[Contents | About the Debate
| Summary of Views | Dialogue | Questions
from the Audience]
|
Dialogue
|
QUESTIONS FROM MS.
MICHELMAN TO MR. RANKIN What steps have you taken to stop the rhetoric and
violence of the anti-choice movement? In 1989, Mr. Rankin challenged Randall Terry
(founder of Operation Rescue) to explain -- based on creation, sin, and
redemption in Genesis 1,2,3 -- why you can force your will on someone even
if that person is sinning. Mr. Terry refused to answer and has continued
to refuse ever since. Blockade and offensive rhetoric tear people down and
violate all six ethical components. He has challenged Randall Terry, other
pro-lifers, and those outside the pro-life movement to avoid violence,
physical blockade, and offensive language. Why do anti-choice leaders fight against comprehensive
sexuality education, work to eliminate family-planning services, and block
research which could provide more options to prevent pregnancy and to
avoid abortion? Sex that protects health and emotional well-being, the
power of family and the procreation of children, is expressed within
marriage: one man, one woman, one lifetime. School-based clinics of the
1980s which distributed condoms contributed to higher conception rates and
more abortions. Mr. Rankin has no philosophical objection to
non-abortifacient birth control within marriage. But the birth control
industry encourages measures that protect one-night stands or sex outside
of marriage. The industry has set males free to be chauvinists. He opposes
the industry, not responsible sex education and family-planning within
marriage. Why do anti-choice leaders never discuss the morality or
responsibility of bringing children into the world? Pro-lifers don't ignore that. They consistently address
it through crisis pregnancy centers, homes for unwed mothers, and other
ministries that help women and children. QUESTIONS FROM MR. RANKIN
TO MS. MICHELMAN Do pro-life advocates have valid access to the democratic
process to try and win consensus to give full legal protection to the
unborn? They have valid access to the democratic process. They
have the right to speak out, express their views, organize people at the
grass roots level, vote for anti-choice lawmakers, and try to get those
lawmakers to pass laws. They have the same valid access that pro-choice
people have. If pro-lifers were to win a national consensus through
valid democratic process that life begins at conception, would they have
the right to do that, and would you resort to violence to oppose
it? Ms. Michelman would never resort to violence to oppose
anything. The question of when life begins is a complex issue, taking into
account religion, morals, and ethics. In a society that is diverse, the
one thing we can agree on is that when a person is born is when a person
deserves and enjoys protection. She does not believe we will ever have
consensus on when life begins. There never has been a consensus in
history, whether from a medical, religious, ethical, or scientific
standpoint. The question of when life begins must be determined through a
person's own moral and religious perspective. What if 80% of this country were to say categorically, on
biological terms apart from religion, that life begins at conception.
Would it then be right to say that unborn life deserves
protection? There was a time when the majority believed in
segregation and discrimination against people of color. The U.S. Supreme
Court said that the tyranny of the majority is not possible. There are
certain fundamental liberties and rights which need to be established even
when it may be at a certain point in time that a majority believes
differently. This issue rises above political action. Abortion is a right
that is profound and central to women's lives and to family
life.
[Contents | About the Debate
| Summary of Views | Dialogue | Questions
from the Audience]