It is all about being kind to the living, and those who are about to be welcomed to the world. I believe mothers are the most emotional beings, and it would be extremely difficult for them to take such a decision. But if they did, one shouldn't make it more difficult for them. In the words of Richard Gere, "What we all have in common is an appreciation of kindness and compassion; all the religions have this. We all lean towards love.". https://soinspiring.com/common-ground-of-kindness/
but does not apply the same standard when a conservative group is attacked. Well, I'd like to apply the same standard, but how many times has a conservative group been attacked? You have that 1 guy you give as an example. And? OK, how about PUBLICLY proclaiming conservatives to be killed? ... crickets? Oh, there must be an example similar to Christian preachers who were overjoyed that gays got gunned down in Orlando (Rodrigo Jimenez, Pastor Anderson), or who called for governmental extermination of gays (Pastor Anderson) or who called for gays to be put on a desert island to die (Pastor Worley), or who travelled to Africa to help write the "Kill the Gays" legislation (Pastor Lively) or who .... well, you get the idea. Countless bombings of clinics, harassment of doctors and patients, shootings. So how many times has a Christian-run equivalent been bombed or shot up? I'd like to apply the same standard, but there just hasn't been any cases to apply it to.
"You are so full of hubris and exaggerated self-importance." I must respectfully disagree with you. I have had an email correspondence of sorts with this guy, and he's the total opposite of what you said. He nearly always responds to his emails (unlike most of us!), and acknowledges people. He's treated me with nothing but kindness and I would be honoured to make his further acquaintance if ever I get the chance.
I have a hard time imagining that I would be able to find common ground and have a productive dialogue with somebody who thinks I ought to be classified as a "domestic terrorist."
Another point - I respect the general commentariat at the site where I had that small confrontation, because the high majority of them have treated me with respect despite my strong stances on the matter, and I am willing to acknowledge that. However, a very small handful have been hostile and, while I respect them as people, I disagree with them and don't have much to do with them as I'd rather talk to the majority, who at least respect me despite their disagreements with my views.
Again, this is how I see it, James. Legally speaking, abortion isn't murder. But it should be made illegal so that unborn persons are protected. Morally speaking, however, it IS and I have no problem saying that without apology; I have gotten into trouble for this on more than one occasion. I'm not sorry for that. This is what I said once, and it earned me brownie points for intolerance: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/friendlyatheist1/if_the_gop_defunded_planned_parenthood_this_is_how_americans_would_suffer/#comment-2203901557 My point is that I try to remember this: Loving, truthful people are almost always more persuasive than unloving, truthful people. I would rather turn people away from belief in abortion than ridicule them for it. Sometimes, people believe in abortion because they have heard no other way and it's my job to let them know, there is another way. How am I going to communicate that if I am hostile to the people? The action, however, deserves righteous anger; I agree with you there and I admire your desire to speak out on behalf of the unborn. I hope this helps you understand better where I am coming from. I have no desire to compromise on the topic but rather to reach people with the truth and challenge them to think, and the best way to do that is to be respectful. That being said, in a way I agree with you. The PL movement has made a shoddy job of things and it's time we manned up and spoke about the action in the strongest of terms.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow, that's awesome! Night :) I wish your partner well, if that's all right. Because she sounds like a very smart woman from what you tell me :) PS: Thanks for calling me a co-leader! Because one mark of a man of character is to recognise women as co-leaders :)
"please don't let anyone (especially males ... lol) tell you otherwise" As I battle misogyny in my soul and in my body and in my environment, I will remember your words - guaranteed!
"And now you know 100% why I was 100% correct about how sharp you are and a superb LEADER ... it's not a binary males vs females or vice versa ... it's humans loving humans:)" God, I agree 100%! Personally, as I've stated before, I find men to be magnificent, strong, bright, brave leaders IF they are doing what is right and good and treating others with respect as well. Men have the inherent capacity to do so much good and to be so incredibly intelligent, but they have to earn respect through character and are not entitled to it simply because they are men*. If a man is good and trustworthy, stern yet gentle, wise yet open-minded, etc, I will trust and respect that man. But he has to prove himself to be good first, before I can even consider pledging my trust so completely. Please don't ever underestimate your intelligence and leadership skills, nor talk yourself down to put others up either, just because you happen to be a man. To me, what is needed is not only to value the leadership of your own sex but also to value the leadership of the opposite sex - I mark a note that this is a great failing in society, that everyone brags about how great their sex is while putting the opposite sex down, or praises the opposite sex while downplaying the positive contributions of their own. This statement is not a criticism of either of us but rather an affirmation that our society seriously needs to change in this area, and, as we agreed so capitally, that men and women need to lead *together rather than fighting each other all the time. As a leader, then, plus as a supporter, I support your decision to get off this forum and do what you must do. Many cheers go with you for the wonderful day you gave me, and I hope I made you happy too!
I thank you, yet again. I am deeply touched by your opening your heart to me like this! I cannot help but respond back with respect, appreciation, and love. I'm sorry I was a little mad at you at the very beginning, but I'm glad I restrained myself and tried to understand where you were coming from, and no I didn't hate you either even then, and certainly don't now! Thank you so very much for encouraging me to be a leader; and to think of myself as that; and for noticing, remarking on, and praising those qualities. I have never really been told I have the capacity to be a leader (except for once or at the most twice), only the capacity to be LED, partially because of my nature and partially because I am, in the eyes of others, a sweet young woman. I will try not to underestimate myself!
Thank you so much for talking and listening to me. I'm aware we didn't exactly like each other at first but once we got past the initial animosity we hit it off just fine, like I suspected, and a part of me wonders if you thought the same. I have to go too; I've got RL (real life) to live. I appreciate the fact you want to check out those places and I hope to see you again soon so we can discuss loads of topics more - feminism, PL, racism, etc. You have taught me a great deal today. I hope we can respectfully find common ground where we can, and disagree with compassion when we must. You've made me think a lot of noble thoughts about my sex and appreciate good men who support women all the more. If ever I get the right man I want someone who highly appreciates female leadership so thank you for bringing that to my attention. I agree with and feel deeply inspired by your desire to see women lead. I also think that men are intelligent and strong, and make brilliant leaders as well; that doesn't mean I'm seeking to willfully misunderstand your beliefs about women's intelligence and leadership qualities; quite the contrary. I was raised traditional so I appreciate these good qualities in males, and there's a reason men and women should lead together - they need each other. I will check out your link. Time for bed for me too, sorry :*(
That's because you're genuine and respectful. I knew we'd have a lot in common once we got past the rough stage :) I don't feel threatened at all, nor do I sense you are flirting with me. You are talking to me like a person and that's great! BTW, I couldn't flirt to save my life. Do you mind if I gently encourage you to stop being a procrastinator? It is a hurtful habit, I know from sad experience :(
I thank you. Honestly, I never thought of myself as a leader! In real life I am rather meek and compliant I'm afraid. But I know there's a tiger inside waiting to be unleashed if she's given the opportunity :) I do not know how I managed to win you over like that. Can you tell me how I did it, if you wouldn't mind? I persisted because I like people, and I think of what we can agree on far more than on what we disagree on. Finding common ground, especially on such a tough issue as abortion or anything else equally as controversial, is important to me because at that point we're viewing each other as enemies and we need to forget that we disagree and see each other's humanity. Please, make Love Joy Feminism a new home if you feel comfortable with that. Also, check out Friendly Atheist. I post there a lot sometimes and I would love to run into you again because you are a very sharp, bright, intelligent man yourself. Yes, men are right on the ball! A female leader has to recognise that rather than pandering to the idea that men are dumb and women are smart, because that's nonsense.
I don't do cyber space or anything, just comment on a few articles. I'm not into social media either, certainly no FB or Twitter. Of course it is flesh-and-blood human beings. Why the spontaneous responses from so many Disqus owners? You should have read his comments. I felt threatened, like I mentioned. I knew he couldn't touch me because of the computer screens, but I also knew he was a real person and his intentions towards me were less than honourable. You have to be very careful what you put up on the Internet, no kidding!
No offence, hahahaha! I love a good laugh - just as long as I get the gist of what I'm laughing about :) Aww, you're really laying it on thick; that's so sweet, thank you!
I value, respect, and love you too, first and foremost as a person. Also, as someone who has taught me a lot, and I deeply appreciate our conversations and the insight you have brought into them :) I don't think the agreement we have is perfunctory now, but rather sincere.
Hey, I'm aware you're not trying to brown-nose me, LOL. You were - and still are - pretty frank with me about where we disagree, I think. No brown-nosing there!
I believe in your integrity. I know you're not being disrespectful or sexually harassing me. I have experienced that once online and it was not fun believe me. BTW: thank you :)
I hope you don't mind if I copy your comment to the article on rape itself. Your thoughts are that good. I will respond to this comment at that article commenting section as well.
I am female, and proud to be a woman :) I do not believe in being dishonest about my identity, despite my desire for privacy. I'm not sure where I said you were Marxist, but thanks for clarifying. "as you'll learn about the Italian scholar whom created the term and analytical framework" Please tell me more. Who is this person? "I'll do to the other article (website) ... what's your aka name there?" It's Crystal there as well. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html When I respond to your off-topic comments I will take my responses there and let you know I have done so. Thank you for agreeing to shift the conversation. I do not want your good thoughts deleted just because they weren't on-par with the theme of this blog.
"I also have issues with whites defining, interpreting, and dictating the realities of non-whites ... not to be misconstrued with all human beings having input (voice) into the complexities of our species as "human beings" ." Can you please explain the difference between the two, as I'm a little mystified. I've never really heard of the word "hegemony" before speaking with you, so I would say you taught me something new. http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hegemony "Hegemony is political or cultural dominance or authority over others. The hegemony of the popular kids over the other students means that they determine what is and is not cool." Based on that definition, I can see totally what you mean - if indeed you are working by that definition. In other words, are you saying that people's choices, how they view themselves, and how they act, are influenced by the cultural and political hegemony around them? PS: I hope you don't mind if I ask you to take this discussion to at least one of those web pages I mentioned, because we are getting off-topic and I want to respect the moderator's rules while enjoying our chat. If you're agreeable, we can take it to that article on nonconsensual sex you enjoyed so much.
"I don't loathe or hate religion or spiritual folks. I just loathe when it becomes a rationale for killing or murdering or oppressing people:)" You're right; I should have taken note of that. I am spiritual but not religious myself. I have read that article about Doug Wilson in the past. On seeing it referenced, I can identify with why you're agnostic and critical of white hegemony. I read portions of his Southern Slavery as it Was with disgust. The man obviously has serious problems with critical thinking skills as it relates to morality :(
Of course they will be! And don't fear, our discussions will generally be very earth-centered and worldly, LOL. I hate Biblical Patriarchy and all it stands for with a passion. Unfortunately it is off-topic so I cannot expound but I feel that cult has helped to ruin any credibility conservatives might have had with liberals. They are a crazy lot. I especially loathe Doug Wilson.
I'm a Westerner. I have never been raped or abused by incest. However, I have read and have had the privilege of knowing people who have been raped, so their pain resonates with me. Also I am tokophobic, meaning I struggle with fearing pain and downsides in childbirth. I have also struggled with mental illness, meaning I am unprepared to have children. I'm definitely not trying to speak from a place of privilege. The only reason I believe abortion is wrong is that it takes an innocent human life. That's it. If it didn't do that I wouldn't be dead set against it.
Cool. If you ever want to discuss feminism or Biblical Patriarchy with me, that will be the place to find me. I deeply enjoy Love Joy Feminism and The Friendly Atheist.
Thanks for expressing your opinion on the article. I can understand your discomfort. I recognise that you want to be respectful to my sex by not bossing our bodies around and, while I disagree with your position on the abortion issue, I can appreciate the actual thought of wanting to respect female decisions. "I won't lie, the symbolize 50s looking white female with her baby image didn't resonate with me, for all kinds of cultural reasons ... including why "WHITE" still the default "universality" for "human representation" I share your deploring of white being the default state. I am white myself, yet in a way racism bothers me a lot more than sexism. White is not necessarily delightsome, the Book of Mormon be screwed. We need more non-white representations of models, protagonists in stories, etc. The white privilege - I find it bothersome.
No it isn't. It's a website dealing with a variety of topics. The mainstream commenters would generally share your views on the issue of abortion more than mine, although that's not the only thing discussed.
Your behaviour is almost no better, I'm sorry to say. While I would not approach the issue the way he does, I appreciate the fact he told it like it is.
Exactly so. As you yourself said, no right matters once your right to live is gone. I have tried and tried explaining this repeatedly but sometimes with little success. Do you think it is accusing advocates of legal abortion of ethnic cleansing to assert such a thing? Because I don't. To me, it's just stating a moral principle. Ironically I would consider myself a progressive person (in some ways). Yet I can see this sort of act runs afoul of all progressive values. We fight against ageism, for disability rights, yet we include abortion, euthanasia. Something's gotta give somewhere.
This is why I call them "unborn persons"; so that we don't fight over the terminology yet I am strongly acknowledging their personhood. I created the term myself, off "pregnant persons." That aside, I agree with your comment. Abortion does stop a beating heart and that is why I am so dead set against it. I doubt anything will change my mind on the issue.
I've appreciated this conversation so much; it would be an honour for me to bring you to this website where we can talk some more if that's okay with you: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ You sound as if you'd get on well with the people there :)
I will answer your thoughts in detail later. You've won my respect because you care for us, the women. Thank you :) When I say, embrace my femininity, that means that I will appreciate myself in every way possible including my biological processes. Never mind the offence that causes. I think you will enjoy the Suffragette movie coming out then. I appreciate reading about the struggles women faced just to vote.
I'm not religious. Being prolife, for me, has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with standing for life-preserving morality. Also, I mentioned that I have no wish to suppress anyone. That being said, I am seeking a solution to this problem before us that will grant both pregnant persons their right to bodily autonomy and unborn persons their right to live, via technology and many other methods. I seek to care for and consider both because both are equally important, and it's time prolifers recognised that. That being said, my ideas of caring for both pregnant and unborn persons will not please everyone, and I recognise that as well. I appreciate your contributions to this forum and I have found you to be respectful and considerate. Thank you. However, as a woman I appreciate men and their intelligence a lot too. I think men and women need to rule together, not one over the other.
"UNTIL procreation takes place outside the female body" - do you think technology will ever make it possible for the procreated person to be moved to another location, after it was created inside the female body, to finish development before birth, without killing it? I do agree that women need to step up to the plate and take charge of their lives though. The only difference between you and me is that I don't believe that abortion is the best way to make that happen. Also the only difference between me and the mainstream PL movement is that I don't believe traditional views on female sexuality or even the status of unborn persons are the best way to make that happen either.
"1. If that "toddler" was a "zygote" ... NO, that decision will always be hers:)" I can understand that. I wonder though - didn't we start from a small beginning? Also, if the zygote has less worth than the toddler due to developmental differences, would the toddler have less worth than a teen due to such differences? Also, in regards to bodily autonomy - which type do you believe in, and I quote: "The Right to Refuse Argument states that even if the unborn is a human being, a woman has the right to refuse to allow the unborn the use of her body." "The Sovereign Zone Argument states that even if the unborn is a human being, a woman should still be able to have an abortion because she has the right to do anything she wants with anything inside the sovereign zone of her body." http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/autumn-in-the-sovereign-zone-why-its-my-body-i-can-do-what-i-want-wont-do/ 2. At least you are consistent with your view. You are correct to observe that humans generally don't step out of line to save the lives of others unless they feel up to the challenge. The Hunger Games illustrates that quite well. 3. What's a DSM 5 medical condition? PS: "cuz I love you ... cyber wise ..." Thanks for the compliment, returned, cyberwise :)
I've read feminist theory enough to sympathise with your views. We are definitely a special breed. I saved your comment for future reference. As I mentioned, my primary focus is foetal rights and not punishing women for sex, hence the mention of high techs. I don't choose to be viewed as an incubator. I'm not one. What I do choose is to seek out a solution that will genuinely reduce abortions while allowing women their right to live as they see fit. I do appreciate your concern for our sex, and I have noticed the obsequious deference to male judgment myself. Which is why I'm trying to reclaim my femininity back, so these guys can't dominate me.
Thank you for explaining your reasons. "but rarely on the technology to procreate outside the female body ... and rarely on the systemic and institutional conditions that make it unfathomable to bring a child into this world ... poverty, war, disease, bigotry." On this, we agree. I do have a question though: if you saw a woman trying to drown her toddler due to depression and anxiety on her part, would you step in to stop the drowning taking place, or not?
Well, we finally found something to come half-way on, and that's good. I'm not sure poverty will ever be completely eradicated but it helps to reduce it, yes? Also I advocate for contraceptives, sex education, and social safety nets. I am sorry that the mainstream PL movement hasn't made preserving bodily autonomy and unborn human life together its primary focus.
"If a majority or minority of women decide ALL FEMALES MUST PROCREATE or be defined as evil, immoral, criminals, murders, etc ... or raise their kids in poverty, crime, eventual prison or death ... then let that be the political-decision of ALL FEMALES ... never EVER male patriarchs:)" Agreed 100%, because conservative Christian men who preach abstinence aren't helping IMO. One question to ask though - do you personally believe it is your prerogative to step in when you see something unjust being perpetrated, even if that injustice does not personally affect you?
With respect, you've made a few mistakes. First off, I am not American. Second, I believe in the core doctrine of prolife, which is protecting human life from the moment of conception to natural death. However, I agree that the mainstream PL movement is doing more harm than good with its incremental laws. What I would like to see happen is superior technological alternatives that will allow unborn persons to live while granting women bodily autonomy, because I have talked extensively to abortion advocates and agree with the principle of respecting the bodily autonomy of both unborn and pregnant persons. BTW, prolife to me means protecting ALL life of humans and animals, not just unborn human life. Which is why I appreciate the work that Black Lives Matter does.
Thanks for responding back. "Bringing a child or children into poverty conditions is cruel!" I agree that it is cruel. Which is why I advocate for fighting poverty, one of the root causes of abortion. May I ask what led you to advocate for abortion to remain legal?
May I please remind you of the commenting policy: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2/ Please read it before proceeding here. Josh's rules are so strict that even a few of your friends failed to pass muster.
"You Pro Life are Domestic Terrorist and should be viewed and dealt with like such!" How do you know that for sure? Also, may I point your attention to the comment policy please: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2 I am sure that you have a lot to contribute provided you read the commenting policy and observe it properly.
"That's what abortions do ... solve the problem of UNWANTED pregnancies . . ." If a woman does not want the "problem" of an unwanted pregnancy, then she should take responsibility BEFOREHAND. If she fails to do that, the unborn baby's inalienable right to life should be protected. Once the baby's most fundamental human right has been protected and the baby has been born, the mother is free to put that child up for adoption. Interestingly, your most fundamental human right, the right to be born, was respected yet you would callously deny that same right to others. Have you no shame?
I could call your movement pro-abort (because I would have good reason to do so), but I won't. Also, I'm very sad that we can't talk about the things we have in common. I saw you were a multicultural, third-wave, feminist, African-American man, and I thought that was so nice, because I deeply appreciate multicultural, third-wave philosophy. I'd like to talk to you about these things and to understand why you advocate for abortion to remain legal, but I'm not sure I can if you're going to take digs at me the way you did.
I am sorry you feel that way about us. I can assure you we are not terrorists. I would respectfully ask you not to call us pro-death because it is extremely offensive. If I'm not allowed to say "pro-abort" despite having very good reasons for using the term, then it would be a good thing for advocates for legal abortion to reciprocate the favour, if you understand what I mean. That put aside, I think we share a lot in common and you would be an interesting person to talk to.
I deleted a lot of comments from you were you calling people names. It would take me too long to find whatever deleted comment you're referring to right now. I think I was being gracious by not banning you for how much name-calling you did. Now I'm going through hundreds of new comments from the last 48 hours, and moderating that.
But I went back and viewed the discussion you were responding to. I have to say the whole thing was pretty much off the wall You were the voice of reason.
So your claim here is that the baby comes out in a painless puff of smoke, and that you don't want to force women to remain pregnant against their will?
If I was not a vegetarian at heart, of course not, because the steak would be dead. Unborn persons are living. Ann, I believe I should remind you of the commenting policy; please read it: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
Then you're good with clamping off an artery leading to the uterus, right? Let me guess, dead fetuses are too specialty-special to dismember. Certainly they are too special to do medical research on, such as is often done on other dead bodies, because a dead fetus is so much more important and special than a live infant. Especially since that would get around your real purpose of making the woman suffer as much as possible by removing it in small pieces, rather than one large one. How about this - I will make you eat a grapefruit. You will prove how easy it is to get a large object through a small hole by letting me stuff it intact, down your throat. If you prefer it be cut up, then you will have proven that you are a forced birth liar.
So, what you are saying here, is that if some pervert is sodomizing a 'pwecious baybee', I should either stand around wringing my hands or go whine about it on the internet, rather than use 'force and violence'. There is no right to someone else's body. Or any property belonging to someone else. If you have managed to get a hold of or occupy something belonging to someone else, it will be removed, or you will be removed. Even if it is necessary to use 'force and violence'. Even if it costs you your 'very life'. Even if you are really cute and even if spoiled teenage girls are really sad.
That is a fair answer, IMO. The only way this moral dilemma can be solved in our society is through love. If it's true what you say about hate and abortion, then prolifers who hate people who disagree with them are no better off.
To him, yes. But please don't stop responding to me, Bucksergeant, as I'm sure you have some valuable insights to offer. For instance, did you get my question about the idea of abortion being murder being responsible for the massacre that occurred recently? I think that idea is faulty; what do you think?
Back at you. Wherever you roam. I don't care about affiliation or party or stance, only how I am treated and interacted with. You did not deserve my initial hostility, but I remain accountable for my good faith error in response. You're not my enemy. Be well.
With your nod, Shifty, I'm pleased to edit my comments to you to be less abrasive; you've treated me well and I'm happy to PAX. The only reason I haven't is a sense of accountability for my posts, good or bad. For the record I neither flagged nor reported you.
I understand how difficult it can be, Bucksergeant. I do not believe in people stalking others. There wasn't really anything wrong with your three-letter comment, and I know people can hurt others. You have my sympathy as well. However, I think that, due to Josh's strict rules, it would be best that you stopped responding. You're feeding him every time you write up. Besides, I appreciate your presence here and feel you have much to contribute provided you follow the commenting guidelines. I would like your opinion on something though: what do you think of the idea that prolifers are responsible for the shooting because they call abortion murder?
Shifty, I must sternly remind you: According to the comment policy, name-calling and quarrels from other websites are strictly prohibited: And I quote: "5. I reserve the right to delete your comments. This is my blog. I don’t have an obligation to publish your comments. The First Amendment gives you the right to express your opinions on your blog, not mine. Specifically, I will delete your comments if you post something that is, in my sole opinion, (a) snarky; (b) off-topic; (c) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate my sense of decorum and civility or any law, including intellectual property laws; or (d) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise promote goods and services. You may, however, post a link to your site or your most recent blog post."
Jed, may I respectfully remind you of the comment policy please: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2 Name-calling and off-topic quarrels are not allowed here, only constructive criticism of abortion and life issues.
Awww ... Hugs. I thought it puzzling myself. Perhaps it's a glitch in the system? You could contact Josh via email: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/contact/ If you don't like his answer, please at least write me one more comment to tell me a place I can come where guest commenting is permitted as I do not possess an account at present due to very unusual circumstances.
Shifty, the rules say that you cannot bring quarrels from other blogs onto this one. This is a place for civil discourse about the topic of abortion. I am deeply sorry for any bad treatment people receive on the Internet, however. Please know you have my sympathies.
Because love for strangers is an abstract notion, and as my fellow commenter on TFA said, when humans see something foreign and don't know how to respond to it, a common reaction is anger.
Aww, that's okay. It's not a homework assignment! Will be looking forwards to the answers when you can give them, LOL :) BTW this troll is just abusive. Wade through the entire convo if you have the spoons for it: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/10/07/transgender-woman-attacked-and-killed-as-baptists-advocate-curing-transgenderism-with-prayer/ I've told him what's what. I was called a vile piece of filth, etc. Yet I find it interesting he never answered my questions on life issues. Because his position isn't prolife though he claims to be a conservative Catholic. Oh, dear, I'm getting off-topic again. As for your trials I see that Tiki Torch is extremely nasty. She uses several of the same words as Sharon - pro-lout, pro-loafer. She's awful. Prolifers weak and spineless indeed, I'd have shown her a thing or two.
By all rights they should be up there. I didn't see anything wrong with them myself. Possibly the word "pusillanimous" could have cause offence; I don't know why myself. Thanks for coming back, Shifty!
How's it been going, PJ, other than with Tiki Torch? I wrote to them again via another email address. It is confirmed. Commenting with a Disqus account is not allowed :( So if you want to talk to me we'll have to talk here or at SPL, just as I mentioned.
I see you're having a tough time with Tiki Torch :( I'm having a tough time dealing with a nasty person at TFA who hates trans people :( Welcome to the club!
I deleted your comment because it was entirely off-topic. This is not a place to copy and paste diatribes about other issues. If you do that again, expect to be blocked. As our comments policy says, this isn't a free speech zone. It's not about discourse about every topic under the sun. That's not why people come to this site. They come for clear thinking about abortion and practical dialogue tips.
I deleted a lot of the exchange that was bickering about what other supposedly did at other sites. I left a lot of the exchange that strayed off topic but was still a good example of people being kind and curious about each other. Not banning you, Shifty.
I have been asked a few times by at least one advocate for legal abortion why it is I am friends with them. Let me explain. This person is operating from the point where PLs say abortion is murder. They say that if I say abortion is murder and compare it to slavery and the Holocaust, how can I be friends with them? You see, would you sit down to lunch with a nazi or a slaveholder? No? Then why would you treat an advocate for legal abortion this way? Isn't it inconsistent with what you believe to be friends with an advocate for legal abortion yet say abortion is morally reprehensible because it takes an innocent human life? What about the fact that since PLs are friends with advocates for legal abortion yet hate what they do they mustn't believe unborn persons are real people for sure, and they are doing it because it makes them feel superior and they want power over others. The worst part of their claims is that people like this shooter are the most morally consistent because they act out what they believe, that abortion is murder and then they shoot people to stop murder. How can you answer such claims????
I can appreciate your dilemma, DGCJ. It's just that Josh's site is a safe space to discuss life issues and Josh doesn't like things taken off-topic. What do you personally believe about all this? Do you think that comparing the practice of abortion to slavery caused this guy to go out and shoot people, or do you think it namecalling people who had abortions, or do you think it was deeper than that? Also do you think there is a difference between condemning an action someone does and condemning the person themselves?
Excuse me, but this is entirely off-topic and could be treated as spam. Please repeat your comment somewhere else and read the commenting policy before proceeding further: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2 Josh's blog is being treated like a rugby field at the moment and I'm not appreciating it.
So do I :) What's your opinion? Do you think that saying "the act of abortion is murder and morally repugnant" has any relationship to what this shooter did, or do you think something else drove him to it? Do you think it was calling advocates for legal abortion "nazis" and "baby-killers" that pushed this guy over the edge? I'd really appreciate your opinion on this, as I don't see how calling out an action and rationally explaining the similarities between abortion and slavery could result in hatred and murder, but I can see how defamatory and highly inflammatory language against a person or a group of people might encourage such actions.
