Isn't their side supposed to the ones who insist they are all about tolerance and diversity and all that? So why are they going so far out of their way to be so INtolerant of viewpoints they don't like?
This is a tough issue. The most important question though, is not what to do about it. You should be asking why is this happening? What is it that compels so many people to have such a viscerally emotional response to peaceful dialogue? Look at it from another perspective. Let's say a mens rights activist set up a booth on campus asking whether it was 'okay to rape women.' A large percentage of the female population has been sexually assaulted or harassed before. Many bring intensely personal and emotional experiences to this question and some are likely to react with open hostility to the idea of dialogue respectful or not. Another example, on the more extreme end. Let's say someone set up a booth on campus about whether it was ok to lynch black people. I think few people would be sympathetic to the plea for respectful dialogue on the subject since the subject matter is considered to be so overtly disrespectful to certain people. Now before anyone gets in a huff, I am not implying that the Pro-Life movement is in any way similar to racist movements or rape. I do believe that the emotional responses by people of opposing viewpoints are similar though. So wherever you go, you are likely to experience this kind of response. I'd encourage you to calmly talk with these protesters about why they are so upset. I think you'll find that their answers will support my thesis. Respectful dialogue has become very difficult in society today. Too many organizations and groups (and I include the Pro-Life movement here) feel that the very existence of an opposing viewpoint is a personal assault that must be crushed or suppressed or responded to in kind. Pro-Choicers see a Pro-Life event and feel compelled to respond, least there exist in the real world a point without a counterpoint. Both sides use 'freedom of speech' as a defense for such behavior, but freedom of speech doesn't exactly mean that you have a right to an audience, only that you have a right to speak without fear of retribution. College campus rules differ, but legally, they only have an obligation to allow you the opportunity to speak. Someone else can freely and legally utilize their right of speech to drown out your message and prevent it from reaching the intended audience and that, I'm afraid, is the way it is meant to work. The founding fathers never intended this to be easy. I think the best course of action is to continue to be the more respectful party and to allow the other side to embarrass themselves in the public eye. Unfortunately this strategy only works if the majority of the population sees the movement as being non-aggressive, if the public views outward respectfulness as a facade to dress up an inherently disrespectful platform, it will ultimately fail in forcing the other side to meet you more respectfully.
Considering that the administration is in full agreement with these "protesters" ...conservatives can't really expect much help from folks that think this form of free speech should be quashed. Perhaps at some point, a class action lawsuit might be the only option to bringing state colleges back in line. Private colleges are another matter entirely.
You sue the administrators, personally. When they have to answer for the behavior they have promoted and taught, they will change. If the University pays the price they nothing will change. . My dad once said the surest way to get someones attention is a good swift kick - in the pocketbook.
Sad to think this country is being taken over by Kool Aid-drinking, intolerant commies who have nothing to contribute to society except spread their unholy venom.
Not all of us liberals agree with the far left either. We think of them as cultural Marxists and they have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the ideals of liberalism as I understand them. So please don't put us all in one box, cause we're a diverse bunch.
Unsure. Just ... liberal on some areas, conservative on others. Although my thoughts have been strongly influenced by the American liberal vs conservative debate. I'm actually a Kiwi :) Off-topic (with apologies to the moderator) but how's PJ4 and Infa going? I'm asking because we spoke, briefly, but never really got a chance to carry on our conversation indepth.
Nice part of the globe! I asked because American liberalism is the "anything goes" type and to read you being influenced by this ideology is surprising to me 🤔 You may want to ask those ladies yourself. I follow both so peek in to my profile and take it from there. Nice to converse with you again. Take care for now.
"I asked because American liberalism is the 'anything goes' type and to read you being influenced by this ideology is surprising to me" This response is for later, when you have time. Could you please tell me why you're surprised by my "being influenced by this ideology"? I'm curious as to your reasoning but I have no problem waiting. I have to work anyway. Unfortunately I can't directly ask the aforementioned ladies because I don't - and cannot - have an account at present. But sure I'll take a look in your profile :) I hope we can still have plenty of good online conversations despite the political differences. I like your avatar :)
Good morning here and good afternoon to you Kiwi! American bonafide liberals are "prochoice" but I've met only a few of the classical liberal orientation who are not. Liberals are also socialist - leaning politically here and strong believers in "the living Constitution" (loose constructionism) approach to domestic policy. In my view, neither liberalism as represented by the Democratic Party in the USA nor leftism (the extreme approach to social issues) are conducive to a healthy society. "The Facts of Life are Conservative" ~ Margaret Thatcher
What do you believe the best way is for dealing with abortion? Also, what do you believe is a good strategy for dealing with speech censorship on campuses?
