And this is where we disagree. I think the biggest disanalogy between Thomson's violinist story and at least most abortion methods is the difference between letting someone die of a kidney illness and directly killing another human being that you were responsible for creating.
I hope you don't mind if I ask a clarification question here - do you believe that direct killing of the fetus via abortion = unplugging and asserting bodily autonomy?
A little late to the party here, but I felt compelled to post. Only one problem here that derails the whole argument. The author and his brother implicitly acknowledge that there ARE circumstances where killing abortion practitioners are not only necessary, but morally justified (which is an inevitable conclusion given the language we use to describe abortion). They even lay out the circumstances necessary (a despotic nation, a state of war, when all alternatives have failed). Here's the problem. Right wing politicians and demagogues are stating exactly that. That Obama is a terrorist or a muslim extremist, that at the end of his term he's going to usurp control of the government, that he's a manchurian candidate in league with muslim radicals...The language the Pro Life movement uses the language of war and implied despotism (holocaust, state sanctioned mass murder, etc.) You've got politicians, TV personalities, and Pastors stating that this is 'The End Times,' that we must take action now, that the great battle between good and evil is at hand. So on the one hand you have a movement implying that drastic action is only acceptable in specific circumstances, and on the other you have TV personalities, religious leaders, and politicians all using language and imagery designed to stoke the imaginations of this specific audience into believing that those very circumstances are at hand.
Necessary does not mean sufficient. Necessary conditions: a despotic nation, a state of war, when all alternatives have failed. Sufficient conditions: [none stated] Definitely insufficient: Some street preacher with a cardboard sign saying the world is about to end, or a talk radio host calling the U.S. president a Muslim terrorist.
You are ignoring the disproportionate influence media has on the perception of reality. If you aren't even going to factor that in, I can't take your comment seriously.
Not really. Plenty of media personalities have called Donald Trump a fascist, compared him to Adolf Hitler and Lord Voldemort, and falsely claimed that ISIS is using his speeches to recruit terrorists. George W. Bush's critics regularly called him a Nazi and said that his administration was behind the 9/11 attacks. Idiots that equate the anti-abortion movement with the Taliban are awarded with airtime. You still don't get "let's start killing people!" out of that. I can't take your comment seriously. Ironic. I'm not the one blaming a lunatic's violent actions on a peaceful social movement.
Yeah. Even if all that garbage were true, that comparison is still a big slap in the face to victims of actual terrorist movements. You should be ashamed.
I'm open-minded. I know some prolifers would like nothing more than to execute abortion practitioners and drive them into the ground. However, there are others who work peacefully to change laws. Most grassroots at least, and I think some of the leaders too, seek to save life rather than terrorise people. You and I belong in the latter category, and I'm proud to say Josh does as well :)
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2386771601 I said let's suppose that the CMP had misrepresented Planned Parenthood as having broken laws, and asked: "You have said that violence was (or would have been, if Dear in fact became violent for that reason) a completely unreasonable response to PP's being denounced as criminal. So apparently you would argue that even having falsely branded PP as criminal (when it was not) would not make the CMP culpable -- because even if PP is criminal, violence would be a completely unreasonable response. Have I understood you correctly?" Two weeks later, this occurs to me: I think that a person has some culpability even for an unreasonable response to what they said, if what they said was a lie that increased the chance (however small the chance might be) of the response that took place. Probably the laws of some countries would agree with this.
"Hands up Don't Shoot" was a lie. I still don't blame think it's fair to blame Black Lives Matter activists for the few sympathizers that kill police officers, torch cars, and burn down retirement homes.
That WP article says: Another witness . . . heard a man. . . . The man was saying something to the effect of, “The police shot my friend and his hands were up.” The witness said that “quickly became the narrative on the street, and . . . people used it both as an excuse to riot and to create a ‘block party’ atmosphere.” What does "it" refer to? Did people find an excuse to riot because of the mere existence of the narrative, or because they sincerely believed the narrative? Anyway, though the article doesn't mention Black Lives Matter itself, I don't think that Black Lives Matter itself was on the scene at that moment in Ferguson. The article also says, it is important for us to note that the initial “Hands up, don’t shoot” chant after Brown’s shooting has evolved into a message that is no longer connected solely to the Ferguson event. A series of other fatal shootings by police occurred following Brown’s death, and the “Hands up, don’t shoot” came to symbolize the need to hold law enforcement accountable If the use of the slogan cannot reasonably be expected to dupe anyone into believing that Brown actually had his hands up, then I don't think those who use the slogan are responsible for what anyone hearing it does. But if it may well dupe people, and if those who use it know that Brown didn't likely have his hands up, and if someone is motivated by being so duped to do something violent, then clearly those who used the slogan helped cause the violence -- maybe they only helped slightly, but they helped -- and did so knowing they were lying. I think the lying makes them partially responsible. Whether we use the word "blame" would depend on whether we think that the violence was definitely a bad thing in the greater scheme of things, and think that that bad was not offset by some greater good that would justify it.