Thank you for the compliments :) That Javelina woman seems fair. It's a pity I never got to speak to her. If you could encourage her to come onto this site again I do hope for the chance of a word with her! Also Josh Brahm, Wholovesorangesoda, Guest, Acyutananda, and a few others are nice people that you can have reasonable conversations with about this topic. They won't scream at you and will disagree in love. "I guess my disconnect is that I cannot seem to grasp why you would have hated women who chose abortion." I was a very young person at the time. Since I was aware of the barbaric nature of the act, and I listened to and read what prolifers had to say on abortion and other life issues a lot, I felt horror at the thought that anyone could do something so dastardly towards an innocent child. I have never lost that horror, but that feeling of repugnance transferred into hating women who had abortions. As I was ignorant of the many desperate circumstances many women who commit such an act find themselves in, I perceived them to be cold-blooded murderers who had killed their children because they were selfish, and I believed that such people deserved very harsh treatment. However, as I continued to read and educate myself via feminist theory and pro legal abortion literature as well as prolife literature, both that and the tokophobia disorder I am recovering from helped to change my mind on hating the people having abortions, though not on the act itself, long before I began speaking to advocates for legal abortion. And talking to these people who disagreed with me on this issue cemented the view I was predisposed towards, that the prolife movement was in dire need of reform. By that time my hatred for women having abortions was long gone.
I suspect on their side there would be a bunch of whining and howling, although I would wonder why, as I thought they were concerned with precious little unborn babies.
Isn't women's rights one of the reasons such inventions are supposed to exist? Also, to save unborn people's lives. Since all life is precious from the moment of conception we should seek to protect it by whatever means possible. Here's a comment I wrote about some of the problems in the PL movement; please take a read of it and tell me what you think of it in general. Also do you believe that the PL movement would improve if such techniques were employed as suggested: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2396781480
Now, folks, with all due respect, if you want to sling mud at each other, PJ, Ann, Expect Resistance, you can't do it on this blog. Josh has very strict rules about the way this place is run and this is the kind of thing that could get everyone banned. Please read his commenting policy before continuing: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
I did. Why do you say that? I would appreciate your backing up your statements please as I am open to learning about the integrity of every single person I chat with. Also, I don't know the details but I'm aware that PJ and fiona64 have had a few run-ins (and no, I didn't ask PJ for specifics or anything). Of course if she is a compulsive liar I'm sure I'll find out eventually. However, I prefer not to take sides in online quarrels, and to believe a person innocent until proved guilty beyond a doubt. As I told another commenter, I care about every person I interact online with and prefer to speak civilly to people. So I will be kind to everyone - whether it's PJ or fiona64 or whoever else it is.
RH and LAN do indeed have some things in common. But only the former has the words "reality check" in its title despite publishing Amanda Marcotte. That holds trump as far as I'm concerned.
Hugs. I understand now. It's okay. Being abusive to one another won't help matters, I don't think. Keep thinking these things through, always. Never be afraid to ask questions and read here, all right?
At ERI they believe in treating those they disagree with with kindness. Anyone who insults on this website is warned. If they persist, they are shown out the door. His rules are strict for a reason. You will be treated well here, and Josh and his team love to think through issues in a reasonable fashion rather than insulting those they disagree with.
Well, we live and learn :) There was a time I had a deep hatred in my heart for all women who had had abortions and was appalled when prolifers reached out to one in love and forgiveness. Now that I have read why women do it I am not inclined to be so harsh as I once was although I still consider their action to be morally reprobate. Also talking to advocates for legal abortion has stretched my horizons like you would not believe. You see, even before I came across Josh's site I had these beliefs. But he has strengthened them. And I am not the only one who cares for these things. If you hang around ERI website you will find that Josh and his team believe the way I do - deplore the action but love the person. So if ever you want to talk to Josh about this stuff feel free, I'm sure he'll try to answer you though he is a very busy man. He was kind enough to let me know he couldn't answer all my questions before he stopped responding to me but I hope he'll continue writing back again :*)
Shifty, could you please do something for me? Could you send Josh another email explaining that PJ has decided to settle down and is at present not committing behaviour worthy of banning? It would mean so much to me if you could do this for me, as I appreciate valuable insight from all angles.
Agreed 100%! I think such devices are key to finalising the abortion debate once and for all, although they don't completely answer the dilemma of adoption or parenting and those issues would have to be worked out as well, for this to really succeed. I'm not sure what kinds of "reasons" fanatics could come up with to condemn such life-saving devices though. Could you expound?
Thanks in abundance! I'm not so sure what was so innocent about my comments though, if you wouldn't mind expounding. I'm not trying to be vain or harp on too much but I really would like to understand.
Williamdiamon, please don't say such things. This is the kind of speech that could get you in serious trouble here. Please read Josh Brahm's commenting policy before continuing: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
That doesn't justify cutting off its only life supply. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to employ science and move it to another place once we have developed the equipment to do so either. The relationship between pregnant and unborn person is so unique it is the only way the ZEF can survive, for the present.
In case I didn't make it clear I deeply appreciate your praise. Please don't feel teary-eyed over my words. Speaking the truth in love needs to be normal standard procedure for all truth-bearers. I'm sorry for asking so many questions but I wanted to be certain you were praising me and not upset at me. In short I did not want to misread your comments. Thanks so much. However, if I have misread you I apologise. If I have not I appreciate!
In other words, you're saying I think through things in contrast to just shouting "baby-killer", I take it? Thank you for the praise :) "I am almost brought to tears by the innocence of your comment." Can you explain that one, please? How to make a guest comment: Type in a comment. Where it says, "I'd rather post as a guest" with a little check button, you tick the button and you don't have to sign in. Then you can comment as a guest. Try it if you like and see how that works, and if you don't find my explanation helpful I don't mind trying to tell you again :)
My friend, I feel I need to tell you something. This kind of speech is not tolerated on this website. I realise you're vexed with Shifty because he has been most unkind to you yet this site exists primarily for the purpose of education and constructive debate. Please read the comment policy carefully, as I care a lot about your being able to comment in peace and freedom here and feel you have a lot to contribute provided you follow the commenting rules: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
Perhaps it's just that I don't view this as a war to be won or lost by argument alone. When all the science and the legal citations and the studies and the religious/secular arguments clear, it still comes down to a very personal determination. I read, reply, think. I trust others do too, even if we end up on opposing sides. Both your advocacy and mine are useful in the light of the humble realisation that those reading both of us will, in the end, follow their own North Stars -- we're both only signposts.
I am trying to stick with Number 1, your answer is fair and I agree with it :) Condemning the ACTION is not a point I can compromise on. It must be spoken of in the strongest of terms. The PEOPLE who practice the action must be shown understanding and love even while we deplore the practice. So I try to be careful about my language, not to compromise nor to cause unnecessary offence when I can reach someone for the truth. Read Josh's articles. They are thought-provoking and I am a great admirer of him :) You won't feel hated as you read, I can assure you :)
Okay. What's the difference between saying:
1) Your actions could lead you down a morally reprehensible path because your beliefs are off-base/; you are advocating for something morally reprehensible 2) You're a fan of genocide Which statement is more productive?
I can't exactly speak for him, but I think so if you're willing to change your ways and not do them again. ERI is a very young organisation, a fledgling in fact. As of present he doesn't have much time to comment and he is keeping it strict due to time constraints, but hopes to debate a little better in the future :)
That's okay. I had a dear friend banned and I don't want the same happening to you. I know you will contribute greatly if you read the comment policy and abide by the rules :)
Do you think there is any difference between calling out the practice of abortion in strong language and demonising the people who have and perform abortions?
I agree that pregnancy 100% falls on a woman's body. Pregnancy is an eminently predictable avoidable outcome, though. Humans are not parthenogenetic. I'm actually glad you're asking me these questions and taking the stand you are; I tend to avoid the more frothingly vituperative posters, because it isn't productive for me. I'm not interested in being right -- like my being "right" means anything! -- only chewing on the issues. I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose her sexual behaviour, and (as arguable as this is in con circles) to have access to birth control. No woman should ever be forced into sex. No woman, IMO, should be deprived secular medical prophylactic-preventative technology. But with this authority and personal autonomy and technology comes responsibility. Women are not destined to be slaves of circumstance, we are not infants who need to be coddled, we are not stupid or dependent or inferior. We do not need abortion as it's being implemented now. We can do better, show ourselves as better, with even a modicum of applied planning and self-discipline.
I love all people, Shifty. You and her. Advocates for legal abortion and my fellow prolifers. I want peace and respect in commenting forums so I try to set a good example. BTW that is the kind of comment that could get you in trouble - name-calling is not permitted on this site. It's a safe space where prolifers and advocates for legal abortion can respectfully debate and discuss their differences, and hopefully learn from each other. I share my friend's mission. There is too much hostility between the two sides already.
If I've mistaken your identity for that of another person I owe you an apology :( It's just that I spoke to someone who had a picture and a name very similar to yours.
I remember we met once, on TFA. You were being ganged up on and I was kind to you. Remember that incident? BTW I'm against trolling. I'm a frequent commenter here and I care about Josh's rules being followed a lot.
Oh dear. Josh has been away. I fear he will not be pleased when he reads the confounded mess his forum has become. I'll try to sort it out as much as I can to protect folks from being banned: TRUMPET BLAST - ATTENTION FOLKS! READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
With all due respect, PJ, I think you also need to read Josh Brahm's commenting policy because these kinds of arguments do nothing for our cause. This is a safe space and needs to be treated as such. Quarrels are not liked here: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2 I respect you but I want you to be able to comment here in freedom and peace and this is why I say these things to you.