Hi, thanks for writing back. As to what you say, fair enough. I'm not sure how a "living Constitution" is supposed to work anyway, or any interpretation of the US Constitution so please don't ask me about that. I would appreciate an explanation though. What is a classical liberal orientation? Sorry to ask but I don't know very much about that kind of label. When I say "liberal" I was thinking more of issues like animal rights, the environment, feminism, gay rights, paid maternity leave*, race relations, that sort of thing. However I am also conservative in some areas like the PL thing, I can see fundamentalist Islam is a problem, I have no problem with small businesses, I believe you should be allowed to carry a weapon on yourself for self-defense provided you're not using it to intimidate or hurt anyone, I believe in free speech, and I detest Obamacare because our medical system is socialistic and shocking where we live. Therefore, truthfully, I tend to be a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative or a moderate because I take the best from as many sides as possible. *I especially think paid maternity leave and social safety nets would go a long way to reducing abortions so I support those. Can you point out anything problematic with this strategy? I would really like to know what led you to be a conservative and why? Hope you have a good day - or night - wherever you are.
I'm in the Windy City these past 33 years Crystal but I'm also a relic of the Cold War. I will never accept any form of liberalism due to it's socialist leanings. You and I have more in common than you thought eh 😀 No one truly understands the failures of socialized medicine not having experienced this system like us. Obamacare will ultimately destroy this nation's healthcare system.
If I may interject on your OT matter - the liberal executive order is unconstitutional and already several states are litigating the Obama administration about it's validity. It's the liberals here who are jamming their-new found fascination with sexual perversion and possible abuse by perverts to schools of all places! Interesting isn't it 🙄
Hi, I apologise for the late response. Between real life and gathering a couple articles this reply took me a little longer to compile than it should have. I’m actually a lot younger than you – early twenties, to be exact. You mentioned the Cold War. Just out of curiosity, did you fight in the Cold War? I’m also asking because I have a great respect for war veterans. I’ve never been to Chicago but I hear they have a great mission there called Pacific Garden Mission, and they help a lot of unfortunate people to have a better life. I wish more people cared like that. “You and I have more in common than you thought eh” Firstly, in what ways do you think that Obamacare will ultimately destroy America’s healthcare system? Yes, we do have some beliefs in common, and this is why I generally enjoy speaking to a variety of people with differing beliefs across the spectrum of opinions out there. I agree with you about the Obamacare! It’s disgusting that legal abortion advocates would accuse prolifers of not really caring about prolifism by refusing to support Obamacare, especially considering the massive failure that it is. However the other system that requires all people to pay doctors including the poor, and stereotypes those that cannot contribute as lazy is also morally questionable because a doctor should give his/her services for free as s/he is a servant of the people; I think this mentality encouraged the rise of socialist healthcare. Both frameworks have problems and there needs to be an alternative to this. I don’t know why it is that the government can’t pay the doctor’s salary out of their own tax money. Furthermore doctors need to care about and love their patients, and put them before any other consideration. The quality of healthcare has absolutely gone down in NZ. Now people either refuse to go to the hospital and seek alternative treatments or they go, put themselves under the medical system, and receive all kinds of bogus diagnoses and scheduled on a waiting list until they can be treated. I’ve learned that it’s best to stay out of the medical system unless you absolutely need them, like in the case of childbearing or a life-threatening illness when you do require the help. Also, abortion and euthanasia have drastically decreased the quality of healthcare. Worst part of that is that they are considering making euthanasia legal in this country. Have you heard of the movie Me Before You? Sadly, the biggest reason people support euthanasia is that they desire to be compassionate toward the suffering; sometimes they have even watched a relative die in excruciating pain and I agree that is a difficult thing to go through. That being said, I don’t think euthanasia is the answer to this moral dilemma. I think that unethical doctors are your worst potential murderers because they know your body and the way it works inside out. Funny thing, Jesus healed for free, asking for nothing in return. Last but not least, what about the ethics of continuous consent as relating to euthanasia? This is a pamphlet Planned Parenthood put out in regards to continuous consent in sexual relations: https://www.facebook.com/PlannedParenthood/photos/a.401411729874877.116355.342294162453301/1200487149967327/?type=3&theater Why should the rules of consent and bodily autonomy be different when it comes to the person receiving euthanasia? Just my two cents on Obamacare and related issues. You said, “I will never accept any form of liberalism due to it's socialist leanings.” This is why I asked in a previous comment, “What do you believe the best way is for dealing with abortion? Also, what do you believe is a good strategy for dealing with speech censorship on campuses?” I would very much appreciate a reply to this query. If paid maternity leave and social safety nets were a couple of the best ways to overcome abortion, would you support them? Or do you see problems with these kinds of reduction strategies? In regards to the Bathroom Bills, I can sympathise with both perspectives. I realise I risk being name-called on both sides of the fence – a pervert promoter by the conservatives and a transphobic hater by the liberals – but I can understand both where transpeople are coming from in their need to have a restroom, and where ciswomen (biologically born women) are coming from when they say they should feel safe when going to the bathroom. I’ve seen people being trashed simply for raising concerns as to the negative impacts of these bills and it saddens me because I think it hurts the very people they are trying to help – transpeople particularly, due to the very high violence rate many of them suffer – and also because the concerns that others have about keeping safe from predatory pretenders are just as valid, and just as legitimate. In short I think my side is botching this issue up pretty badly; we should do better than this if we claim to be so progressive in morals, and if we don’t we will rightly earn the label of close-minded, because we have zeal without thought and many on my side are so scared of discriminating against transpeople that they will shut up anyone else who has legitimate concerns about negative impacts of these kinds of laws. Feel free to disagree but I am wearied from the antagonism people display toward one another over these kinds of issues and I hope that we can do differently. Here are some articles from radical feminists who want both perspectives heard: http://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/06/01/everyday-feminism-pulls-article-alice-dreger/ http://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/06/02/head-of-georgias-aclu-chapter-resigns-over-transgender-bathroom-directive/ Believe it or not I actually enjoy chatting with conservatives; it’s nice to see where we overlap and where we contrast. Thanks for talking with me, I really appreciate it and I look forward to further conversations in the future. However, I owe an apology to the moderator for getting off-topic, and believe that any off-topic discussions need to be moved to a forum like this one, out of respect for the moderator's rules: http://blog.secularprolife.org It’s good to see we share some beliefs in common; I hope to hear back from you at your earliest convenience but if you don’t want to resume this conversation I will understand as well. Take care and thanks for the chat :)
I just started reading an interview that looks really good with the author of Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement Before Roe v. Wade. Several state pro-life organizations of the pre-Roe era coupled their demands for restrictive abortion laws with a call for expanded social welfare programs for pregnant women and infants, and some called for the expansion of the War on Poverty. Many pro-life activists opposed the Vietnam War. Pro-lifers’ insistence on using the arguments of secular human rights liberalism enabled a movement that had started among Catholics to begin attracting the support of a number of liberal Protestants and a few Jews in the early 1970s. . . . If it were not for the religious difference, the activists on both sides of the debate would have seemed remarkably similar. Most were physicians. Most were also New Deal liberals who wanted to help the less fortunate and improve societal well-being. Both sets of activists thought that their own position on abortion advanced liberal values. http://religionandpolitics.org/2016/05/31/when-being-pro-life-did-not-mean-being-conservative/
Thank you. That is worth passing along to my legal abortion advocate friends. They tell me that prolife had its roots in Jerry Falwell and racism, and since people didn't want to come out and say, they wanted segregation/other racist measures back, they used this instead.
I think that the biggest single source of the big divide on this issue is people's differing perceptions of the unborn. Some people sincerely don't get how something that is small and doesn't yet have eyelids or anything can matter. And those people don't believe that pro-lifers can sincerely feel that the unborn matters either. So their imaginations start working overtime trying to imagine what pro-lifers' real motivations are.
Funny thing, they can back up their claims with sources, history, etc. That doesn't mean the first PL people weren't feminists, nor does it invalidate the real liberal input on the question. I do agree with you though. Would you say their sources are BS? I for one have been accused by antagonistic legal abortion advocates (only one) of not caring for the unborn, not really, because I won't condone violence against PP etc. You remember that discussion, I'm sure, because I referenced Wilberforce, Luther King Jr, and Paul as examples against this idea that you must be violent to really care about your cause.
"Would you say their sources are BS?" I would think very critically about the methodology of any study or history claiming to know people's inner motivations, because inner motivations are hard to know. But in the end, they might convince me that X pro-lifer was motivated by fear of women's sexual freedom, for instance. But if they went on to say that because X was motivated in that way, therefore I and all the pro-lifers I know very well must also be motivated in that way (especially if the people saying that felt that the unborn don't matter), I would say that regarding me and all the pro-lifers I know very well, their imaginations are working overtime because our real motivation is just beyond them.
Does the university administrations' indifference ever amount to failure to fulfill a contractual commitment, such that they could be sued, and is there any organization that would have the means to take on a suit? The Pacific Justice Institute? (I know little about them, but I'll just throw that name out.)
We absolutely believe it is important for conservative groups to sue the university when their rights (either constitutional or contractual) have been violated, if the lawsuit is viable. Alliance Defending Freedom is a great organization for this, and we usually partner with them. David Hacker, who serves as senior legal counsel and director of ADF's University Team, is on our Advisory Board. Unfortunately in this case we didn't get the kind of evidence ADF would need for a viable lawsuit. This is why we recently bought some cameras (similar to GoPro's) to better document free speech violations in the future.
Look at it from another perspective. Let's say a mens rights activist set up a booth on campus asking whether it was 'okay to rape women.' A large percentage of the female population has been sexually assaulted or harassed before. Many bring intensely personal and emotional experiences to this question and some are likely to react with open hostility to the idea of dialogue respectful or not.
Another example, on the more extreme end. Let's say someone set up a booth on campus about whether it was ok to lynch black people. I think few people would be sympathetic to the plea for respectful dialogue on the subject since the subject matter is considered to be so overtly disrespectful to certain people.
Now before anyone gets in a huff, I am not implying that the Pro-Life movement is in any way similar to racist movements or rape. I do believe that the emotional responses by people of opposing viewpoints are similar though. So wherever you go, you are likely to experience this kind of response. I'd encourage you to calmly talk with these protesters about why they are so upset. I think you'll find that their answers will support my thesis.
Respectful dialogue has become very difficult in society today. Too many organizations and groups (and I include the Pro-Life movement here) feel that the very existence of an opposing viewpoint is a personal assault that must be crushed or suppressed or responded to in kind. Pro-Choicers see a Pro-Life event and feel compelled to respond, least there exist in the real world a point without a counterpoint.
Both sides use 'freedom of speech' as a defense for such behavior, but freedom of speech doesn't exactly mean that you have a right to an audience, only that you have a right to speak without fear of retribution. College campus rules differ, but legally, they only have an obligation to allow you the opportunity to speak. Someone else can freely and legally utilize their right of speech to drown out your message and prevent it from reaching the intended audience and that, I'm afraid, is the way it is meant to work. The founding fathers never intended this to be easy.
I think the best course of action is to continue to be the more respectful party and to allow the other side to embarrass themselves in the public eye. Unfortunately this strategy only works if the majority of the population sees the movement as being non-aggressive, if the public views outward respectfulness as a facade to dress up an inherently disrespectful platform, it will ultimately fail in forcing the other side to meet you more respectfully.
Perhaps at some point, a class action lawsuit might be the only option to bringing state colleges back in line. Private colleges are another matter entirely.
If the University pays the price they nothing will change.
.
My dad once said the surest way to get someones attention is a good swift kick -
in the pocketbook.
Off-topic (with apologies to the moderator) but how's PJ4 and Infa going? I'm asking because we spoke, briefly, but never really got a chance to carry on our conversation indepth.
You may want to ask those ladies yourself. I follow both so peek in to my profile and take it from there.
Nice to converse with you again. Take care for now.
This response is for later, when you have time. Could you please tell me why you're surprised by my "being influenced by this ideology"? I'm curious as to your reasoning but I have no problem waiting. I have to work anyway.
Unfortunately I can't directly ask the aforementioned ladies because I don't - and cannot - have an account at present. But sure I'll take a look in your profile :)
I hope we can still have plenty of good online conversations despite the political differences. I like your avatar :)
American bonafide liberals are "prochoice" but I've met only a few of the classical liberal orientation who are not.
Liberals are also socialist - leaning politically here and strong believers in "the living Constitution" (loose constructionism) approach to domestic policy.
In my view, neither liberalism as represented by the Democratic Party in the USA nor leftism (the extreme approach to social issues) are conducive to a healthy society.