I appreciate your sharing, IHB :) "I suspect the anti-abortion agenda of the PLM is a ruse for a hidden covert patriarchy objective ... as suggested by their refusal to reallocate their focus and resources on birth-control during Realities 1, addressing the risks females experience during Realities 2, and addressing the sober harsh realities non-wealthy females and children do and would experience in Realities 3." Agreed and disagreed. I agree in the way that the PL movement is generally run by abstinence-only, conservative-minded Christian people. I find their sex ethics generally shocking, to be frank. Also, what you say makes sense in this way: making all children be born into a world that will not value their existence once they are born is not a good thing. I simply don't think the solution to this is abortion. What I do believe is that the solution lies at least partially in addressing the issues you stated, and I quote: "1. Pre-Conception-Realities - Poverty/Other ISMs 2. Pregnancy Risk Realities - Female Autonomy 3. Post-Birth-Realities - Poverty/Other ISMs" To be honest, I doubt that some of the PL leaders even care for unborn persons. Their incremental laws disgust me for two reasons: they treat unborn persons as political pawns rather than persons in need of protection under the law, and they treat pregnant persons as political pawns rather than thinking, feeling people. Furthermore, the views of some of the RW individuals running things behind the scenes, such as theonomy, make me shudder. I might be a strict PLer but I can empathise with the emotional insecurity a woman feels when she has no way of controlling her reproductive output on her own terms. I have felt the sick, cold feeling in the pit of my stomach, in my daydreams, as I have imagined what being a married woman with no recourse to prevent pregnancy via contraception must be like. To top it all off with fear of pregnancy and childbirth - ugh. So I despise these politicians and leaders because they make matters worse. I disagree in the sense that the PL movement is focused primarily on saving unborn persons, and that is a good focus to have. I do not think that focus should be shifted away from unborn persons, yet I believe that unborn persons should not be the only focus they have, as abortion is a banaid issue covering up a host of other issues - poverty, etc - as you mentioned. Keeping it focused only on illegalising unborn persons yields only one result - illegalisation - and not only addresses nothing in reality but can also be abused so that pregnant persons receive the short side of the stick. The fact that PLers haven't really thought through the implications of abuse of pregnant persons is highly troubling to me. Such laws might eliminate the taking of life legally (which is a good thing) but they won't answer the issues that cause women to get abortions, and this is wrong to me. I like to ask my fellow prolifers sometimes, if they are so keen to eliminate this morally unacceptable practice, why would you not want to understand the hows, whys, and wherefores of the action, and once you have the understanding, to eliminate the reasons for abortion so that women will not have the incentive to have abortions anymore. I will write up more later. Again, I deeply appreciate your contributions!
I have not come across any data filtered/sorted by racial group other than breaking Catholic responses down to White/Hispanic and Protestant into White/Black. I think Pew broke down the opinions of people who pray daily about abortion by race but, if I remember correctly, there were only 5 racial categories.
Well, I was surprised because it was so unexpected! I appreciate your love for me. Please know I love you and your partner as well. I hope that I have made it clear that I care about all people, not just unborn persons; that I care very much about post-birth guarantees for making the world a better place; and that I do not like the idea of ensuring unborn persons are born then left to die because society did not do its job by caring for them, ensuring they had a reasonable standard of living and educating them.
My debate with LB is not about her position, per se. It is that I don't see her arguments supporting that position as sound. They mainly consist of her personal opinion she provides little in the way of credible evidence to support that opinion. When factual evidence; e.g., statistics or semantics, to the contrary is presented, rather than address it, she builds a straw man. However, she doesn't do any better with her straw man because she presents no credible evidence for that argument either. Regarding Roe v Wade, I have stated, on many occasions that I do not believe it will ever be overturned, and pro-life people are wasting their time trying to do so. I try to stay on top of surveys and statistical information concerning people's opinions on abortion. Most polls indicate the vast number of people do not favor overturning Roe v Wade in its entirety. They (Pew and Gallop) also, indicate the majority do not support the extreme positions of either; opposition to abortions regardless of any circumstances, and support for abortions under any/all circumstances. Most people end up somewhere in the middle. I think the available data is clear about two things. The first is that most people have moral reservations about abortion. They and believe there must be some sort of justification or rationale for such an action. The second is that most people do not believe abortions should simply be illegal. I found some data from a poll commissioned by the National Right to Life Committee that had a greater degree of detail than most. It also assured I couldn't be accused of a pro-abortion bias. [http(colon)//www(dot)nationalrighttolifenews(dot)org/news/2013/04/new-poll-shows-pro-life-majority-on-abortion/#.VlAsbv9dFy0 I drew the following conclusions: This poll showed only 11% are in favor of banning all abortions. The number who think it should be legal in all circumstance is almost the same at 12%. So, that correlates well with other poll data I've presented, so it appears to be very reasonable to say both represent extreme minority positions. Only 30% see the stage of fetal development of the fetus as an exclusive criteria. 20% see three months (much like Roe v Wade's trimester plan) as a cut-off point for abortions for any reason. Only 10% support viability (six months) as the cut-off point. More people (over 42%) see other circumstances as a criteria for allowing abortion. Only 14% see the life of the mother as the sole criteria for allowing, those who include rape and incest represent another 14%. The study asked one question about all three circumstances together which was 28% and then asked exclusively about the life of the mother. I need to take a break, but I will be happy to take up the rest of your comments soon.
"1. Re-allocate its labor and millions (resources) to reducing systemic and institutional poverty, acknowledging overpopulation, developing procreative abilities outside the female womb, and proactively promoting and providing free or affordable access to all birth-control ... excluding setting up their own abortions providers beyond those that already exist." I believe in partial reallocation of the funds rather than complete, and that is where we will have a difference. However I believe we agree on these other measures you mentioned - "reducing systematic and institutional poverty, acknowledging overpopulation, developing procreative abilities outside the female womb, and proactively promoting and providing free or affordable access to all birth-control".
