Within your article, “New Pro-Life Group Splits Off,” an anti-abortion advocate rightly acknowledges that “When people think pro-life, people immediately think politics”. The reason for this is because the “pro-life” movement is not attempting to promote a personal belief. Rather, it is a commitment to compelling others to act according to the “pro-life” viewpoint. The call for “dialogue” is thus an obviously dishonest ruse. Those who have joined the anti-abortion movement are themselves unwilling to be convinced. They enter any discussion for the sole purpose of spreading dogma—and only then, because they’ve failed at using government laws to coerce others into following their beliefs. Reminiscent of Machiavelli, the anti-abortion movement is only using diplomacy now, having failed at using force. So don’t imagine that “dialogue” indicates genuine moderation. For those of us who respect a woman’s right to choose, calls for dialogue are just as frightening as calls for government compulsion—the one is just a means to the other.
Zev Barnett www.the-undercurrent.com
The Undercurrent is a magazine distributed at college campuses and communities across the country. We release a print edition once per semester, and in the interim, regularly post additional articles, blog entries, and campus media responses reports to our website.
The Undercurrent's cultural commentary is based on Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. Objectivism, which animates Ayn Rand's fiction, is a systematic philosophy of life. It holds that the universe is orderly and comprehensible, that man survives by reason, that his life and happiness comprise his highest moral purpose, and that he flourishes only in a society that protects his individual rights.
Subscribe to TU
If you enjoy The Undercurrent, please consider giving a tax-deductible donation in support.