"The Facts of Life are Conservative"
~ Margaret Thatcher
Also, what do you believe is a good strategy for dealing with speech censorship on campuses?
I'm not sure how a "living Constitution" is supposed to work anyway, or any interpretation of the US Constitution so please don't ask me about that. I would appreciate an explanation though.
What is a classical liberal orientation? Sorry to ask but I don't know very much about that kind of label.
When I say "liberal" I was thinking more of issues like animal rights, the environment, feminism, gay rights, paid maternity leave*, race relations, that sort of thing. However I am also conservative in some areas like the PL thing, I can see fundamentalist Islam is a problem, I have no problem with small businesses, I believe you should be allowed to carry a weapon on yourself for self-defense provided you're not using it to intimidate or hurt anyone, I believe in free speech, and I detest Obamacare because our medical system is socialistic and shocking where we live. Therefore, truthfully, I tend to be a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative or a moderate because I take the best from as many sides as possible.
*I especially think paid maternity leave and social safety nets would go a long way to reducing abortions so I support those. Can you point out anything problematic with this strategy?
I would really like to know what led you to be a conservative and why?
Hope you have a good day - or night - wherever you are.
You and I have more in common than you thought eh 😀 No one truly understands the failures of socialized medicine not having experienced this system like us. Obamacare will ultimately destroy this nation's healthcare system.
The people you are looking for are Social Justice Warriors, politically correct, Cultural Marxists.
They do good work, provided they're not discussing Islam. Then it gets nasty.
You might like to read this article. Be assured you're not the only ones who are silenced when you try to spread truth:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/12/04/activist-maryam-namazie-heckled-at-talk-by-muslim-students-who-say-she-invaded-their-safe-space/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/11/06/this-is-the-speech-that-maryam-namazies-critics-said-would-incite-hatred-at-warwick-university/
I am so sorry for everyone that had to suffer that indignity of silencing another viewpoint - you, your brother. You've got my sympathies.
PS: Off-topic but both sides - conservative and liberal - are also pulling these silencing tactics on the bathroom bills. It's disgusting to watch.
It's the liberals here who are jamming their-new found fascination with sexual perversion and possible abuse by perverts to schools of all places! Interesting isn't it 🙄
I’m actually a lot younger than you – early twenties, to be exact.
You mentioned the Cold War. Just out of curiosity, did you fight in the Cold War? I’m also asking because I have a great respect for war veterans. I’ve never been to Chicago but I hear they have a great mission there called Pacific Garden Mission, and they help a lot of unfortunate people to have a better life. I wish more people cared like that.
“You and I have more in common than you thought eh”
Firstly, in what ways do you think that Obamacare will ultimately destroy America’s healthcare system?
Yes, we do have some beliefs in common, and this is why I generally enjoy speaking to a variety of people with differing beliefs across the spectrum of opinions out there. I agree with you about the Obamacare! It’s disgusting that legal abortion advocates would accuse prolifers of not really caring about prolifism by refusing to support Obamacare, especially considering the massive failure that it is. However the other system that requires all people to pay doctors including the poor, and stereotypes those that cannot contribute as lazy is also morally questionable because a doctor should give his/her services for free as s/he is a servant of the people; I think this mentality encouraged the rise of socialist healthcare. Both frameworks have problems and there needs to be an alternative to this. I don’t know why it is that the government can’t pay
the doctor’s salary out of their own tax money. Furthermore doctors need to care about and love their patients, and put them before any other consideration.
The quality of healthcare has absolutely gone down in NZ. Now people either refuse to go to the hospital and seek alternative treatments or they go, put themselves under the medical system, and receive all kinds of bogus diagnoses and scheduled on a waiting list until they can be treated. I’ve learned that it’s best to stay out of the medical system unless you absolutely need them,
like in the case of childbearing or a life-threatening illness when you do require the help.
Also, abortion and euthanasia have drastically decreased the quality of healthcare. Worst part of that is that they are considering making euthanasia legal in this country. Have you heard of the movie Me Before You? Sadly, the biggest reason
people support euthanasia is that they desire to be compassionate toward the suffering; sometimes they have even watched a relative die in excruciating pain and I agree that is a difficult thing to go through. That being said, I don’t think euthanasia is the answer to this moral dilemma. I think that unethical doctors are your worst potential murderers because they know your body and the way it works inside out. Funny thing, Jesus healed for free, asking for nothing in return.
