Wednesday, July 27, 2005

The Petri Dish That is Seattle

The headline in The Stranger says it all -- "NARAL Screws up". Sounds like NARAL's July Screw Abstienence party was too much for even some of NARAL's board members.

Apparently they do have their standards. Michele Cotner, 60, a former board member from Vancouver, said "I wasn't comfortable with the messaging." She doesn't have a problem with abortion but they better not mess-up the marketing.

Cotner thinks "NARAL's focus needs to be on preventing unwanted pregnancy rather than on abortion." I don't know how Miss Cotner expects NARAL to stay in business if there aren't any "unwanted" children to abort. Doesn't she know the "preventing unwanted pregnancy" line is a red herring to draw attention away from the reality of what abortion does and convince the public that NARAL is "responsible." You'd think someone who was on NARAL's board would be a little more sophisticated in her understanding of NARAL's mission -- they help sell abortion not birth control.

Cotner also complains that Washington NARAL represents the whole state and the "Screw Abstinence" party theme doesn't play well outside of Seattle. She's got to know that most of the abortions performed in the state are done in King County and, I would suppose, that NARAL's biggest contributors live in that county. They are going to be somewhat beholden to Seattle's abortion businesses.

Cotner's comments and The Stranger article correctly highlight the pro-abortion attitude of the Seattle abortion community. There is in fact a division that is occurring within NARAL and among traditional abortion supporters. Seattle's abortionists and supporters believe abortion is good for women's health and a neutral choice equivalent to child birth. The Hillary Clinton wing sees abortion as a "sad and tragic choice" and would probably prefer to keep Seattle's abortion cheerleaders off the front page.

Seattle's most vocal abortion cheerleader has got to be Marcy Bloom of Aradia Women's Clinic. When asked on John Carlson's show earlier this year about whether there was any circumstance underwhich an abortion shouldn't be performed, Miss Bloom couldn't come up with a single one. Another statement in this 2001 interview shows the moral relativism of the pro-abortion side of the pro-choice movement, "It [abortion] is a loving choice, the choice of an abortion. It is also a loving choice to have a baby. They are both loving choices."

Seattle is a Petri dish. Too bad the bacteria being grown is so harmful to the women of Washington state.


Christina Dunigan said...

She couldn't come up with a situation in which an abortion shouldn't be done? How about if the woman doesn't want it! DUH! It says a lot that this never occurred to her.

Though I told my "prochoice" co-worker that it seemed that there was common ground in the idea, say, of limiting abortions to those women who really want them. She opposed the idea! She had two friends who had abortions that they "didn't want but they had no choice." This is how the prochoice have raised their daughters!

Mary E. said...

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's crazy. I don't even know how to respond to people who think that even not wanting an abortion isn't a reason not to get one...