Yeah, RH Reality Check are confounded mean to prolife people. I will never comment there. It is such a hateful and charged atmosphere. You ever commented there, PJ? Also, I wish we could talk about this issue at depth a little more. Question for starters, PJ - what do you think of the claim that Operation Rescue is a terrorist group and why? Also how do you respond when people say you are being inconsistent by advocating for peace? Would sincerely appreciate an answer to the questions if that's okay.
Shifty, with all due respect, please STOP the name-calling and READ Josh Brahm's commenting policy. Such offensive speech is not permitted on this site. I believe you have very interesting points to make but they must be made respectfully and according to his rules: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
The burden does not fall on women 100%. Ask the men required to pay child support for children proven not to be theirs. They did not even get the pleasure of that grunt and squirt to be accountable for 18+ years of payment. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/11/paternity.cases/index.html?eref=yahoo What constitutes the line of unborn sentience, "real live people", etc continues to be challenged by increasingly more refined scientific and technological parameters. But I must commend you -- when you write "And the unborn do not have any greater rights than fully live and sentient people.", you recognise they have equal rights to life. Definitely not greater: I agree. Equal. So they have a right to life, just as you and I do.
Agreed to the first. Living a cowardly life among them. No double standard in pusillanimity; I am referring to you directly, not all those who espouse similar views. If we want to ripple out, my goal is equity; can a man terminate his lover's pregnancy with ease, unconstrained by law, because he contributed 50% genetic material? Does he own that foetus? Finally, no class, gender, colour or creed is "Sovereign" in a Democracy. No one has complete autonomy within an ethical, non-Monarchical societal structure. Women do not have any greater rights than any others.
Not at all; I merely expect that even killings in self-defence be investigated under the premise that a killing has occurred. I can see clear to abortion as a last resort measure to preserve the life of the mother, under strict medical regulation; I can even see clear to therapeutic abortions for minors, as there is a precedent for children to be granted certain allowances under the law for killing (how can I rationally expect someone who is not legally permitted to drive or sign a contract to be held to adult standards in this?). I cannot see clear to wholesale acceptance of abortion as a societal standard. And I have no doubt you're glad I'm not in charge; your pusillanimity would not be pandered to. I know the idea of being responsible and accountable can be terrifying to the weak.
My major concern are all of the militant "pro-choice" websites assassinating the collective character of pro-lifers based on the actions of one disturbed man. There is no doubt in my mind that mental illness was a contributing factor so I agree with your view Mr Brahm. The issue now is not to feed into the disparaging commentary of those whose only goal is to paint pro-lifers as violent. It is highly amusing IMO how desperate the militant pro-choicer has become to attempt to indict our entire movement.
Wow.. not only is liberalism a mental illness, one of the biggest symptoms is their utter lack of self awareness. it boggles the mind PJ. I honestly don't know how you can spend so much time with these people. Saying they have love in their hearts after they spent the better part of a week stalking women and calling them wh*res and other "heart full of love" stuff.
I really think calling each other trolls and sneaky and so forth is fruitless. Nothing good will come of it. I don't know shifty or her/his position on abortion but I think he/she is aware that I am not prochoice but have some concerns about the prolife position that I think need to be seriously discussed.they have not been rude to me so that's what I'll go by. Personal stabs at people take us off topic.
I'm a dude. And I despise abortion. I actually thought I was being polite, trying to get some feedback by other providers and issues within the abortion conversation that have been nagging at me.I think like Josh says it is important for us to be critical of ourselves. And why the hell would I start screaming at anyone?
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.
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
I agree with much of your argument. However, please be cautious about throwing around the term "mentally ill." The vast majority of people with mental illnesses are not violent. A lot of us are pro-life too!
In Case 1 (the Pastor) and Case 3 (the Blogger), the message did not encourage violence, so the pastor and blogger are not culpable. What if, without encouraging violence, the pastor or the blogger had misrepresented their targets as being more unpleasant persons than they really were? Misrepresentation is sure to be one of the charges that pro-choicers will make against the CMP. I hope that that charge will be baseless. But --
CMP denounced Planned Parenthood as a criminal enterprise -- suppose PP was not technically criminal --
Violence was a completely unreasonable (not to mention completely evil) response to their messages . . . 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?
Could the philosophers who read my blog create a thought-experiment that forces me to bite the bullet and say that maybe in a circumstance where X, Y and Z are true that it would be morally permissible to start a civil war over abortion? Perhaps, but that thought-experiment will by necessity look REALLY different than America in 2013 does. If I have understood your preceding argument correctly, you mean "REALLY different" in terms of only one variable -- the degree of despotism. I have understood your premise to be that as long as a society adheres to true democratic principles, it can NEVER produce a situation that would justify vigilante action. Have I misunderstood you? I think "never" would be too strong a word. Democracy is the sneaking suspicion that more than half the people are right more than half of the time. And even "more than half of the time" is just a sneaking suspicion.
If under a despotic political structure there is a horrible outcome such that every day we are face to face with person A and see that he is about to kill innocent persons B, C, D, E, F, G . . . , and under a nominally democratic or even genuinely democratic political structure there is a horrible outcome such that every day we are face to face with person A and see that he is about to kill innocent persons B, C, D, E, F, G . . . , I'm not convinced that it is morally permissible to kill person A in the one situation and not in the other. At least I wouldn't say that that is "clearly" so. Certainly the difference in regime would be little consolation to persons B, C, D, E, F and G (though I don't say that the lives of those people are the only factor to consider). Framed just in this simple way, it might even be morally obligatory to kill A in both situations. I think better arguments for not killing abortionists might be these:
Your pragmatic argument -- under the present situation, it [Edit: (killing abortionists)] backfires as a tactic.
I don't think that abortion in the US is as horrible as was the Holocaust in Europe, even though the numbers have been bigger. a) The mindset has not been as evil. Some of the 60 million abortions have been totally justified. Some have been morally murky. The desperation of many women has reduced their culpability, and even that of some abortionists, far below that of the Nazis. And b) due to women's bodily autonomy, the case for society's right to intervene forcibly on behalf of B, C, D, E, F and G is not overwhelming but near the borderline in the first place; so the case for a vigilante's right to intervene violently on behalf of B, C, D, E, F and G is still less strong.
Thanks for all the thinking from both of you. I would like to say a few things, but I'm under a lot of time pressure right now, so you will be partially spared that word count. Here is what I can type (or copy and paste) in the time that I have:
It seems to me that similarly to the way you can argue, "Scott Roeder . . . may have intended to do good, but he was absolutely wrong," I could argue, "The US has an impressive-seeming constitution and yes, it is theoretically possible to change unjust laws, but all the workings of power and money, and the molding of public opinion -- the 'manufacture of consent' -- are a much deeper subject, and those glittery democratic institutions are of little comfort to the babies."
Under the earlier blog post you have linked to, I had commented -- "Thanks for your post.
As long as America is not [led] by a despot who changes our entire system of government, there are other ways to save lives and end abortion without using violence or other illegal or fear-inducing tactics like kidnapping. And that matters. If we can end abortion by non-violent means, then we are morally obligated to pursue those non-violent means. "If many unborn lives could be saved without violence by the pro-life American states seceding from the Union, shouldn't they do that?" -- and Josh Brahm had replied --
Interesting question. I would need to be convinced that the pro-life states seceding would actually save more lives. It seems to me that it would have been easier to end slavery without the Southern states seceding. That's partially why they seceded. I think it would be easier to abolish abortion without seceding, but I'm open to a good argument -- and I had offered what seemed to me to be a good argument -- "I don't think of secession first and foremost in terms of lives saved in the short term. I think of it first and foremost in terms of moral integrity. If Kansans, for example, are pro-life and would be free to live, if they wished, under laws that protect unborn life, and opted not to do so, how much of their moral integrity on that issue would they preserve, and what message would they send to others?" I might also have raised a question about the "without the Southern states seceding" analogy, since at that time it was the states with the institution we consider wrong (slavery) that seceded, whereas I was not proposing that in the present the states with the institution we consider wrong (abortion) should secede. Anyway, I would still love a response about moral integrity.
I think an important line to draw is between condemning an unjust practice, and using dehumanizing or demonizing language against the people engaged in the practice. As pro-lifers, we know that some kinds of language make it easier to persuade people that it's acceptable to kill this or that group of human beings. We should never use that kind of language ourselves, and should challenge other purported pro-lifers who do use it.
It's even less clear that Bonhoeffer would have been justified had he tried to take out an unarmed S.S. officer in his church (which would be much more analogous to what Scott Roeder did).
In the words of Richard Gere, "What we all have in common is an appreciation of kindness and compassion; all the religions have this. We all lean towards love.".
https://soinspiring.com/common-ground-of-kindness/
Believe they are kind too.
Well, I'd like to apply the same standard, but how many times has a conservative group been attacked? You have that 1 guy you give as an example. And?
OK, how about PUBLICLY proclaiming conservatives to be killed? ... crickets?
