Pro-Life Outnumber Pro-Choice

As human development science progresses, the nation is learning more about what a fetus is capable of throughout the gestation process.  As a result, political opinions on the Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice debate are reflecting new, fundamental understandings about growing fetuses and what value they may have.  We are forced to confront decisions about the human soul which were more easily swept under the rug 30 years ago. Perhaps, we are finally realizing that fetuses are more than "parasites" growing in-utero? (Even if we collectively don't believe in the soul, surely they aren't just parasites are they!) 

Feminists in the United States turned pregnancy into a women's rights issue in the1920's (clearly it is linked to those rights but is it an exclusively female issue?).  However, after years of outrageous claims by hardline feminists (e.g. growing infants are no different than cancerous tumors) their has been a backlash of public opinion.  Scientific knowledge has advanced a long way since 1920 and these incredible claims no longer carry weight with an educated public.  Yet, still, some of these arguments persist.  (Lets not forget the group of individuals recently advocating for post-birth abortion, i.e. infanticide, because, in their view, there is no difference between a fetus and a newly born child.) TCD anticipates that over time, these positions will be very faux pas in the Pro-Choice movement because they are not received well by the public at large, though, it seems, many Pro-Choicers still firmly believe that fetuses aren't "human."

{More After The Jump}

To these hardline feminist's dismay, television networks have begun to air programming on fetal development.  Documentaries on Discovery, Nat Geo and similar channels have portrayed the human story in a new light and, for the first time, actually shown the truth behind fetal significance.  As these programs increase, so does public awareness.  Ironically, it seems these left-leaning organizations may have actually helped turn the tide in abortion opinion.  Pro-Choice groups have enough of a battle as is (lest we forget that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was actually advocating for abortion as a tool of eugenics and racism more than feminist empowerment).  Combine those outdated perspectives with modern insights on humanity and you have a scenario where abortion "rights" start to look more like competing interests among several people, all of whom have legitimate interests in the fetus' existence.

As we realize that fetuses are less like "violins sowed to the side of a woman after a frollock," and more similar to functioning newborns, the argument that this is a women's right's issue, solely, fails.  After all, it takes at least two people to create an embryo and it's looking more and more likely that the resulting fetus is a human-being.  Even if we don't all define "human" in the same way, there is certainly more value to the fetus than feminists have traditionally given it credit.  The war against masculinity has also handicapped them in their arguments for "abortion rights."  Failing to acknowledge that a male has any interest in the fetus leads to weak argumentative ground (half the population is male you know) and failing to acknowledge that a fetus may have a soul, or that it is worth considerably more than some random "clump of cells," has put abortionists in an untenable argumentative position.  Only by acknowledging the reality of conception and development do they stand a chance of approaching the topic from a publicly relevant view.  A new poll clearly demonstrates this fact:

Check out the poll.  Roughly 50% of people surveyed openly affirmed their Pro-Life position whereas only 41% identified themselves as "Pro-Choice."

Given those tenets, you can all but guarantee that the new Pro-Abortion movement will turn it's marketing efforts toward a sympathetic approach by focusing on the tragedy of abortion versus the "empowerment" of women.  Abortionists may even have to concede that one is giving its life for the benefit of the other.  (This is their greatest fear) 

Planned Parenthood has already begun to change its verbage on the topic.  Focusing intently on "hard choices" and "tragedies" of mothers born to poverty or who have conceived after rape, they hope to redirect attention away from the fetus's worth or concerns of a father.  (In truth, it should be noted that children who are conceived during rape make up a very small number when compared to those who conceive and elect to have an abortion... so, essentially, they are saying the statistical super-minority should dictate policy for the overwhelming majority of incidents).  And so, this new approach still seems to fall short.  Emotionally, the rape argument is strong but statistically it fails to account for the real tragedy which is that most women who have had one abortion will elect to have another.

Abortionists now seem to argue that abortion is always a "tragedy" (even when rape or incest isn't involved) but for the good of the mother we must focus on the mother's "rights."  You will notice a clear absence of discussion about a male's rights or fetuses' rights.   The approach will undoubtedly carry weight with old-guard feminism but it doesn't seem to be catching on with younger generations who now realize that an abortion isn't anything like getting your nails clipped.  There is much more involved in the decision than just one person's well being.  In the end, abortion has much less to do with lifestyle (how much money you have) and much more to do with considerations of life itself.