To be honest, I'm a wee bit surprised. I thought you said this was your last comment on PL topics, at least on this forum. "This sounds like you're suggesting the medical staff (or mother) LIE about needing the abortion." No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply saying that in some cases, the doctor made a mistake and deemed it "life-of-the-mother" when that baby could have been saved. At the same time, I recognise that, for the present, the life that can be saved should be saved. Which sometimes means saving the mother even if that involves an abortion. I do, however, hope for a day that will employ technology to save both*. "Also, I'm stunned that you would focus on society mobilizing and allocating resources to make sure that fetus is born (regardless of what you consider the "female incubators" wishes) into what real world conditions ... that the same society does not currently mobilize and allocate resources to guarantee a middle class or wealthy class LIFE." I hope I can assure you that I *do not want to see a society that keeps people alive because they're not born yet, but does not care for them and simply leaves them in the slums to die after they're born; in my book that is as anti the prolife ethic as taking their lives before they are born. If I have given the impression that I care only for saving unborn persons to the exclusion of all else, I am sincerely saddened, because that is not what I want at all. "You want society to find a way via criminalizing abortion, inventing technology, and mobilizing and allocating resources to GUARANTEE THAT BIRTH ... but remain silent about ANY POST-BIRTH GUARANTEES." Well, actually, did I mention that there would have to be a lot to change in the post-birth world as well? If not, I should have. No, I'm not solely for replacement of abortion via high techs, nor solely for protecting unborn persons via legal means, although that is something I'm not ashamed of. I appreciate the fact you pointed this out, because, if this was going to work, a number of things would have to change or at least improve, as follows:
1) Adoption would need to be reformed. The adoption system, at the present time, is in a terrible mess. People who shouldn't be allowed to adopt children are, and that concerns me. 2) Social safety nets would have to be strengthened rather than taken away from women, because if women are going to keep their babies, then they will need help and support in that. 3) Contraceptives would have to be improved, strengthened, multiplied and freely available. 4) Sex education would also have to be freely available. But it would have to be a type that did not shame people for not fitting into cultural norms. 5) Altering our attitudes towards sex and pregnancy would have to be a must*. We would have to be far more accepting of solo motherhood than we are now. Also, women could no longer be seen as criminals for having sex whilst in possession of a uteri. Furthermore, no woman should have to ever, ever be afraid when she gets pregnant. She would need the security of knowing she can apply for nonjudgmental help, and that she would be aided, and the path to being a parent or adopting out would be made simple for her, rather than hard as it is now. 6) Combating the actual causes of abortion would be imperative also. If unborn persons have a right to life, so do born persons. As I mentioned, we would have to deal with poverty, domestic violence, rape culture, rape and incest, etc. Also we would have to channel our greatest services for free education, free healthcare, free help of all types, etc, into poor neighbourhoods, so that young people could have a chance to grow up without living in slums. Any woman who wants to escape an abusive relationship would have to know she could get a hotline. Also any woman who got pregnant would have to go to a healthcare center and have her options explained to her, without judgment. Last but not least we would have to believe rape victims and victims of incest rather than the perpetrators. While I have my opinions I recognise that abortion is not just a moral issue by itself, but a bandaid on a host of other issues. Therefore, simply guaranteeing birth without guaranteeing born citizens are looked after is absurd and wrong because the bandaid would only be changed, not disregarded. In other words, if we dealt with the issues that caused abortion, we would be reducing abortions nearly half-way at least and that would be a good thing. You are correct in saying that if birth was to be guaranteed we would have to change post-birth conditions as well in order to ensure our future generations had a better world to grow up in. I hope I have made myself clear that I don't hold to the adage "If you're pre-birth, you're fine; if you're pre-school, you can go to hell as far as I'm concerned." "Wow ... all pregnancies must be born no matter what reality going on with the "female incubators" and "post-birth" ..." In regards to that, I mentioned the technology that would ensure that unborn persons got to live yet pregnant persons got to decide whether they wanted to carry or not, because I am not for women being made to carry a pregnancy if they don't wish to. I simply part ways with the legal abortion advocate crowd on the issue of abortion being the best method to achieve this bodily freedom. "Heck, the GOP opposes our government allocating food stamps to already born poor and low-income struggling human beings whom need to eat, plus a whole scope of other life sustaining and empowering resources." You know what? I *agree with you on this! I am very much for food stamps and other such social services going to poor people, and I have no problem paying my taxes to ensure that these people get fed. "Our species doesn't even know what such a concept or reality looks like ... all human life and quality of life guaranteed." That is a world I would like to see a reality, as I explained above. "I'm sorry, but I have to opine ... the PLM is so misguided in how it mobilizes and allocates its labor hours and millions of dollars in resources ... all of which could be focused 100% on guaranteeing a quality life for already alive human beings outside the womb ... and yes, even those unborn fetus they demand be born by "female incubators" worldwide." I agree. They need to care for everyone. The problem is that they are run by this capitalist mindset that makes poor people into automatic criminals. As for me, I want my resources to help everyone - unborn and born alike. Not just one group of people, everyone. I hope we understand each other a little better now.