Oh, there must be an example similar to Christian preachers who were overjoyed that gays got gunned down in Orlando (Rodrigo Jimenez, Pastor Anderson), or who called for governmental extermination of gays (Pastor Anderson) or who called for gays to be put on a desert island to die (Pastor Worley), or who travelled to Africa to help write the "Kill the Gays" legislation (Pastor Lively) or who .... well, you get the idea.
Countless bombings of clinics, harassment of doctors and patients, shootings. So how many times has a Christian-run equivalent been bombed or shot up?
I'd like to apply the same standard, but there just hasn't been any cases to apply it to.
I must respectfully disagree with you. I have had an email correspondence of sorts with this guy, and he's the total opposite of what you said. He nearly always responds to his emails (unlike most of us!), and acknowledges people. He's treated me with nothing but kindness and I would be honoured to make his further acquaintance if ever I get the chance.
Legally speaking, abortion isn't murder. But it should be made illegal so that unborn persons are protected.
Morally speaking, however, it IS and I have no problem saying that without apology; I have gotten into trouble for this on more than one occasion. I'm not sorry for that.
This is what I said once, and it earned me brownie points for intolerance:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/friendlyatheist1/if_the_gop_defunded_planned_parenthood_this_is_how_americans_would_suffer/#comment-2203901557
My point is that I try to remember this: Loving, truthful people are almost always more persuasive than unloving, truthful people. I would rather turn people away from belief in abortion than ridicule them for it. Sometimes, people believe in abortion because they have heard no other way and it's my job to let them know, there is another way. How am I going to communicate that if I am hostile to the people? The action, however, deserves righteous anger; I agree with you there and I admire your desire to speak out on behalf of the unborn. I hope this helps you understand better where I am coming from. I have no desire to compromise on the topic but rather to reach people with the truth and challenge them to think, and the best way to do that is to be respectful.
That being said, in a way I agree with you. The PL movement has made a shoddy job of things and it's time we manned up and spoke about the action in the strongest of terms.
Does this look like a baby to you?
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.
"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.
"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.
You are one very sick puppy little Shifty. Why don't you get a life?
Night :)
I wish your partner well, if that's all right. Because she sounds like a very smart woman from what you tell me :)
PS: Thanks for calling me a co-leader! Because one mark of a man of character is to recognise women as co-leaders :)
As I battle misogyny in my soul and in my body and in my environment, I will remember your words - guaranteed!
a superb LEADER ... it's not a binary males vs females or vice versa
... it's humans loving humans:)"
God, I agree 100%!
Personally, as I've stated before, I find men to be magnificent, strong, bright, brave leaders IF they are doing what is right and good and treating others with respect as well. Men have the inherent capacity to do so much good and to be so incredibly intelligent, but they have to earn respect through character and are not entitled to it simply because they are men*. If a man is good and trustworthy, stern yet gentle, wise yet open-minded, etc, I will trust and respect that man. But he has to prove himself to be good first, before I can even consider pledging my trust so completely. Please don't ever underestimate your intelligence and leadership skills, nor talk yourself down to put others up either, just because you happen to be a man.
To me, what is needed is not only to value the leadership of your own sex but also to value the leadership of the opposite sex - I mark a note that this is a great failing in society, that everyone brags about how great their sex is while putting the opposite sex down, or praises the opposite sex while downplaying the positive contributions of their own. This statement is not a criticism of either of us but rather an affirmation that our society seriously needs to change in this area, and, as we agreed so capitally, that men and women need to lead *together rather than fighting each other all the time.
As a leader, then, plus as a supporter, I support your decision to get off this forum and do what you must do. Many cheers go with you for the wonderful day you gave me, and I hope I made you happy too!
I'm sorry I was a little mad at you at the very beginning, but I'm glad I restrained myself and tried to understand where you were coming from, and no I didn't hate you either even then, and certainly don't now!
Thank you so very much for encouraging me to be a leader; and to think of myself as that; and for noticing, remarking on, and praising those qualities. I have never really been told I have the capacity to be a leader (except for once or at the most twice), only the capacity to be LED, partially because of my nature and partially because I am, in the eyes of others, a sweet young woman. I will try not to underestimate myself!
I have to go too; I've got RL (real life) to live. I appreciate the fact you want to check out those places and I hope to see you again soon so we can discuss loads of topics more - feminism, PL, racism, etc.
You have taught me a great deal today. I hope we can respectfully find common ground where we can, and disagree with compassion when we must. You've made me think a lot of noble thoughts about my sex and appreciate good men who support women all the more. If ever I get the right man I want someone who highly appreciates female leadership so thank you for bringing that to my attention.
I agree with and feel deeply inspired by your desire to see women lead. I also think that men are intelligent and strong, and make brilliant leaders as well; that doesn't mean I'm seeking to willfully misunderstand your beliefs about women's intelligence and leadership qualities; quite the contrary. I was raised traditional so I appreciate these good qualities in males, and there's a reason men and women should lead together - they need each other.
I will check out your link.
Time for bed for me too, sorry :*(
I knew we'd have a lot in common once we got past the rough stage :)
I don't feel threatened at all, nor do I sense you are flirting with me. You are talking to me like a person and that's great!
BTW, I couldn't flirt to save my life.
Do you mind if I gently encourage you to stop being a procrastinator? It is a hurtful habit, I know from sad experience :(
Honestly, I never thought of myself as a leader! In real life I am rather meek and compliant I'm afraid. But I know there's a tiger inside waiting to be unleashed if she's given the opportunity :)
I do not know how I managed to win you over like that. Can you tell me how I did it, if you wouldn't mind?
I persisted because I like people, and I think of what we can agree on far more than on what we disagree on. Finding common ground, especially on such a tough issue as abortion or anything else equally as controversial, is important to me because at that point we're viewing each other as enemies and we need to forget that we disagree and see each other's humanity.
Please, make Love Joy Feminism a new home if you feel comfortable with that. Also, check out Friendly Atheist. I post there a lot sometimes and I would love to run into you again because you are a very sharp, bright, intelligent man yourself. Yes, men are right on the ball! A female leader has to recognise that rather than pandering to the idea that men are dumb and women are smart, because that's nonsense.
Of course it is flesh-and-blood human beings. Why the spontaneous responses from so many Disqus owners?
You should have read his comments. I felt threatened, like I mentioned. I knew he couldn't touch me because of the computer screens, but I also knew he was a real person and his intentions towards me were less than honourable. You have to be very careful what you put up on the Internet, no kidding!
Aww, you're really laying it on thick; that's so sweet, thank you!
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/11/05/half-of-the-new-canadian-cabinet-members-chose-to-skip-so-help-me-god-in-their-oaths-of-office/#comment-2345535945
I felt guilty over that for a long time.
I don't think the agreement we have is perfunctory now, but rather sincere.
BTW: thank you :)
I do not believe in being dishonest about my identity, despite my desire for privacy. I'm not sure where I said you were Marxist, but thanks for clarifying.
"as you'll learn about the Italian scholar whom created the term and analytical framework"
Please tell me more. Who is this person?
"I'll do to the other article (website) ... what's your aka name there?"
It's Crystal there as well.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html
When I respond to your off-topic comments I will take my responses there and let you know I have done so. Thank you for agreeing to shift the conversation. I do not want your good thoughts deleted just because they weren't on-par with the theme of this blog.
realities of non-whites ... not to be misconstrued with all human
beings having input (voice) into the complexities of our species as
"human beings" ."
Can you please explain the difference between the two, as I'm a little mystified.
I've never really heard of the word "hegemony" before speaking with you, so I would say you taught me something new.
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hegemony
"Hegemony is political or cultural dominance or authority over others. The hegemony of the popular kids over the other students means that they determine what is and is not cool."
Based on that definition, I can see totally what you mean - if indeed you are working by that definition. In other words, are you saying that people's choices, how they view themselves, and how they act, are influenced by the cultural and political hegemony around them?
PS: I hope you don't mind if I ask you to take this discussion to at least one of those web pages I mentioned, because we are getting off-topic and I want to respect the moderator's rules while enjoying our chat. If you're agreeable, we can take it to that article on nonconsensual sex you enjoyed so much.
it becomes a rationale for killing or murdering or oppressing people:)"
You're right; I should have taken note of that. I am spiritual but not religious myself.
I have read that article about Doug Wilson in the past. On seeing it referenced, I can identify with why you're agnostic and critical of white hegemony. I read portions of his Southern Slavery as it Was with disgust. The man obviously has serious problems with critical thinking skills as it relates to morality :(
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/11/ttuac-ignore-your-childs-tears.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/07/doug-wilson-have-his-views-on-slavery-changed.html
If you want to you could put your opinion up on that and I'll find you and we can talk - if that's okay with you.
I especially loathe Doug Wilson.
"I won't lie, the symbolize 50s looking white female with her baby image
didn't resonate with me, for all kinds of cultural reasons ... including
why "WHITE" still the default "universality" for "human representation"
I share your deploring of white being the default state. I am white myself, yet in a way racism bothers me a lot more than sexism. White is not necessarily delightsome, the Book of Mormon be screwed. We need more non-white representations of models, protagonists in stories, etc. The white privilege - I find it bothersome.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/
It's very feminist-oriented, LOL. I learned a lot from her!
While I would not approach the issue the way he does, I appreciate the fact he told it like it is.
For instance, what do you think of this article:
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/what-creates-babies-sex-or-choices.html
As you yourself said, no right matters once your right to live is gone. I have tried and tried explaining this repeatedly but sometimes with little success.
