.

Got up early this morning.  Read the paper.  More nonsense from Ina Hughs.  It’s the same old stuff she normally writes.  But I did post a response you might find interesting.

Comment responding to Ina Hughs op-ed piece in Knoxville News Sentinel:

Ms. Hughs raises a good point. In fact, I’m going to agree with many of the points she made.

First of all, perhaps we should include fathers in these sessions. The Elliot Institute reports that as many as 64% of abortions are coerced, many of them by irresponsible men, family members, employers, etc. Anything that will reduce the pressure on women to abort would be a step in the right direction. More people need to know about the development of the baby inside, the physical and emotional hazards of abortion, etc. But as Ms. Hughs noted, finding some of the more corrupt miscreants who impregnate women would be difficult. And, according to existing law, it is the mother only who has the final say whether the baby lives or dies, so that might explain some of the limitations of the North Carolina law.

Ms. Hughs is also correct when she says that compared to men, women do bear the greater burden for the consequences of sexual “freedom.” By any measure (pregnancy, the health effects of STDs, and abortion, just to name a few), women pay a heavy, heavy price so that irresponsible and predatory men can have whatever they want. People who buy into the lie of “sexual freedom” find out later it ain’t quite so “free.” That’s why we work so hard to keep the sex merchants like Planned Parenthood out of the schools our children attend.

Ms Hughs says, “no woman should be told by her government that she must have a child anymore than she should ever be told she cannot have a child.” No disagreement here. I don’t think anybody favors forced sex nor forced birth control. But in a civilized society, every human being deserves respect. No person should have the right to unjustly kill another.

Ms. Hughs says that pro-lifers should help women in crisis. Right again! That’s why the overwhelming majority of pro-life resources (money, volunteer time, etc.) go to support pregnancy resource centers like the one across the street from one of the abortion clinics here in Knoxville. The Hope Resource Center (www.hoperesourcecenterknoxville.com) arranges for medical care, housing, adoption, help with parenting, and more. In addition to that, we pay federal, state, and local taxes to create a safety net for people who need it. It’s unfortunate that so much of the money we pay goes to bureaucrats and people who don’t need it, but we still pay.

I’ll grant you that we should have more pregnancy centers, maybe one for each abortion clinic. But is it productive, Ms. Hughs, to ignore most of what we do and belittle the rest?

And the failure of pro-lifers to do enough (in Ms. Hughs’ estimation) for moms and babies in crisis does not make it OK to kill a baby … any more than our failure to do enough for battered women makes it OK to beat your wife.

Ms. Hughs falls victim to one of the most common logical fallacies when she implies that our only two choices are to either (a) provide cradle-to-grave welfare or (b) keep it legal to kill children before they are born. It’s called a “false dilemma.” In a civilized society, we protect the weak from the strong. That’s why we have laws against murder, rape, fraud, etc. That does not obligate us to create Ms. Hughs’ version of a utopian welfare state.

Ms. Hughs wants to know what are the pro-lifers going to do about all these children if they are allowed to live and not be killed. It’s the same silly argument used to justify the continuation of slavery 150 years ago, “If we turn all these slaves loose, who is going to take care of them?”

Ms. Hughs says she is not pro-abortion, she is pro-choice. That’s essentially what Stephen Douglas said about slavery. He said that he was not in favor of slavery, but he believed that the Southern states should have the right to choose whether to be slave states or free states. I would argue that by the same token we say Mr. Douglas was pro-slavery, we can assert that Ms Hughs is pro-abortion.

And finally, Ms. Hughs engages in the most glaring ad hominem attack when she asserts that because some pro-lifers happen to be men, it is OK to kill a preborn child. How silly. Either (a) the preborn child is a living human being whose life must be respected, or (b) the preborn child may be killed at will. My gender has nothing to do with it. But if you have some kind of hangup about that, there are many, many women who will make the same arguments I make. Would Ms. Hughs listen to them? No. It’s just a cheap way of changing the subject and avoiding the issue, “Who is the unborn child and may we kill her?”

I was disappointed in the Knoxville News Sentinel (KNS) editorial about sex education in Knox County Schools.

I’m not a KNS basher. Some of my conservative friends say it’s a liberal rag. I laugh because I remember what the Charlotte Observer was like, when I lived there in the late 1980s. That paper was comical, sort of a cross between the Washington Post and the old Pravda. But in all my time in Knoxville, KNS has covered my newsworthy activities faithfully and without prejudice. They have accurately printed my letters and I hope they will keep doing so.

But I was disappointed at the misstatements of fact in this editorial, as well as the failure to recognize and address the key issues. Perhaps it’s too much to expect. After all, I struggle to be competent on just one or two subjects. I can’t imagine having to become an expert on a new topic every day.

The most obvious error was the statement that Planned Parenthood (PP) “offers abortion services in some locations across the country but not in Knoxville.” In 2009, the KNS itself reported that PP “will dispense RU486, the ‘abortion pill,’ to women up to nine weeks pregnant.” On their website, PP lists “abortion services” as being offered in Knoxville.

Further, it has been widely reported that PP has directed all of their local affiliates to operate abortion clinics by 2013. That explains why PP’s former office at Downtown West was no longer big enough and they recently moved to a larger space.

Their status as an abortion clinic is a critical fact, because it means that PP stands to make a lot of money by marketing themselves in our schools. This is an outrageous conflict of interest that completely escaped the notice of KNS reporters and editors.

The editorial went on to say that PP’s website “linked to material that was inappropriate for the classroom and could be seen by some parents as offensive.” That’s an astonishing understatement that could have been written only by a person unfamiliar with the PP material. It would be like saying that Pat Summitt “has won a few ball games and could be considered by some fans as an adequate coach.”

Evidence of PP’s criminal behavior all over the US, including their institutional willingness to cover up sexual abuse of minor children, was completely ignored. Nor was it mentioned that PP routinely arranges for judicial bypasses that allow minors to get abortions behind their parents’ backs. Were these deliberate omissions or just plain sloppiness? No rational person could think them unworthy of mention.

The tone of the editorial suggested that the issue at stake was whether or not teens needed to know about sex. I don’t recall anybody on our side of the issue ever suggesting teens should be ignorant on matters of sex. We do, however, oppose the approach to sex that tells 13-year-old children that they might be ready for sex if they “trust each other,” “care about each other,” and “have fun together.” We object to PP’s “anything-goes” approach to sex. And I do mean anything.

To my knowledge, no KNS editor ever spoke with any of the parents about this matter. I don’t know if they interviewed the other side or not. Maybe KNS just takes at face value whatever Dr. McIntyre tells them. Maybe an ad hoc collection of parents just can’t overcome years and years of taxpayer-funded PP propaganda. Maybe KNS is a liberal rag and I’m too naive to see it.

I don’t know, but I have to think KNS could have written a more insightful piece had they bothered to do a little independent research. Speaking with some of the pro-family leaders who raised this issue might have been helped.

KNS, I love you, man, but you really needed to dig deeper on this one.