When I recently searched the Internet for the name of an old girlfriend, Cheri Duncan, I was thrilled to find her, working at the Public Defender's Office in Houston Texas. I entertained hopes of reigniting my loving relationship with her. I was even willing to cut her some slack when I learned that she was associated with a liberal group called the NALT (Not All Like That) Christians. (That group believes in tolerance of homosexuality.) But there are certain things which are so important to me that I consider them to be non-negotiable. Protection of the fundamental right to life, in relation to the abortion issue, would be one of those things.
On the web site for the John Wesley Club, of which Cheri is a member, I find a statement which strikes me as nonsensical gobbledegook; "We are pro-choice, often very reluctantly… in fact, almost all of us would
describe ourselves as essentially pro-life — but from the legal and practical
side, we are pro-choice. We understand the gravity, risk, and sometimes
desperation in the choice to terminate a pregnancy. Many of us are conflicted
about this issue, however, but we support Roe vs. Wade."
Excuse me, I've been hearing this kind of crap for years: Describing one's self as "essentially pro-life" while simultaneously defending a legal practice that has resulted in MORE THAN 50 MILLION DEATHS, is like saying that one is "essentially in favor of human freedom" while defending the legal practice of slavery!!! The mind boggles when one considers such a statistic. "Essentially" my ass. There is nothing essentially pro-life about the defense of such actions.
I am not "conflicted" about the abortion issue; nor was Norma McCorvey, the woman whose case made abortion legal in the first place. She repented of the role she had played in America's holocaust.
What a shame. Cheri was a great kisser when I dated her, but it's very clear to me that our thinking has developed along very different lines since that time.