Hi IHB I deeply appreciate that you explained what you believe about the movement itself without attacking those who adhere to PL belief. It was a very thorough and thought-provoking critique, IMO. I don’t really have too much to say in response except that it is an area worth seriously researching and self-examining, more than I have. If you’re wrong, I will let you know. But if you’re right, I’ll let you know that too. I don’t represent or belong to the PL movement but am rather an outlier, because it is run, at least in part, by conservative Christian people who believe in old-fashioned abstinence ideals that don’t help matters any. In my heart, I left it a while back (I was never officially part of it) because I questioned some of their legislative methods and could see their laws generally (not always, but generally) weren’t helping. I’m still PL in my heart and I’m open to listening to both sides (prolife and advocate for legal abortion) of the topic so I can learn more about how to treat this sensitive issue. I have a lot to say about how I believe abortions can be reduced, and I want to talk about it more one day if you’re comfortable with that, but I will leave my thoughts for the present at this as I wish to focus on where we do share common ground: we agree that the causes of abortion – poverty, rape culture, domestic violence, etc – should be dealt with or at least seriously reduced, plus both of us believe contraception should be promoted far and wide. IMO science and reason are the best way to handle this controversy in society, not bombs and death threats of abortion practitioners. I am not a moderator here. However, I care about the fellow commenters not being banned or deleted, and deeply value their contributions, which is why I will send them comments letting them know if and when they’re stepping over a line. The reason I told you about people versus actions was that I did not want the mods censoring your comments. Although I have no problem resuming discussion of this topic with you if you change your mind, I respect the fact you have no desire to discuss this for the present as I understand that discussing abortion is not for everyone. However, you have made me so happy for such a brief period of time that I strongly desire to talk about topics we do agree on when we both feel comfortable doing so, if that is all right with you. Would you mind if we move our conversation over to Love Joy Feminism where we can keep discussing that rape culture article that you commented on yesterday, because it would mean so much to me if you could do that for me and also because I find you to have a very insightful perspective on many topics. Also if you want to drop by on The Friendly Atheist (which is not prolife BTW) I will be happy to talk when I see you :)
No apology required. I think it fair to state that I apologise for misunderstanding your intentions. It seemed to me, at the time, that the comment about jihad was completely unrelated to the issue at hand, namely, anti-abortion terrorism. I appreciate your explaining your intentions as to why you made that particular comment; now I understand a little better where you are coming from and this is very helpful in that it puts your comments in context. "I thought the unspoken issue raised in the PLM article was whether people identifying with the politics of PLM should be viewed as potential Domestic Terrorist? This ISSUE speaks to all people whom identify with the politics of other groups and whether they too can be defined as potential DTs." AFAIK you were correct to judge that that was the topic the article was discussing. This is the intention of the article, and I quote: "Many pro-choice people have responded to the recent shooting by blaming pro-life advocates. In this article I show why such claims are completely unjustified by analyzing culpability and what it means to incite violence." "In other words C ... this article is a political polemic ... not legal analysis ... about whether a Mass Murder whom identifies with and articulates PLM politics is a Domestic Terrorist." No, it isn't a legal analysis. But it's not about whether a mass murderer who identifies with and articulates PLM politics is a domestic terrorist either. I'm pretty sure the author of this article would recognise him as a domestic terrorist or a murderer at the very least. It's an article written by a prolifer who recognises that anti-abortion terrorism is a problem, and is seeking to explain why most prolifers are not responsible for one man's actions. Yet it's also explaining how a person could incite violence through their words so that they can avoid falling into that trap when they honestly critique the abortion issue. "In other words, if we "compartmentalized" our analysis (online and offline) ... don't conduct "comparative analysis" of politically motivated murders ... then we fail to identify and deconstruct the common patterns of "hate" and "dogma" all potential DTs share ... whether it's specifically PL mass-murders, School mass-murders, Jihadist mass-murders, Gang mass-murders, etc ... notwithstanding our federal government has official definitions of domestic terrorism." Since seeking to analyse the commonalities between different types of mass murderers seemed to be your intentions when you commented and called the PL movement a terrorist organisation, I actually appreciate the critique because I think it is good to hear a dissenting voice. "The same polemic could be written by any political group ... including DAESH ... regarding any person identifying with and articulating their politks." I can agree with that because it's true. "But if you don't see these common patterns comparatively between all these mass-murders, then I'll respect the articles' online compartmentalization ... although offline that's not how reality works." Well, would you mind explaining the common patterns comparatively between the mass-murders of PL and jihad, because I have no problem having that conversation with you at all. "I can 100% guarantee you "compartmentalization" isn't how our NSA, CIA, FBI, and ATF intelligence analysts view these mass murders. To the contrary they're looking for "common patterns" of "ideological and political dogma"." Oh, okay. Fair enough. Let's see here: there is surely a difference between criticising an ideology and hating people who believe that ideology, yes? Please remember that when you critique, because the prolifers I know are good people who would never want to terrorise any abortion practitioner. Yet I admit that there are some who wish to employ these kinds of tactics on abortion practitioners and it is not helpful. I am open to hearing evidence on either side either for or against the idea that the PL movement generally supports terrorism, although, so far as I know, it doesn't. So if you have genuine evidence and can prove it I will at least look at it. In other words, seeking to accuse prolife people, out the gate, of holding terrorist notions or ideas won't help, and the moderators will not appreciate condemnation of people*. However, a thoughtful analysis of why you believe the PL *movement supports domestic terrorism would contribute greatly to the content of this forum as that is very much part of the subject that the moderators want everyone to discuss, AFAIK. Last but not least you were far more on-topic than I realised so thanks for clearing up the confusion. I have no problem resuming this conversation if you are so inclined. So thanks for your contributions!