Do you think it is accusing advocates of legal abortion of ethnic cleansing to assert such a thing? Because I don't. To me, it's just stating a moral principle.
Ironically I would consider myself a progressive person (in some ways). Yet I can see this sort of act runs afoul of all progressive values. We fight against ageism, for disability rights, yet we include abortion, euthanasia. Something's gotta give somewhere.
That aside, I agree with your comment. Abortion does stop a beating heart and that is why I am so dead set against it. I doubt anything will change my mind on the issue.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/
You sound as if you'd get on well with the people there :)
When I say, embrace my femininity, that means that I will appreciate myself in every way possible including my biological processes. Never mind the offence that causes.
I think you will enjoy the Suffragette movie coming out then. I appreciate reading about the struggles women faced just to vote.
Also, I mentioned that I have no wish to suppress anyone. That being said, I am seeking a solution to this problem before us that will grant both pregnant persons their right to bodily autonomy and unborn persons their right to live, via technology and many other methods. I seek to care for and consider both because both are equally important, and it's time prolifers recognised that. That being said, my ideas of caring for both pregnant and unborn persons will not please everyone, and I recognise that as well.
I appreciate your contributions to this forum and I have found you to be respectful and considerate. Thank you. However, as a woman I appreciate men and their intelligence a lot too. I think men and women need to rule together, not one over the other.
I do agree that women need to step up to the plate and take charge of their lives though. The only difference between you and me is that I don't believe that abortion is the best way to make that happen. Also the only difference between me and the mainstream PL movement is that I don't believe traditional views on female sexuality or even the status of unborn persons are the best way to make that happen either.
I can understand that.
I wonder though - didn't we start from a small beginning? Also, if the zygote has less worth than the toddler due to developmental differences, would the toddler have less worth than a teen due to such differences?
Also, in regards to bodily autonomy - which type do you believe in, and I quote:
"The Right to Refuse Argument states that even if the unborn is a
human being, a woman has the right to refuse to allow the unborn the use
of her body."
"The Sovereign Zone Argument states that even if the
unborn is a human being, a woman should still be able to have an
abortion because she has the right to do anything she wants with
anything inside the sovereign zone of her body."
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/autumn-in-the-sovereign-zone-why-its-my-body-i-can-do-what-i-want-wont-do/
2. At least you are consistent with your view. You are correct to observe that humans generally don't step out of line to save the lives of others unless they feel up to the challenge. The Hunger Games illustrates that quite well.
3. What's a DSM 5 medical condition?
PS: "cuz I love you ... cyber wise ..." Thanks for the compliment, returned, cyberwise :)
As I mentioned, my primary focus is foetal rights and not punishing women for sex, hence the mention of high techs.
I don't choose to be viewed as an incubator. I'm not one. What I do choose is to seek out a solution that will genuinely reduce abortions while allowing women their right to live as they see fit.
I do appreciate your concern for our sex, and I have noticed the obsequious deference to male judgment myself. Which is why I'm trying to reclaim my femininity back, so these guys can't dominate me.
"but rarely on the technology to procreate outside the female body ...
and rarely on the systemic and institutional conditions that make it
unfathomable to bring a child into this world ... poverty, war, disease,
bigotry."
On this, we agree.
I do have a question though: if you saw a woman trying to drown her toddler due to depression and anxiety on her part, would you step in to stop the drowning taking place, or not?
I'm not sure poverty will ever be completely eradicated but it helps to reduce it, yes?
Also I advocate for contraceptives, sex education, and social safety nets. I am sorry that the mainstream PL movement hasn't made preserving bodily autonomy and unborn human life together its primary focus.
or be defined as evil, immoral, criminals, murders, etc ... or raise
their kids in poverty, crime, eventual prison or death ... then let that
be the political-decision of ALL FEMALES ... never EVER male
patriarchs:)"
Agreed 100%, because conservative Christian men who preach abstinence aren't helping IMO.
One question to ask though - do you personally believe it is your prerogative to step in when you see something unjust being perpetrated, even if that injustice does not personally affect you?
First off, I am not American. Second, I believe in the core doctrine of prolife, which is protecting human life from the moment of conception to natural death. However, I agree that the mainstream PL movement is doing more harm than good with its incremental laws. What I would like to see happen is superior technological alternatives that will allow unborn persons to live while granting women bodily autonomy, because I have talked extensively to abortion advocates and agree with the principle of respecting the bodily autonomy of both unborn and pregnant persons.
BTW, prolife to me means protecting ALL life of humans and animals, not just unborn human life. Which is why I appreciate the work that Black Lives Matter does.
"Bringing a child or children into poverty conditions is cruel!"
I agree that it is cruel. Which is why I advocate for fighting poverty, one of the root causes of abortion.
May I ask what led you to advocate for abortion to remain legal?
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2/
Please read it before proceeding here. Josh's rules are so strict that even a few of your friends failed to pass muster.
How do you know that for sure?
Also, may I point your attention to the comment policy please:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
I am sure that you have a lot to contribute provided you read the commenting policy and observe it properly.
If a woman does not want the "problem" of an unwanted pregnancy, then she should take responsibility BEFOREHAND.
If she fails to do that, the unborn baby's inalienable right to life should be protected.
Once the baby's most fundamental human right has been protected and the baby has been born, the mother is free to put that child up for adoption.
Interestingly, your most fundamental human right, the right to be born, was respected yet you would callously deny that same right to others.
Have you no shame?
Also, I'm very sad that we can't talk about the things we have in common. I saw you were a multicultural, third-wave, feminist, African-American man, and I thought that was so nice, because I deeply appreciate multicultural, third-wave philosophy. I'd like to talk to you about these things and to understand why you advocate for abortion to remain legal, but I'm not sure I can if you're going to take digs at me the way you did.
I would respectfully ask you not to call us pro-death because it is extremely offensive. If I'm not allowed to say "pro-abort" despite having very good reasons for using the term, then it would be a good thing for advocates for legal abortion to reciprocate the favour, if you understand what I mean.
That put aside, I think we share a lot in common and you would be an interesting person to talk to.
Ann, I believe I should remind you of the commenting policy; please read it:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
Let me guess, dead fetuses are too specialty-special to dismember. Certainly they are too special to do medical research on, such as is often done on other dead bodies, because a dead fetus is so much more important and special than a live infant. Especially since that would get around your real purpose of making the woman suffer as much as possible by removing it in small pieces, rather than one large one.
How about this - I will make you eat a grapefruit. You will prove how easy it is to get a large object through a small hole by letting me stuff it intact, down your throat. If you prefer it be cut up, then you will have proven that you are a forced birth liar.
There is no right to someone else's body. Or any property belonging to someone else. If you have managed to get a hold of or occupy something belonging to someone else, it will be removed, or you will be removed. Even if it is necessary to use 'force and violence'. Even if it costs you your 'very life'. Even if you are really cute and even if spoiled teenage girls are really sad.
For instance, did you get my question about the idea of abortion being murder being responsible for the massacre that occurred recently? I think that idea is faulty; what do you think?
I don't care about affiliation or party or stance, only how I am treated and interacted with. You did not deserve my initial hostility, but I remain accountable for my good faith error in response.
You're not my enemy. Be well.
For the record I neither flagged nor reported you.
However, I think that, due to Josh's strict rules, it would be best that you stopped responding. You're feeding him every time you write up. Besides, I appreciate your presence here and feel you have much to contribute provided you follow the commenting guidelines.
I would like your opinion on something though: what do you think of the idea that prolifers are responsible for the shooting because they call abortion murder?
According to the comment policy, name-calling and quarrels from other websites are strictly prohibited:
And I quote:
"5. I reserve the right to delete your comments. This is my blog. I don’t have an obligation to publish your comments. The First Amendment gives
you the right to express your opinions on your blog, not mine.
Specifically, I will delete your comments if you post something that is,
in my sole opinion, (a) snarky;
(b) off-topic; (c) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing,
threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or
which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate my sense of
decorum and civility or any law, including intellectual property laws;
or (d) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise
promote goods and services. You may, however, post a link to your site
or your most recent blog post."
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
Name-calling and off-topic quarrels are not allowed here, only constructive criticism of abortion and life issues.
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
If you don't like it here, take your convos there. I'll see ya :)
Hugs.
I thought it puzzling myself. Perhaps it's a glitch in the system?
You could contact Josh via email:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/contact/
If you don't like his answer, please at least write me one more comment to tell me a place I can come where guest commenting is permitted as I do not possess an account at present due to very unusual circumstances.
http://blog.secularprolife.org/
I hope you're not banned there.
BTW this troll is just abusive. Wade through the entire convo if you have the spoons for it:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/10/07/transgender-woman-attacked-and-killed-as-baptists-advocate-curing-transgenderism-with-prayer/
I've told him what's what. I was called a vile piece of filth, etc. Yet I find it interesting he never answered my questions on life issues. Because his position isn't prolife though he claims to be a conservative Catholic.
Oh, dear, I'm getting off-topic again.
As for your trials I see that Tiki Torch is extremely nasty. She uses several of the same words as Sharon - pro-lout, pro-loafer. She's awful. Prolifers weak and spineless indeed, I'd have shown her a thing or two.
Thanks for coming back, Shifty!
