I can see how "A deeply mentally ill person listens to the sermon and decides that . . . the doctors deserve to be killed" could conceivably be read as suggesting that being deeply mentally ill is a sufficient reason to so decide. I didn't read it that way, but I can see how someone might.
My point is that mental illness =/ reprehensible behavior. Lots of people who do horrible things aren't mentally ill, and many more people with mental illnesses are not violent. We don't know if this guy has a diagnosed mental illness, and we're in no position to make a diagnosis is one is warranted. If the pro-life movement is concerned with describing pro-choicers accurately, we have to do the same for other groups of people.
I personally would prefer they were called criminally mentally ill*. Rebeccavm is right, she and I are not evil people just because we suffer depression, hear voices, have voices change feelings inside us, feel blamed for the junk that goes through our minds that we can't help! :(
I'd appreciate an opinion on this article: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/11/30/conservatives-must-acknowledge-how-dangerous-their-anti-abortion-rhetoric-really-is/ Surely there is a difference between comparing the PRACTICE of abortion to slavery and calling every advocate for legal abortion (the PERSON disagreeing with us) a "baby-killer"?? Why is it violent rhetoric to explain the downsides of the PRACTICE of abortion, why is it dishonest to patiently explain the similarities between abortion and slavery and abortion and the Holocaust, I want to know. I agree that calling people names and demonising the opponents won't help though, as we want to win people not drive them away. Please tell me the difference between these two statements:
1) I do not consider you a nazi nor a vile person. However your beliefs lead you to advocate for a morally reprehensible practice 2) You're a fan of genocide How about these two:
1) Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, and by virtue of that is a human rights abuse; one out of many is that taking your life is as wicked as taking the unborn person's life 2) People who abort deserve to bleed to death and be shot; there is Biblical justification for taking out abortion butcherers Can someone please explain the differences between these statements? Also do you really think we are silently condoning a Holocaust by refusing to use guns? You see I've been dealing in a very interesting conversation with an advocate for legal abortion who has been strenuously asserting that if we really believed that stuff about abortion we say we'd go in and blow up abortion clinics otherwise we don't really believe what we say. Any help out there? Here's the thread: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/11/the-colorado-springs-shooting-what-we.html
"Surely there is a difference . . ." Thanks for some good thinking. I've been thinking about it in somewhat different terms: It's common in some of the circles we find ourselves in to say that we should respect those we're dialoguing with, or we should respect everybody. Doesn't the logic of respecting those we're dialoguing with lead us to respecting everybody? But where does that in turn lead us? "I respect Robert Dear, but I disagree with his ideas." "I respect Adam Lanza, but I disagree with his ideas." It feels a bit forced to say that. I would feel more honest saying, "I don't respect Adam Lanza's idea that he should shoot up a room full of 6-year-olds. I disrespect it. Therefore I disrespect that aspect of Adam Lanza." But then there would probably be a lot of things about him I would disrespect. If his singing voice was bad, to be honest I would have had to say that I disrespected his singing voice, I disrespected his bad breath, etc. But surely there is something about him that I do respect? Well, his essential humanity and essential perfectibility. But then everybody has that. [I've typed up some more here about how the word "respect" could lose its utility, but I need to think about it.] MLK said that he didn't like racists, though he loved them. Wouldn't he have felt free to say also "I don't respect racists, even when I'm dialoguing with them, but I love them?" Without respecting someone, it's still possible to speak respectfully to them. But is there never a time to flatly denounce somebody? Maybe the best formula would be to say that whatever may be the appropriate way to deal with somebody, we can and should do it without ego. "You see I've been dealing in a very interesting conversation" I'll reply to you there.