I can understand your frustration, but I think we're getting a little off-topic here. If this article was covering Islam I'd discuss that with you. However it's not.
You can count the number of people sympathetic to the pro-life cause that have actually killed people for ideological reasons on your fingers. Most (if not all) of them are just like Robert Dear - mentally unstable loners with criminal backgrounds living in sheds or off the grid. To date, no pro-life activist has ever flown an airplane into a building, strapped a bomb to his face, thrown acid on a woman's face for going to school, beheaded a journalist, or opened fire on an office because of a cartoon. There aren't tens of millions of pro-life advocates applauding such behaviour. There are no organized anti-abortion terrorist groups on social media promising young people 72 virgins if they leave their families to overthrow the government and destroy monuments. You don't see a huge fraction of the pro-life population that believes in killing their daughters for dishonouring their families (by changing religion, or by refusing to cover their hair/forehead/face/full body). Unless you can say the same about jihadists, stop insulting victims of radical Islam by suggesting the two are even remotely similar.
Although I am open to hearing both sides of the issue on anti-abortion terrorism, I do believe the vast majority of grassroots prolifers and a few of the leaders deplore violence against those who do not share their views. So I appreciate your critique.
Only one problem here that derails the whole argument. The author and his brother implicitly acknowledge that there ARE circumstances where killing abortion practitioners are not only necessary, but morally justified (which is an inevitable conclusion given the language we use to describe abortion). They even lay out the circumstances necessary (a despotic nation, a state of war, when all alternatives have failed).
Here's the problem. Right wing politicians and demagogues are stating exactly that. That Obama is a terrorist or a muslim extremist, that at the end of his term he's going to usurp control of the government, that he's a manchurian candidate in league with muslim radicals...The language the Pro Life movement uses the language of war and implied despotism (holocaust, state sanctioned mass murder, etc.) You've got politicians, TV personalities, and Pastors stating that this is 'The End Times,' that we must take action now, that the great battle between good and evil is at hand.
So on the one hand you have a movement implying that drastic action is only acceptable in specific circumstances, and on the other you have TV personalities, religious leaders, and politicians all using language and imagery designed to stoke the imaginations of this specific audience into believing that those very circumstances are at hand.
Necessary conditions: a despotic nation, a state of war, when all alternatives have failed.
Sufficient conditions: [none stated]
Definitely insufficient: Some street preacher with a cardboard sign saying the world is about to end, or a talk radio host calling the U.S. president a Muslim terrorist.
I can't take your comment seriously.
Ironic. I'm not the one blaming a lunatic's violent actions on a peaceful social movement.
"You have said that violence was (or would have been, if Dear in fact
became violent for that reason) a completely unreasonable response to
PP's being denounced as criminal. So apparently you would argue that
even having falsely branded PP as criminal (when it was not) would not
make the CMP culpable -- because even if PP is criminal, violence would
be a completely unreasonable response. Have I understood you correctly?"
Two weeks later, this occurs to me: I think that a person has some culpability even for an unreasonable response to what they said, if what they said was a lie that increased the chance (however small the chance might be) of the response that took place.
Probably the laws of some countries would agree with this.
Another witness . . . heard a man. . . . The man was saying something to the
effect of, “The police shot my friend and his hands were up.” The
witness said that “quickly became the narrative on the street, and . . .
people used it both as an excuse to riot and to create a ‘block party’
atmosphere.”
What does "it" refer to? Did people find an excuse to riot because of the
mere existence of the narrative, or because they sincerely believed the
narrative? Anyway, though the article doesn't mention Black Lives Matter itself, I don't think that Black Lives Matter itself was on the scene at that moment in Ferguson.
The article also says, it is important for us to note that the initial “Hands up, don’t shoot” chant after Brown’s shooting has evolved into a message that is no
longer connected solely to the Ferguson event. A series of other fatal
shootings by police occurred following Brown’s death, and the “Hands up,
don’t shoot” came to symbolize the need to hold law enforcement
accountable
If the use of the slogan cannot reasonably be expected to dupe anyone into believing that Brown actually had his hands up, then I don't think those who use the slogan are responsible for what anyone hearing it does. But if it may well dupe people, and if those who use it know that Brown didn't likely have his hands up, and if someone is motivated by being so duped to do something violent, then clearly those who used the slogan helped cause the violence -- maybe they only helped slightly, but they helped -- and did so knowing they were lying. I think the lying makes them partially responsible. Whether we use the word "blame" would depend on whether we think that the violence was definitely a bad thing in the greater scheme of things, and think that that bad was not offset by some greater good that would justify it.
"I suspect the anti-abortion agenda of the PLM is a ruse for a hidden covert patriarchy objective ... as suggested by their refusal to reallocate their focus and resources on birth-control during Realities 1, addressing the risks females experience during Realities 2, and addressing the sober harsh realities non-wealthy females and children do and would experience in Realities 3."
Agreed and disagreed.
