People Cherish Choice

The concept of freedom of choice is held dear by Americans. They react when their ability to choose is brought into question or jeopardy Therefore, when the pro-aborts cloak their position with the phrase "woman's right to choose" it naturally gets a spontaneous impulse reaction of support and defense. However, if that is clearly defined as taking a child's life, the reaction is different. There is an old saying in politics: "Perception is reality" That's why sound bites and impulse images are and have been effective in communication. Recall the public revulsion to partial birth abortion. Now consider that over 80% of Americans reject it.

A Woman's Right To Choose?

The pro-aborts describe their position as "protecting a woman's right to choose". Why isn't that challenged? Why didn't the rebuttal ask: "Choose what?". Why not demand that "pro-choice" supporters define the "choice" they want to protect? Why aren't the pro-life candidates and campaigns describing the "choice" that is being "protected"? Would the electorate vote for a candidate who supported the "right to choose ending a child'slife?." Oh, before I forget. Why aren't the proabortionists telling of the dangers for women who get abortion and the underlying medical dangers associated? Some may question if there is a profit motive?

Ignorance: No Longer An Excuse

The pro abortionists (pro-choice is pro-abortion because they are "for" the right to have one" can't cry "ignorance" or that the baby in the womb is a blob of tissue. The science is in. Human life begins at conception.(see upcoming release on the medical aspects of abortion). Now especially with new technology one can detailed features of the child (and I do mean child).

When people are made aware of the reality that abortion takes the life of an unborn child the response takes on a different dynamic. The key to the debate is simply presenting the truth in its fulness.

President George W. Bush is unappolgetically pro-life. His opponent was likewise pro-choice (pro abortion), even supporting partial birth abortion. Who one?

Abortion: An Abstract

During a radio interview I was asked why more people are not more active in the abortion debate. I said it's real simple. To many Americans abortion is an abstract. They don't see the dead child. However, if they received a notice of an increase of their tax or heating bills, rest assured they will speak out.

Ban on Partial Birth Abortion

Here's an interesting question. Since Partial Birth Abortion is as gruesome, violent and horrendous as all other abortions, why is it that over 80% of Americans want to ban it? Yet we are told that a majority of Americans want to maintain "choice"? It is simple. The image of a child having its skull cracked with its brains sucked out while dangling from the mother's womb is a disturbing and gut-wrenching image. The message is simple and has been viewed/heard on numerous occasions. Especially when the bill banning the procedure was debated in Congress. However, other abortion procedures do not have the same image or fervor of support. Why? Because they are abstract...until presented with the truth.

Key to Political Victory: Define the Debate

For years the pro-abortion supporters have been allowed to define the debate.They have demonized pro-lifers as wanting to impose their values upon a woman and conjuring up images of back alley abortions if the "right to choose" (choose what?) were taken away. The debate needs to be defined in plain and unambiguous terms. The pro-life position needs to take the political and educational offensive. Let the truth in its entirety be presented in a clear and concise manner.

Six Categories of Definition:

The pro-life position needs to be addressed in six categories. In each category the evidence is overwhelming in support of the pro-life position. 1. Constitutional--Unborn children have the "...right to life..." 2. Medical--Science has proven that life begins at conception 3. Economic--Abortion has deprived America of millions who would now be paying into Social Security, other taxes and creating jobs. 4. Political--Polling shows the pro-life position to be positive 5. Spiritual--The faith upon which the nation was built establishes abortion to be taking the life of an unborn person. To abort them is an attack on God Himself. (See Jesus, Politics and the Church Updated and Revised,Chapter 18 entitled "God: Abortion's Other Victim" 6. The expanded threat: Abortion devalues life. Is this a Pandora's Box for the elderly and infirm.

Why Present the Six Fold Categories?---The Three Reasons

First, each category addresses a vital element of our national and individual existence.

Second, one category may not appeal to one person but may appeal to another. For example, an atheist would not be persuaded by the spiritual position on abortion but may be influenced by the constitutional or economic one. On the other hand, a deeply religious person may not be motivated by the economic position but by the spiritual one.

Third, the apologetics of each category corroborates the others. Each add their voice to the composite unity of the pro-life position further building its viability and credibility in a pro-life mosaic of truth.

Pro-life Wins at the Ballot Box

From 1980 to 2000 Bill Clinton was the only pro-abortion candidate to be elected president. Even then his victory in the first election came with just over 40% of the popular vote. In 1994 history was made with a sweep of Republican victories in the off year election. Americans overwhelmingly rejected liberalism. The basis of this victory was the "Contract with America" and the Republican platform which held strongly to it's pro life position. In 1996 one of the strongest issues was Clinton's veto of the bill banning partial birth abortions. Over 80% of Americans supported the ban. Yet the Dole campaign ran from it-and lost. In 2000, George Bush boldly professed that unborn children should be "welcomed into life and protected by law".

Faced with an incumbent Vice President who was radically pro-abortion and whose administration governed during economic growth (beginning with the Reagan administration), George W. Bush won the election.

One report after the election stated that 25% of those who voted were motivated by their pro-life position while only 13% were motivated by their pro abortion (choice) position.

In the 2002 off year elections Republicans (with a pro-life platform) expand their majorities in Congress.

In 2004 election, George W. Bush, still pro-life, wins with a nearly 3 million vote margin. Pro "choice" Democrats lose more seats in the house and Senate. One of the staunchest pro-choice Senators, Tom Daschle was defeated and the new Democratic minority leader in the Senate is a pro-life Democrat from Nevada.

Pro Life: A Winning Position

The "pro life" position is a political winner when it is presented in a logical, truthful and intelligent manner. Americans are decent people who, when presented with the truth will support such decency. Recent news reports say that abortions in America have dramatically decreased. They attribute it to the abortion pill. Maybe it's because the truth is getting out. Maybe the church is doing its work to be "light" to a darkened world?

--About Tony Nassif: Mr. Nassif is the author of Jesus, Politics and the Church Updated and Revised as well as numerous other articles and position statements on public policy from a moral/Biblical point of view. He's the founder and president of the Cedars Cultural and Educational Foundation. He's appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs with such notable leaders as Dr. D.James Kennedy, Dr. Jerry Falwell, Armstrong Williams, Paul Weyrich, BeverlyLaHaye, Duffy and Company, H.B London from Focus on the Family, Janet Parshall, Public Radio, and many more.

.