Last but not least, what about the ethics of continuous consent as relating to euthanasia? This is a pamphlet Planned Parenthood put out in regards to continuous consent in sexual relations:
https://www.facebook.com/PlannedParenthood/photos/a.401411729874877.116355.342294162453301/1200487149967327/?type=3&theater
Why should the rules of consent and bodily autonomy be different when it comes to the person receiving euthanasia?
Just my two cents on Obamacare and related issues.
You said, “I will never accept any form of liberalism due to it's socialist leanings.”
This is why I asked in a previous comment, “What do you believe the best way is for dealing with abortion? Also, what do you believe is a good strategy for dealing with speech censorship on campuses?” I would very much appreciate a reply to this query.
If paid maternity leave and social safety nets were a couple of the best ways to overcome abortion, would you support them? Or do you see problems with these kinds of reduction strategies?
In regards to the Bathroom Bills, I can sympathise with both perspectives. I realise I risk being name-called on both sides of the fence – a pervert promoter by the conservatives and a transphobic hater by the liberals – but I can understand both where transpeople are coming from in their need to have a
restroom, and where ciswomen (biologically born women) are coming from when they say they should feel safe when going to the bathroom. I’ve seen people being trashed simply for raising concerns as to the negative impacts of these bills and it saddens me because I think it hurts the very people they are trying to help – transpeople particularly, due to the very high violence rate
many of them suffer – and also because the concerns that others have about keeping safe from predatory pretenders are just as valid, and just as legitimate. In short I think my side is botching this issue up pretty badly; we should do better than this if we claim to be so progressive in morals, and if we don’t we will rightly earn the label of close-minded, because we have zeal without thought and many on my side are so scared of discriminating against
transpeople that they will shut up anyone else who has legitimate concerns about negative impacts of these kinds of laws. Feel free to disagree but I am wearied from the antagonism people display toward one another over these kinds of issues and I hope that we can do differently.
Here are some articles from radical feminists who want both perspectives heard:
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/06/01/everyday-feminism-pulls-article-alice-dreger/
http://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/06/02/head-of-georgias-aclu-chapter-resigns-over-transgender-bathroom-directive/
Believe it or not I actually enjoy chatting with conservatives; it’s nice to see where we overlap and where we contrast. Thanks for talking with me, I really appreciate it and I look forward to further conversations in the future. However, I owe an apology to the moderator for getting off-topic, and believe that any off-topic discussions need to be moved to a forum like this one, out of respect for the moderator's rules:
http://blog.secularprolife.org
It’s good to see we share some beliefs in common; I hope to hear back from you at your earliest convenience but if you don’t want to resume this conversation I will understand as well. Take care and thanks for the chat :)
Several state pro-life organizations of the pre-Roe
era coupled their demands for restrictive abortion laws with a call for
expanded social welfare programs for pregnant women and infants, and
some called for the expansion of the War on Poverty. Many pro-life
activists opposed the Vietnam War. Pro-lifers’ insistence on using the
arguments of secular human rights liberalism enabled a movement that had
started among Catholics to begin attracting the support of a number of
liberal Protestants and a few Jews in the early 1970s.
. . .
If it were not for the religious difference, the activists on both
sides of the debate would have seemed remarkably similar. Most were
physicians. Most were also New Deal liberals who wanted to help the less
fortunate and improve societal well-being. Both sets of activists
thought that their own position on abortion advanced liberal values.
http://religionandpolitics.org/2016/05/31/when-being-pro-life-did-not-mean-being-conservative/
Would you say their sources are BS?
I for one have been accused by antagonistic legal abortion advocates (only one) of not caring for the unborn, not really, because I won't condone violence against PP etc. You remember that discussion, I'm sure, because I referenced Wilberforce, Luther King Jr, and Paul as examples against this idea that you must be violent to really care about your cause.
I would think very critically about the methodology of any study or history claiming to know people's inner motivations, because inner motivations are hard to know. But in the end, they might convince me that X pro-lifer was motivated by fear of women's sexual freedom, for instance.
But if they went on to say that because X was motivated in that way, therefore I and all the pro-lifers I know very well must also be motivated in that way (especially if the people saying that felt that the unborn don't matter), I would say that regarding me and all the pro-lifers I know very well, their imaginations are working overtime because our real motivation is just beyond them.