I have been giving further thought to the question. This morning I read an article dealing precisely with the topic of anti-abortion violence, as written by people not professing to be pro-life: http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/operation-rescue-s-big-break-how-organization-rooted-radical-fringes-anti-choice-moveme?_ga=1.201140013.246407826.1449257486 I will be honest and admit that these people have stated two things:
1) these folks are fringe yet mainstreamed 2) these folks have explicitly denounced violence Now then. If we are to take the argument that treating abortion as a sensitive political issue is not really caring for unborn persons on its face, we have a problem. We have two possibilities:
1) The PL movement has been telling the truth, insisting that their movement is predominantly peaceful, and therefore will not adopt these arguments at face value as they can see the wisdom in behaving peacefully and lying low; they need then to be honest even as they compare abortion to other horrific practices, like, for instance, admit that abortion is more politically analogous to slavery than to nazism 2) The PL movement has mainstreamed violence and deceived many of its followers via intimidating of abortion practitioners, threatening their lives, and in some cases bombing and shooting PP places, therefore violence has been tried for 40 years and found wanting; in this case, their point is moot
If I understood your previous post correctly, it addressed two issues:
the difference between condemning a practice and condemning personally an advocate for that practice
the validity or invalidity of the argument "if we really believed that stuff about abortion we say we'd go in and blow up abortion clinics otherwise we don't really believe what we say." There is probably some relation between the two issues, but I think that your post did not spell out that relation. I replied on this page to your 1, and on the SPL page to your 2. Now the main focus of your present post seems to be this issue -- "the argument that treating abortion as a sensitive political issue is not really caring for unborn persons"
-- which seems to correspond much more to 2 in your previous post than to 1 in your previous post. I replied to your 2 on the SPL page. Since you are replying to me, wouldn't it be better to paste your present post as a reply to me on the SPL page?
My apologies, the two points are unrelated. It was another argument I wanted to present as I was thinking it through recently and could see holes in their ideas - big ones! Sorry for the confusion. Of course if you want to thrash it out on the SPL site with me, we can do this; I love the extra stimulus :)
I was under the impression that the Friendly Atheist blog had a reputation for being reasonable and fair to pro-life advocates, as well as taking their ideas seriously (much to the ire of many abortion proponents in the blogosphere). Looks like I'll have to revise that assessment.
Very well written and well thought out. And I have to say, on another note, I greatly enjoy what you are doing in the pl movement. Thinking critically of ones side is pretty much something no one does nowadays. And it's very refreshing indeed. The last year or two I have been having quite a bit of a prolife crisis so to speak.(I think it started when I saw a pic of a woman who had performed a coat hanger abortion on herself, and then the satvia case. Tough nasty reality.) So it's really nice to hear someone trying to listen to all sides and take everyone serious on this almost impossible issue. I remember seeing a comment you made a while ago where you said u wanted to write about abortion to save the life of mom specifically. Any updates on that?! I think it really needs to be discussed seriously by us.
Thanks for the link! The talk was mostly talking about ectopic pregnancies. However, I think the main problem is the whole direct/indirect unintentionally but forseen intentional but unforseen issue-The intentions of the act and how connected one is to the death of the fetus. There are situations that bring this reality out that are not related to ectopic pregnancies. Such as a woman who has a severely infected cervix and has just found out she's six weeks pregnant. Also, as in the satvia case, there are women who are 17 weeks pregnant who are carrying a baby who's bodily tissue is so infected that it is killing it- and seriously risking the mother(when also, a risk to ones health becomes a risk to ones life is also another issue that is brushed under the rug). I think it would do mu h good to talk about the actual reality of these situations.
And there are some other cases that are equally difficult to talk about. Say for example a seven year old is raped by her grandfather, is suicidal and is pregnant-- with an acephalic fetus. I wonder how we should talk about these cases.
What's menarche? And I honestly can't tell you I remember knowing any 7 year old girls, except when I was seven, lol. Incredibly rare, I totally agree only point was to say I think we need to realize that even very rare cases are rare, they happen and need to be talked about ( And I think maybe I should have used an 11 yr old as an example because its much more common, just mentioned seven because there was some 7 year olds case a while back). And I completely agree that we shouldn't go at this starting with the hardest of all cases and then saying, "ah well maybe there
There ARE horrific cases that are so unfathomably evil and difficult that it would need to be decided by those closet to the situation. We must remember, we do not live in the 1950's. You get one tough case and the media gets its hands on it, forget it. Everyone and their pet will be taking specifically about the hard cases. I know it has nothing to do with the topic at hand here. Just wanted to get some thoughts on this! Thanks for ur reply!