I agree in the way that the PL movement is generally run by abstinence-only, conservative-minded Christian people. I find their sex ethics generally shocking, to be frank. Also, what you say makes sense in this way: making all children be born into a world that will not value their existence once they are born is not a good thing. I simply don't think the solution to this is abortion. What I do believe is that the solution lies at least partially in addressing the issues you stated, and I quote:
"1. Pre-Conception-Realities - Poverty/Other ISMs
2. Pregnancy Risk Realities - Female Autonomy
3. Post-Birth-Realities - Poverty/Other ISMs"
To be honest, I doubt that some of the PL leaders even care for unborn persons. Their incremental laws disgust me for two reasons: they treat unborn persons as political pawns rather than persons in need of protection under the law, and they treat pregnant persons as political pawns rather than thinking, feeling people. Furthermore, the views of some of the RW individuals running things behind the scenes, such as theonomy, make me shudder. I might be a strict PLer but I can empathise with the emotional insecurity a woman feels when she has no way of controlling her reproductive output on her own terms. I have felt the sick, cold feeling in the pit of my stomach, in my daydreams, as I have imagined what being a married woman with no recourse to prevent pregnancy via contraception must be like. To top it all off with fear of pregnancy and childbirth - ugh. So I despise these politicians and leaders because they make matters worse.
I disagree in the sense that the PL movement is focused primarily on saving unborn persons, and that is a good focus to have. I do not think that focus should be shifted away from unborn persons, yet I believe that unborn persons should not be the only focus they have, as abortion is a banaid issue covering up a host of other issues - poverty, etc - as you mentioned. Keeping it focused only on illegalising unborn persons yields only one result - illegalisation - and not only addresses nothing in reality but can also be abused so that pregnant persons receive the short side of the stick. The fact that PLers haven't really thought through the implications of abuse of pregnant persons is highly troubling to me. Such laws might eliminate the taking of life legally (which is a good thing) but they won't answer the issues that cause women to get abortions, and this is wrong to me. I like to ask my fellow prolifers sometimes, if they are so keen to eliminate this morally unacceptable practice, why would you not want to understand the hows, whys, and wherefores of the action, and once you have the understanding, to eliminate the reasons for abortion so that women will not have the incentive to have abortions anymore.
I will write up more later. Again, I deeply appreciate your contributions!
I think Pew broke down the opinions of people who pray daily about abortion by race but, if I remember correctly, there were only 5 racial categories.
I appreciate your love for me. Please know I love you and your partner as well.
I hope that I have made it clear that I care about all people, not just unborn persons; that I care very much about post-birth guarantees for making the world a better place; and that I do not like the idea of ensuring unborn persons are born then left to die because society did not do its job by caring for them, ensuring they had a reasonable standard of living and educating them.
Regarding Roe v Wade, I have stated, on many occasions that I do not believe it will ever be overturned, and pro-life people are wasting their time trying to do so.
I try to stay on top of surveys and statistical information concerning people's opinions on abortion. Most polls indicate the vast number of people do not favor overturning Roe v Wade in its entirety.
They (Pew and Gallop) also, indicate the majority do not support the extreme positions of either; opposition to abortions regardless of any circumstances, and support for abortions under any/all circumstances.
Most people end up somewhere in the middle.
I think the available data is clear about two things. The first is that most people have moral reservations about abortion. They and believe there must be some sort of justification or rationale for such an action.
The second is that most people do not believe abortions should simply be illegal.
I found some data from a poll commissioned by the National Right to Life Committee that had a greater degree of detail than most. It also assured I couldn't be accused of a pro-abortion bias.
[http(colon)//www(dot)nationalrighttolifenews(dot)org/news/2013/04/new-poll-shows-pro-life-majority-on-abortion/#.VlAsbv9dFy0
I drew the following conclusions:
This poll showed only 11% are in favor of banning all abortions. The number who think it should be legal in all circumstance is almost the same at 12%. So, that correlates well with other poll data I've presented, so it appears to be very reasonable to say both represent extreme minority positions.
Only 30% see the stage of fetal development of the fetus as an exclusive criteria. 20% see three months (much like Roe v Wade's trimester plan) as a cut-off point for abortions for any reason. Only 10% support viability (six months) as the cut-off point.
More people (over 42%) see other circumstances as a criteria for allowing abortion. Only 14% see the life of the mother as the sole criteria for allowing, those who include rape and incest represent another 14%. The study asked one question about all three circumstances together which was 28% and then asked exclusively about the life of the mother.
I need to take a break, but I will be happy to take up the rest of your comments soon.
and institutional poverty, acknowledging overpopulation, developing
procreative abilities outside the female womb, and proactively promoting
and providing free or affordable access to all birth-control ...
excluding setting up their own abortions providers beyond those that
already exist."
I believe in partial reallocation of the funds rather than complete, and that is where we will have a difference. However I believe we agree on these other measures you mentioned - "reducing systematic and institutional poverty, acknowledging overpopulation, developing
procreative abilities outside the female womb, and proactively promoting
and providing free or affordable access to all birth-control".
"This sounds like you're suggesting the medical staff (or mother) LIE about needing the abortion."
No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply saying that in some cases, the doctor made a mistake and deemed it "life-of-the-mother" when that baby could have been saved. At the same time, I recognise that, for the present, the life that can be saved should be saved. Which sometimes means saving the mother even if that involves an abortion. I do, however, hope for a day that will employ technology to save both*.
"Also, I'm stunned that you would focus on society mobilizing and
allocating resources to make sure that fetus is born (regardless of what
you consider the "female incubators" wishes) into what real world
conditions ... that the same society does not currently mobilize and
allocate resources to guarantee a middle class or wealthy class LIFE."
I hope I can assure you that I *do not want to see a society that keeps people alive because they're not born yet, but does not care for them and simply leaves them in the slums to die after they're born; in my book that is as anti the prolife ethic as taking their lives before they are born. If I have given the impression that I care only for saving unborn persons to the exclusion of all else, I am sincerely saddened, because that is not what I want at all.
"You want society to find a way via criminalizing abortion, inventing
technology, and mobilizing and allocating resources to GUARANTEE THAT
BIRTH ... but remain silent about ANY POST-BIRTH GUARANTEES."
Well, actually, did I mention that there would have to be a lot to change in the post-birth world as well? If not, I should have. No, I'm not solely for replacement of abortion via high techs, nor solely for protecting unborn persons via legal means, although that is something I'm not ashamed of. I appreciate the fact you pointed this out, because, if this was going to work, a number of things would have to change or at least improve, as follows: 1) Adoption would need to be reformed. The adoption system, at the present time, is in a terrible mess. People who shouldn't be allowed to adopt children are, and that concerns me.
2) Social safety nets would have to be strengthened rather than taken away from women, because if women are going to keep their babies, then they will need help and support in that.
3) Contraceptives would have to be improved, strengthened, multiplied and freely available.
4) Sex education would also have to be freely available. But it would have to be a type that did not shame people for not fitting into cultural norms.
5) Altering our attitudes towards sex and pregnancy would have to be a must*. We would have to be far more accepting of solo motherhood than we are now. Also, women could no longer be seen as criminals for having sex whilst in possession of a uteri. Furthermore, no woman should have to ever, ever be afraid when she gets pregnant. She would need the security of knowing she can apply for nonjudgmental help, and that she would be aided, and the path to being a parent or adopting out would be made simple for her, rather than hard as it is now.
6) Combating the actual causes of abortion would be imperative also. If unborn persons have a right to life, so do born persons. As I mentioned, we would have to deal with poverty, domestic violence, rape culture, rape and incest, etc. Also we would have to channel our greatest services for free education, free healthcare, free help of all types, etc, into poor neighbourhoods, so that young people could have a chance to grow up without living in slums. Any woman who wants to escape an abusive relationship would have to know she could get a hotline. Also any woman who got pregnant would have to go to a healthcare center and have her options explained to her, without judgment. Last but not least we would have to believe rape victims and victims of incest rather than the perpetrators.
While I have my opinions I recognise that abortion is not just a moral issue by itself, but a bandaid on a host of other issues. Therefore, simply guaranteeing birth without guaranteeing born citizens are looked after is absurd and wrong because the bandaid would only be changed, not disregarded. In other words, if we dealt with the issues that caused abortion, we would be reducing abortions nearly half-way at least and that would be a good thing. You are correct in saying that if birth was to be guaranteed we would have to change post-birth conditions as well in order to ensure our future generations had a better world to grow up in. I hope I have made myself clear that I don't hold to the adage "If you're pre-birth, you're fine; if you're pre-school, you can go to hell as far as I'm concerned."
"Wow ... all pregnancies must be born no matter what reality going on with the "female incubators" and "post-birth" ..."
In regards to that, I mentioned the technology that would ensure that unborn persons got to live yet pregnant persons got to decide whether they wanted to carry or not, because I am not for women being made to carry a pregnancy if they don't wish to. I simply part ways with the legal abortion advocate crowd on the issue of abortion being the best method to achieve this bodily freedom.
"Heck, the GOP opposes our government allocating food stamps to already
born poor and low-income struggling human beings whom need to eat, plus a
whole scope of other life sustaining and empowering resources."
You know what? I *agree with you on this! I am very much for food stamps and other such social services going to poor people, and I have no problem paying my taxes to ensure that these people get fed.
"Our species doesn't even know what such a concept or reality looks like ... all human life and quality of life guaranteed."
That is a world I would like to see a reality, as I explained above.
"I'm sorry, but I have to opine ... the PLM is so misguided in how it
mobilizes and allocates its labor hours and millions of dollars in
resources ... all of which could be focused 100% on guaranteeing a
quality life for already alive human beings outside the womb ... and
yes, even those unborn fetus they demand be born by "female incubators"
worldwide."
I agree. They need to care for everyone. The problem is that they are run by this capitalist mindset that makes poor people into automatic criminals. As for me, I want my resources to help everyone - unborn and born alike. Not just one group of people, everyone. I hope we understand each other a little better now.
I deeply appreciate that you explained what you believe about the movement itself without attacking those who adhere to PL belief. It was a very thorough and thought-provoking critique, IMO. I don’t really have too much to say in response except that it is an area worth seriously researching and self-examining, more than I have. If you’re wrong, I will let you know. But if you’re right, I’ll let you know that too.
I don’t represent or belong to the PL movement but am rather an outlier, because it is run, at least in part, by conservative Christian people who believe in old-fashioned abstinence ideals that don’t help matters any. In my heart, I left it a while back (I was never officially part of it) because I questioned some of their legislative methods and could see their laws generally (not always, but generally) weren’t helping. I’m still PL in my heart and I’m
open to listening to both sides (prolife and advocate for legal abortion) of the topic so I can learn more about how to treat this sensitive issue. I have a lot to say about how I believe abortions can be reduced, and I want to talk about it more one day if you’re comfortable with that, but I will leave my thoughts for the present at this as I wish to focus on where we do share common ground: we agree that the causes of abortion – poverty, rape culture, domestic
violence, etc – should be dealt with or at least seriously reduced, plus both of us believe contraception should be promoted far and wide. IMO science and reason are the best way to handle this controversy in society, not bombs and death threats of abortion practitioners.
I am not a moderator here. However, I care about the fellow commenters not being banned or deleted, and deeply value their contributions, which is why I will send them comments letting them know if and when they’re stepping over a line. The reason I told you about people versus actions was that I did not want the mods censoring your comments.
Although I have no problem resuming discussion of this topic with you if you change your mind, I respect the fact you have no desire to discuss this for the present as I understand that discussing abortion is not for everyone. However, you have made me so happy for such a brief period of time that I strongly desire to talk about topics we do agree on when we both feel comfortable
doing so, if that is all right with you. Would you mind if we move our
conversation over to Love Joy Feminism where we can keep discussing that rape culture article that you commented on yesterday, because it would mean so much to me if you could do that for me and also because I find you to have a very insightful perspective on many topics. Also if you want to drop by on The
Friendly Atheist (which is not prolife BTW) I will be happy to talk when I see you :)
this point; I left a comment at this article and could you respond to it as it's not about prolife:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/can-we-talk-about-those-faux-victorians.html#comment-2410200298
Also there's another comment I would appreciate your thoughts on at this address, if that's okay, as this is from the article about rape culture you read last night:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html#comment-2410203572
I think it fair to state that I apologise for misunderstanding your intentions. It seemed to me, at the time, that the comment about jihad was completely unrelated to the issue at hand, namely, anti-abortion terrorism. I appreciate
your explaining your intentions as to why you made that particular comment; now I understand a little better where you are coming from and this is very helpful in that it puts your comments in context.
"I thought the unspoken issue raised in the PLM article was whether people identifying with the politics of PLM should be viewed as potential Domestic Terrorist?
This ISSUE speaks to all people whom identify with the politics of other groups and whether they too can be defined as potential DTs."
AFAIK you were correct to judge that that was the topic the article was discussing. This is the intention of the article, and I quote:
"Many pro-choice people have responded to the recent shooting by blaming pro-life advocates. In this article I show why such claims are completely unjustified by analyzing culpability and what it means to incite violence."
"In other words C ... this article is a political polemic ... not legal analysis ... about whether a Mass Murder whom identifies with and articulates PLM politics is a Domestic Terrorist."
No, it isn't a legal analysis. But it's not about whether a mass murderer who identifies with and articulates PLM politics is a domestic terrorist either. I'm pretty sure the author of this article would recognise him as a domestic terrorist or a murderer at the very least. It's an article written by a
prolifer who recognises that anti-abortion terrorism is a problem, and is seeking to explain why most prolifers are not responsible for one man's actions. Yet it's also explaining how a person could incite violence through their words so that they can avoid falling into that trap when they honestly
critique the abortion issue.
"In other words, if we "compartmentalized" our analysis (online and offline) ... don't conduct "comparative analysis" of politically motivated murders ... then we fail to identify and deconstruct the common patterns of "hate" and "dogma" all potential DTs share ... whether it's specifically PL mass-murders, School mass-murders, Jihadist mass-murders, Gang mass-murders, etc ... notwithstanding our federal government has official definitions of domestic terrorism."
Since seeking to analyse the commonalities between different types of mass murderers seemed to be your intentions when you commented and called the PL movement a terrorist organisation, I actually appreciate the critique because I think it is good to hear a dissenting voice.
"The same polemic could be written by any political group ... including DAESH ... regarding any person identifying with and articulating their politks."
I can agree with that because it's true.
"But if you don't see these common patterns comparatively between all these mass-murders, then I'll respect the articles' online compartmentalization ... although offline that's not how reality works."
Well, would you mind explaining the common patterns comparatively between the mass-murders of PL and jihad, because I have no problem having that conversation with you at all.
"I can 100% guarantee you "compartmentalization" isn't how our NSA, CIA, FBI, and ATF intelligence analysts view these mass murders. To the contrary they're looking for "common patterns" of "ideological and political dogma"."
Oh, okay. Fair enough.
Let's see here: there is surely a difference between criticising an ideology and hating people who believe that ideology, yes? Please remember that when you critique, because the prolifers I know are good people who would never want to terrorise any abortion practitioner. Yet I admit that there are some who wish to employ these kinds of tactics on abortion practitioners and it is not helpful. I am open to hearing evidence on either side either for or against the idea that the
PL movement generally supports terrorism, although, so far as I know, it doesn't. So if you have genuine evidence and can prove it I will at least look at it.
In other words, seeking to accuse prolife people, out the gate, of holding terrorist notions or ideas won't help, and the moderators will not appreciate condemnation of people*. However, a thoughtful analysis of why you believe the
PL *movement supports domestic terrorism would contribute greatly to the content of this forum as that is very much part of the subject that the moderators want everyone to discuss, AFAIK.
Last but not least you were far more on-topic than I realised so thanks for clearing up the confusion. I have no problem resuming this conversation if you are so inclined. So thanks for your contributions!
Unless you can say the same about jihadists, stop insulting victims of radical Islam by suggesting the two are even remotely similar.