oppose abortion on religious grounds have taken to shouting
      their message, though megaphones, from the street corner.
      This serves only to reinforce the message of abortion proponents,
      that those who oppose them are extreme "religious fanatics".
      America is a country where even the faithful are split into many
      denominations over differences in the interpretations of scripture.
      Shouting chapter and verse at people on the street, many of whom are
      secular, in an attempt to change their hearts and minds, is counter
      productive.
      This method may succeed in changing the minds of a very few but it
      alienates far more. This is detrimental to bringing about any
      meaningful change in public opinion.

      The answer to changing public opinion:

      The pro-life cause would be better served and MUCH more effective if
      those opposed to abortion would take a lesson from their adversaries
      in the power of words.
      They should refuse to use the phrase "pro-choice" and always use "pro
      abortion".
      They should refuse to say, "perform" abortion and always
      say, "commit" abortion.
      Stop using the word "fetus" and remind everyone that the word is
      Latin for "child".
      They should continuously ask why the father who, undeniably,
      contributes 50% of the genetic makeup of every human embryo, has NO
      legal "right to choose" whether his child lives or dies.
      They should replace the shouting of rhetoric with calm debate on the
      scientific facts, pointing out that an unborn baby is NOT "part of a
      woman's body".
      They should distribute, without preaching, models of an unborn child
      in different stages of development, as an education tool, putting an
      end to the "just a blob of tissue" lie.
      They should point out that, with the huge numbers of loving Americans
      looking to adopt, there is NO SUCH THING as an "unwanted" baby.
      They should refuse to use the clinical sounding phrase "terminate the
      pregnancy", substituting "end the life of the child".
      They should never use the partial phrase "right to choose" and always
      use the entire phrase "right to choose to kill your unborn child".
      This would change public perception, reminding people of what
      the "right to choose" actually means.

      The shouting match, which is the current method of debate, is a dead
      end.
      Imagine if bumper stickers were commonly seen proclaiming, "Support
      a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn child" or "Pro-choice to
      kill". Sounds awful, right?
      Abortion proponents would be FURIOUS, without having a leg to stand
      on in objecting to the bumper stickers.
      Like the martial art of Aikido, the opponent's own weight would be
      leveraged to defeat them.
      These powerful, bold, changes in tactics would accomplish much more
      than any sidewalk rally, gruesome posters or abortion mill protest,
      which only serve to annoy and anger the public.
      The majority of people would start to recognize abortion as the,
      disgusting, crime against humanity that it is.
      Only by changing the hearts and minds of people, through intelligent,
      civil, debate and education, can real political change take place.
      The choice of words has infinitely more power than the volume in
      which they are spoken.

      Gus Morrow
      Oceanside, CA
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.