Oh, I'm sure everyone knows they exist! I was just wondering if anyone else feels like me and struggles with this at all. If anyone has anything new to say about the tough cases and how they should be dealt with from a prolife perspective.
I do struggle with this, too. Not just with respect to abortion, but anything that causes harm to another. Full disclosure: I'm not pro-life. I'm anti-abortion. A small but important distinction, to me. I feel a tremendous, heart-wrenching empathy for those cases of rape, incest and abuse. I do regardless of the abortion angle. I recognise, though, that laws meant to serve a greater ethical purpose cannot be based on my feelings. It is the same process I work through when I hear about someone killing their longtime abuser. Some raw part of me cheers. Then my head catches up and I remind myself it is still murder and they must be held accountable, no matter how much my heart is screaming that the SOB deserved it. So I must hold fast to my belief that abortion should carry criminal consequences, even while I can simultaneously recognise there are instances where, while I cannot condone that choice, I can at least understand it.
That would be excellent, Shep. I've kept my eyes open for a rubric prompt but I might have missed it with everything else going on. I did find an email on the listed site for Dr. Thomas, but I am waiting for confirmation he's inclined to have me pester him before I write. People are busy, and I do not have a sense of entitlement to others' time.
Look for a reply to an old post of yours from a friend of mine in Lousiana. Initials are BC. I'll call her. She helps me to keep this clean.
The rubric will make good sense to a quick mind like yours. Please indulge me in the few minutes required to ensure the safety of all parties involved.
He has never pestered me.
If you wish I can share your Email with him, after you complete my last rubric prompt in your Email from me.
Your philosophical post was on a thread that closed before I could reply.
It was perfect. Nothing could be added to it. You are a very interesting lady.
Thank you, Shep. I think perhaps my email to you may have gotten junk filtered, as I've responded to everything I've seen. Please let me know if we're golden? :)
the sermon and decides that . . . the
doctors deserve to be killed" could conceivably be read as suggesting that being deeply mentally ill is a sufficient reason to so decide. I didn't read it that way, but I can see how someone might.
:(
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/11/30/conservatives-must-acknowledge-how-dangerous-their-anti-abortion-rhetoric-really-is/
Surely there is a difference between comparing the PRACTICE of abortion to slavery and calling every advocate for legal abortion (the PERSON disagreeing with us) a "baby-killer"?? Why is it violent rhetoric to explain the downsides of the PRACTICE of abortion, why is it dishonest to patiently explain the similarities between abortion and slavery and abortion and the Holocaust, I want to know. I agree that calling people names and demonising the opponents won't help though, as we want to win people not drive them away. Please tell me the difference between these two statements: 1) I do not consider you a nazi nor a vile person. However your beliefs lead you to advocate for a morally reprehensible practice
2) You're a fan of genocide
How about these two: 1) Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, and by virtue of that is a human rights abuse; one out of many is that taking your life is as wicked as taking the unborn person's life
2) People who abort deserve to bleed to death and be shot; there is Biblical justification for taking out abortion butcherers
Can someone please explain the differences between these statements?
Also do you really think we are silently condoning a Holocaust by refusing to use guns? You see I've been dealing in a very interesting conversation with an advocate for legal abortion who has been strenuously asserting that if we really believed that stuff about abortion we say we'd go in and blow up abortion clinics otherwise we don't really believe what we say. Any help out there?
Here's the thread:
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/11/the-colorado-springs-shooting-what-we.html
Thanks for some good thinking.
I've been thinking about it in somewhat different terms: It's common in some of the circles we find ourselves in to say that we should respect those we're dialoguing with, or we should respect everybody. Doesn't the logic of respecting those we're dialoguing with lead us to respecting everybody?
But where does that in turn lead us? "I respect Robert Dear, but I disagree with his ideas." "I respect Adam Lanza, but I disagree with his ideas." It feels a bit forced to say that. I would feel more honest saying, "I don't respect Adam Lanza's idea that he should shoot up a room full of 6-year-olds. I disrespect it. Therefore I disrespect that aspect of Adam Lanza." But then there would probably be a lot of things about him I would disrespect. If his singing voice was bad, to be honest I would have had to say that I disrespected his singing voice, I disrespected his bad breath, etc. But surely there is something about him that I do respect? Well, his essential humanity and essential perfectibility. But then everybody has that. [I've typed up some more here about how the word "respect" could lose its utility, but I need to think about it.]
