Pro-Choice Journalist Criticizes NOW

Sally Jenkins, a columnist for the Washington Post, goes after NOW despite her own pro-choice views in the defense of Tim Tebow and his 30-second pro-life Ad airing during the Super Bowl. It is a very good article and it is heartening to see good will on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate.

18 Responses to Pro-Choice Journalist Criticizes NOW

  • That was an astonishing column Eric! The attack on the Tebow ad underlines the desire of many on the pro-abort side not to have people exposed to stories of women who choose life. It was good to see Ms. Jenkins point this out.

  • As a Catholic, I must say I continue to disagree with the politicization of people who think differently than you. Referring to “pro-abortion” instead of pro-choice is a prime example.

    I don’t treat pro-lifers seriously for the following reason-

    If you were really serious about outlawing abortion, you would put all the would be mothers in prison. They are either accomplices to murder or murderers themselves, right? I think pro-lifers should alsp mandate expanding the prison system- we will need the space for all the murderers coming in. And we will need them for quite some time.

  • Why in the world JC would you object to the term pro-abortion to describe people who object to an Ad showing a woman choosing life? As to the canard that if pro-lifers were serious we would put mothers who abort in prison, pro-aborts like yourself would love to be able to seize upon that as a propaganda tool to use against the pro-life forces. We want to end abortion, and not punish women. In our ranks you will find many women who have had an abortion, bitterly regret it, and are now ardent pro-lifers. You concentrate on defending the slaying of the innocent, and leave to us the devising of the strategies to stop the killing.

  • So, JC, I guess you think it is unfair to refer to the those people who fervently believe that slave ownership should be up to each white fella as pro-slavery, hah?

    And the notion that one must favor treating mothers just like abortionists and abortionists as murderers under criminal law is an old hat straw man. The punishment that is suitable for a given crime is grounded not only in natural law but also in prudence. And not all murders are treated equally either. We take into account state of mind and many other factors. While abortion is a serious moral offense, it does not follow that criminal sanctions would necessarily be comparably serious. While appropriate punishment is informed by the gravity of the offense, it is not determined by it.

  • I’m the Democrat here and I’m still confused as to how one is Catholic and in favor of, tolerant of, or indifferent to legal abortion for any reason whatsoever…

  • Eric, you should know that whenever a commenter or journalist begins a sentence with “As a Catholic, I..” or “As a former Altar Boy, I..” it’s generally going to be something contrary to actual Catholic teaching, and just as often inaccurately portrays Catholic teaching.

  • Was the post edited? It uses “pro-choice,” not “pro-abortion” so I don’t know what JC is talking about.

    If you were really serious about outlawing abortion, you would put all the would be mothers in prison.

    And if you’re serious about education, you’d imprison students who don’t do their homework.

    They are either accomplices to murder or murderers themselves, right?

    We have degrees of murder. Nothing prevents us from punishing abortion less severely.

  • JC,

    It is impossible for a Catholic in good standing to be pro-choice. Please read the catechism on this.

  • “Referring to “pro-abortion” instead of pro-choice is a prime example.”

    Well, if the people who would like to be called “pro-choice” didn’t go into wild rages every time someone actually tried to show women an option other than abortion, we would probably be less inclined to call them “pro-abortion.”

    I mean, what are you supposed to call people who react with violent hatred to all other suggestions than abortion?

    “If you were really serious about outlawing abortion, you would put all the would be mothers in prison.”

    That’s based on the faulty premise that the only way to stop abortion is to put people in jail.

  • If you are pro-choice, logically you must be pro-abortion. If I am pro-choice with respect to ice cream, I am in favor of someone, somehwere being able to choose ice cream. If I am pro-choice wrt abortion, then I am in favor of someone, somewhere being able to choose abortion. In that sense, it is impossible to escape being pro-abortion if you are pro-choice. It’s not that difficult to grasp.

  • Clearly both sides of this argument are pro-choice and pro-life. Labels are confusing in a relativist world with a debased language.

    Catholics are pro-choice, we just want people to make the right choice.

    Pro-choice advocates are pro-life, just selective about who gets to live.

    Methinks they may be upset if we decide to be pro-abortion and determine that the aborted humans should not be the pre-born; rather, promiscuous women who choose to kill the consequence of sexual intercourse. Is there a difference? We aren’t talking about a different method, simply a different demographic. Margret Sanger would be so proud.

  • And not the promiscuous men?

  • Kevin,

    Boys will be boys. Obviously, the problem is with the gullible girls who fall for them.

    Pro-life conservatives: We’re not anti-women. Women just keep on screwing up.

  • Restrained,

    That is really a crude and unfair caricature of a pro-life conservative.

    On “social issues” I am as conservative as they come, and I’ve argued pretty consistently that men are as, if not more, responsible for abortion than women.

    It’s a lack of reflection, and not conservative ideology, that leads to such conclusions. Women have the abortions. Thus women are responsible. It isn’t always that simple – though probably half of the time IT IS.

  • My statement wasn’t designed to lay the blame on women and exonerate men. It was designed to show the absurdity of stating that I am pro-choice and being selective about who gets to choose and what they choose.
    Learn to speak ‘sarcastic’ already.

    Furthermore, most vocal people for pre-born genocide are women and most babies murdered are female. Additionally, every abortion directly involves a female victim. We are all harmed by this evil, yet it seems, that women are harmed a little more and yet it is women who want to reserve the right to choose murder. The whole thing is absurd.

  • It was tongue in cheek but seriously there is a tendency by certain people to see the problem as one of gender and to blame the women and let men off the hook. It may even be a greater tragedy that these people don’t actually believe men are less culpable. They just can’t help but pick on the women.

  • “I’ve argued pretty consistently that men are as, if not more, responsible for abortion than women.”

    Thank you for saying that. It’s missing in much of the dialogue about abortion.

    Today’s relationship “rules” go as such: Men (as a rule, obviously does not apply to ALL situations) go into a relationship, serious or casual, expecting sex. In the back of their minds, women believe having sex with a guy will lead to it becoming the kind of relationship they want. A pregnancy comes about, and the guy doesn’t want the responsibility, so he runs off. The woman’s left with the agonizing decision of what to do about it.

    If we as a society would stop encouraging men to be irresponsible and carefree, then part of the abortion dilemma would start to resolve itself.

  • The ad has leaked. I wouldn’t be surprised if most viewers don’t put up on the pro-life message.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .