Response to an Invitation

After seeing my incredibly articulate, detailed argument as to why Obama and Hilary's comments on life at conception were inane, Shane invited me to dialogue on our two blogs about the whole abortion topic.

Well, Shane, I'm happy to dialogue - hence this post- but I think we agree on just about everything, so it may be a short discussion.

After reading your thoughts, I do have a few comments:

To point 1: "Pushing to overturn Roe vs. Wade is not helpful..." I don't think that pushing to overturn Rove v. Wade has resulted in the cultural language shift surrounding the debate, as you suggest. Rather, I think that this shift in the way the argument is framed is a result of the pro-choice movement gaining even more traction in the mainstream media. We should continue to fight the Roe v. Wade decision for two reasons:

1)Any effective pro-life legislation will eventually be tested through the courts and so a new precedent must be set.

2)When faced with something as blatantly dark as this decision, we've got to do everything within our power to see it overturned, even if it is a David vs. Goliath battle. This isn't to say that we continue along avenues to stop abortion in other ways (vis a vis William Wilberforce fighting slavery in England).

To point 2: I agree that we need to take these steps, along with fighting Roe v. Wade. The danger of course is that people think they have won the war by winning a few battles.

To point 3: Yes, yes, and yes. When I was going to college in Minnesota there was a piece of legislation before the state congress that stated that 1)women contemplating abortion needed to be informed of the possible health and psychological consequences of their "medical procedure" 2) parents of minor girls needed to be informed of their child's intentions (which is already required for nearly every medical procedure but abortion) and 3)required a 3-day waiting period.

It was easily shot down by the pro-choice lobbyists, despite a great deal of public out cry.

To point 4: This is an entirely different issue in my mind, but is somewhat related. The mere fact that our children are "educated" in school about such a deeply moral and personal issue is ludicrous. I know the immediate argument is "well, parents aren't doing it, so the school has to." I'm not sold on that argument for several reasons: school sex education has made little difference on teen pregnancy, the education system's attempts to take over on such integral issues only encourages parents to be less engaged on this issue, and it s one step closer to a homogeneous view on sex (the majority of educators appear to be pro choice, by the way).

That said- school sex education is here to stay, so should abstinence be taught? How about this for a curriculum change- each student is given a set of questions and discussion points to take home to their parents, or somebody they respect. The students' grade is dependent upon them turning in a report detailing the discussions they have with their parents about their family's values and stances on this issue. This facilitates an important conversation, fulfills the school's perceived obligation to educate kids about sex, and allows families to retain influence over their children's views on this issue.

Alright, that's a cursory response to your views, Shane. So I think we pretty much agree, with a few nuances.