MLK said that he didn't like racists, though he loved them. Wouldn't he have felt free to say also "I don't respect racists, even when I'm dialoguing with them, but I love them?"
Without respecting someone, it's still possible to speak respectfully to them. But is there never a time to flatly denounce somebody? Maybe the best formula would be to say that whatever may be the appropriate way to deal with somebody, we can and should do it without ego.
"You see I've been dealing in a very interesting conversation"
I'll reply to you there.
http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/operation-rescue-s-big-break-how-organization-rooted-radical-fringes-anti-choice-moveme?_ga=1.201140013.246407826.1449257486
I will be honest and admit that these people have stated two things: 1) these folks are fringe yet mainstreamed
2) these folks have explicitly denounced violence
Now then. If we are to take the argument that treating abortion as a sensitive political issue is not really caring for unborn persons on its face, we have a problem. We have two possibilities: 1) The PL movement has been telling the truth, insisting that their movement is predominantly peaceful, and therefore will not adopt these arguments at face value as they can see the wisdom in behaving peacefully and lying low; they need then to be honest even as they compare abortion to other horrific practices, like, for instance, admit that abortion is more politically analogous to slavery than to nazism
2) The PL movement has mainstreamed violence and deceived many of its followers via intimidating of abortion practitioners, threatening their lives, and in some cases bombing and shooting PP places, therefore violence has been tried for 40 years and found wanting; in this case, their point is moot
- the difference between condemning a practice and condemning personally an advocate for that practice
- the validity or invalidity of the argument "if we really believed that stuff about abortion we say we'd go in and
-- which seems to correspond much more to 2 in your previous post than to 1 in your previous post. I replied to your 2 on the SPL page. Since you are replying to me, wouldn't it be better to paste your present post as a reply to me on the SPL page?blow up abortion clinics otherwise we don't really believe what we say."
There is probably some relation between the two issues, but I think that your post did not spell out that relation.
I replied on this page to your 1, and on the SPL page to your 2.
Now the main focus of your present post seems to be this issue --
"the argument that treating abortion as a sensitive political issue is not really caring for unborn persons"
Of course if you want to thrash it out on the SPL site with me, we can do this; I love the extra stimulus :)
I remember seeing a comment you made a while ago where you said u wanted to write about abortion to save the life of mom specifically. Any updates on that?! I think it really needs to be discussed seriously by us.
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/mothers-life-risk-speech-audio/
Incredibly rare, I totally agree only point was to say I think we need to realize that even very rare cases are rare, they happen and need to be talked about ( And I think maybe I should have used an 11 yr old as an example because its much more common, just mentioned seven because there was some 7 year olds case a while back).
And I completely agree that we shouldn't go at this starting with the hardest of all cases and then saying, "ah well maybe there
Doesn't usually happen till 11-12.
Every once in a while it's 9.
Of course we know these cases exist.
Full disclosure: I'm not pro-life. I'm anti-abortion. A small but important distinction, to me.
I feel a tremendous, heart-wrenching empathy for those cases of rape, incest and abuse. I do regardless of the abortion angle. I recognise, though, that laws meant to serve a greater ethical purpose cannot be based on my feelings.
It is the same process I work through when I hear about someone killing their longtime abuser. Some raw part of me cheers. Then my head catches up and I remind myself it is still murder and they must be held accountable, no matter how much my heart is screaming that the SOB deserved it.
So I must hold fast to my belief that abortion should carry criminal consequences, even while I can simultaneously recognise there are instances where, while I cannot condone that choice, I can at least understand it.
I did find an email on the listed site for Dr. Thomas, but I am waiting for confirmation he's inclined to have me pester him before I write. People are busy, and I do not have a sense of entitlement to others' time.
I think perhaps my email to you may have gotten junk filtered, as I've responded to everything I've seen.
Please let me know if we're golden? :)