|
|
|
|
Winning More Converts By Dave Andrusko Conversation/controversy on the Internet can be virtually instantaneous, which means that no sooner does someone post than a virtually unlimited number of people can take them to task. Which generates another wave of response to the responder even before people have completed answering the original post. Whew!
You remember yesterday I wrote about a very thoughtful post by Ross Douhat found at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/opinion/03douthat.html. Titled "The Unborn Paradox," his thoughts were in response to MTV's "No Easy Decision." Douhat came to some of the same conclusions I had, plus added several additional shrew insights. Douhat's argument, however, irritated blogger Andrew Sullivan, who complained, "If the pro-life movement dedicated its every moment not to criminalizing abortion but to expanding adoption opportunities, it would win many more converts" (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/unwanted-pregnancies-and-infertile-couples.html). This puzzled his colleague, Megan McArdle, who responded with some interesting insights, particularly coming from someone who is not one of us (www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/abortion-adoption-supply-and-demand/68818). McArdle seemed almost embarrassed ["Huh?"] to state the obvious ["First of all, even I know"] which is "that the pro-life movement spends rather a lot of energy on things like crisis pregnancy centers which aim to get women to carry their pregnancies to term, and assist them in doing so." Indeed, when addressing adoptions, the life-affirming alternative to women who do not abort their child and who may feel they do not wish to raise the baby, she addresses two other canards. They are not just kids born in America ("international adoptions have increased to a quarter of all adoptions") nor are people demanding "perfection" ("kids with special health needs make up a substantial fraction of the children adopted ranging from 30 percent of international adoptions, to 55 percent of adoptions from foster care"). Thus, McArdle concludes, "I find it far-fetched that women are having abortions because no one is willing to help them give the baby up for adoption--there are lots of people and agencies that will not only help them, but pay a substantial portion of their expenses until they deliver." Again, as she makes clear in other responses, she comes to the abortion issue with a far different perspective than others. But in politely correcting the pulled-out-of-thin-air ramblings of Sullivan, McArdle is helping to erase myths about adoption, people who adopt children, and/or pro-lifers. Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha. |
I
mention that because what you are about to read is a kind of
fourth-generation missive. My conclusion, foreshadowed here, is that the
elaborate back-and-forth can not only produce interesting insights, it helps
people who are not necessarily in our corner to realize that caricatures of
pro-lifers are just that: grotesque simplifications which bear no
resemblance to any actual pro-lifer.