I wrote to them again via another email address. It is confirmed. Commenting with a Disqus account is not allowed :(
So if you want to talk to me we'll have to talk here or at SPL, just as I mentioned.
I'm having a tough time dealing with a nasty person at TFA who hates trans people :(
Welcome to the club!
On a case like eight-year olds carrying to term, I believe sensitivity on both sides is required, especially as there won't be an answer that will satisfy everyone.
Here's what Josh had to say about it:
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/joshbrahm/why_rhonda_changed_her_mind_about_whether_to_use_the_word_8220pro_choice8221/#comment-2286489209
This
person is operating from the point where PLs say abortion is murder.
They say that if I say abortion is murder and compare it to slavery and
the Holocaust, how can I be friends with them? You see, would you sit
down to lunch with a nazi or a slaveholder? No? Then why would you treat
an advocate for legal abortion this way? Isn't it inconsistent with
what you believe to be friends with an advocate for legal abortion yet
say abortion is morally reprehensible because it takes an innocent human
life? What about the fact that since PLs are friends with advocates for
legal abortion yet hate what they do they mustn't believe unborn
persons are real people for sure, and they are doing it because it makes
them feel superior and they want power over others. The worst part of
their claims is that people like this shooter are the most morally
consistent because they act out what they believe, that abortion is
murder and then they shoot people to stop murder. How can you answer
such claims????
What do you personally believe about all this? Do you think that comparing the practice of abortion to slavery caused this guy to go out and shoot people, or do you think it namecalling people who had abortions, or do you think it was deeper than that? Also do you think there is a difference between condemning an action someone does and condemning the person themselves?
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
Josh's blog is being treated like a rugby field at the moment and I'm not appreciating it.
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/dont-be-too-nice/
See, Josh has advice on a great many topics. He is a very smart man I've found :)
What's your opinion? Do you think that saying "the act of abortion is murder and morally repugnant" has any relationship to what this shooter did, or do you think something else drove him to it? Do you think it was calling advocates for legal abortion "nazis" and "baby-killers" that pushed this guy over the edge? I'd really appreciate your opinion on this, as I don't see how calling out an action and rationally explaining the similarities between abortion and slavery could result in hatred and murder, but I can see how defamatory and highly inflammatory language against a person or a group of people might encourage such actions.
That Javelina woman seems fair. It's a pity I never got to speak to her. If you could encourage her to come onto this site again I do hope for the chance of a word with her!
Also Josh Brahm, Wholovesorangesoda, Guest, Acyutananda, and a few others are nice people that you can have reasonable conversations with about this topic. They won't scream at you and will disagree in love.
"I guess my disconnect is that I cannot seem to grasp why you would have hated women who chose abortion."
I was a very young person at the time. Since I was aware of the barbaric nature of the act, and I listened to and read what prolifers had to say on abortion and other life issues a lot, I felt horror at the thought that anyone could do something so dastardly towards an innocent child. I have never lost that horror, but that feeling of repugnance transferred into hating women who had abortions. As I was ignorant of the many desperate circumstances many women who commit such an act find themselves in, I perceived them to be cold-blooded murderers who had killed their children because they were selfish, and I believed that such people deserved very harsh treatment. However, as I continued to read and educate myself via feminist theory and pro legal abortion literature as well as prolife literature, both that and the tokophobia disorder I am recovering from helped to change my mind on hating the people having abortions, though not on the act itself, long before I began speaking to advocates for legal abortion. And talking to these people who disagreed with me on this issue cemented the view I was predisposed towards, that the prolife movement was in dire need of reform. By that time my hatred for women having abortions was long gone.
Also, to save unborn people's lives. Since all life is precious from the moment of conception we should seek to protect it by whatever means possible.
Here's a comment I wrote about some of the problems in the PL
movement; please take a read of it and tell me what you think of it in general. Also do you believe that the PL movement would improve if such techniques were employed as suggested:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2396781480
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
Why do you say that? I would appreciate your backing up your statements please as I am open to learning about the integrity of every single person I chat with.
Also, I don't know the details but I'm aware that PJ and fiona64 have had a few run-ins (and no, I didn't ask PJ for specifics or anything). Of course if she is a compulsive liar I'm sure I'll find out eventually. However, I prefer not to take sides in online quarrels, and to believe a person innocent until proved guilty beyond a doubt. As I told another commenter, I care about every person I interact online with and prefer to speak civilly to people. So I will be kind to everyone - whether it's PJ or fiona64 or whoever else it is.
I do my best, is all I can say :)
There was a time I had a deep hatred in my heart for all women who had had abortions and was appalled when prolifers reached out to one in love and forgiveness. Now that I have read why women do it I am not inclined to be so harsh as I once was although I still consider their action to be morally reprobate. Also talking to advocates for legal abortion has stretched my horizons like you would not believe.
You see, even before I came across Josh's site I had these beliefs. But he has strengthened them. And I am not the only one who cares for these things. If you hang around ERI website you will find that Josh and his team believe the way I do - deplore the action but love the person. So if ever you want to talk to Josh about this stuff feel free, I'm sure he'll try to answer you though he is a very busy man. He was kind enough to let me know he couldn't answer all my questions before he stopped responding to me but I hope he'll continue writing back again :*)
I think such devices are key to finalising the abortion debate once and for all, although they don't completely answer the dilemma of adoption or parenting and those issues would have to be worked out as well, for this to really succeed.
I'm not sure what kinds of "reasons" fanatics could come up with to condemn such life-saving devices though. Could you expound?
I'm not so sure what was so innocent about my comments though, if you wouldn't mind expounding. I'm not trying to be vain or harp on too much but I really would like to understand.
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
The relationship between pregnant and unborn person is so unique it is the only way the ZEF can survive, for the present.
I'm sorry for asking so many questions but I wanted to be certain you were praising me and not upset at me. In short I did not want to misread your comments. Thanks so much. However, if I have misread you I apologise. If I have not I appreciate!
"I am almost brought to tears by the innocence of your comment."
Can you explain that one, please?
How to make a guest comment: Type in a comment. Where it says, "I'd rather post as a guest" with a little check button, you tick the button and you don't have to sign in. Then you can comment as a guest. Try it if you like and see how that works, and if you don't find my explanation helpful I don't mind trying to tell you again :)
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
I read, reply, think. I trust others do too, even if we end up on opposing sides. Both your advocacy and mine are useful in the light of the humble realisation that those reading both of us will, in the end, follow their own North Stars -- we're both only signposts.
Condemning the ACTION is not a point I can compromise on. It must be spoken of in the strongest of terms.
The PEOPLE who practice the action must be shown understanding and love even while we deplore the practice.
So I try to be careful about my language, not to compromise nor to cause unnecessary offence when I can reach someone for the truth.
Read Josh's articles. They are thought-provoking and I am a great admirer of him :) You won't feel hated as you read, I can assure you :)
What's the difference between saying: 1) Your actions could lead you down a morally reprehensible path because your beliefs are off-base/; you are advocating for something morally reprehensible
2) You're a fan of genocide
Which statement is more productive?
ERI is a very young organisation, a fledgling in fact. As of present he doesn't have much time to comment and he is keeping it strict due to time constraints, but hopes to debate a little better in the future :)
I'm actually glad you're asking me these questions and taking the stand you are; I tend to avoid the more frothingly vituperative posters, because it isn't productive for me. I'm not interested in being right -- like my being "right" means anything! -- only chewing on the issues.
I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose her sexual behaviour, and (as arguable as this is in con circles) to have access to birth control. No woman should ever be forced into sex. No woman, IMO, should be deprived secular medical prophylactic-preventative technology.
But with this authority and personal autonomy and technology comes responsibility. Women are not destined to be slaves of circumstance, we are not infants who need to be coddled, we are not stupid or dependent or inferior. We do not need abortion as it's being implemented now. We can do better, show ourselves as better, with even a modicum of applied planning and self-discipline.
BTW that is the kind of comment that could get you in trouble - name-calling is not permitted on this site. It's a safe space where prolifers and advocates for legal abortion can respectfully debate and discuss their differences, and hopefully learn from each other. I share my friend's mission. There is too much hostility between the two sides already.
You are not to feel bad about the way people treat you if you personally had nothing to do with anything to cause them to go beserk on you. The problem is on their side, not yours.
I agree being accused of not taking our words seriously by refusing to commit violence, then being accused of committing violence, boggles the mind. I have a couple thoughts here, dealing precisely with that subject, arguments you might find thought-provoking and helpful:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2389713979
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2393898255
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2387892637
It's just that I spoke to someone who had a picture and a name very similar to yours.
Josh has been away. I fear he will not be pleased when he reads the confounded mess his forum has become. I'll try to sort it out as much as I can to protect folks from being banned:
TRUMPET BLAST - ATTENTION FOLKS!
READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
I respect you but I want you to be able to comment here in freedom and peace and this is why I say these things to you.
"It's always one step coward, ten step me back with you."
BTW, I didn't mean to come across so strong but I'm Crystal and I love the extra boost and crowd.
For starters what do you personally believe about this shooting and do you think the PL stance on calling out bad behaviour yet not shooting people is morally inconsistent with their message?
You ever commented there, PJ?
Also, I wish we could talk about this issue at depth a little more. Question for starters, PJ - what do you think of the claim that Operation Rescue is a terrorist group and why? Also how do you respond when people say you are being inconsistent by advocating for peace? Would sincerely appreciate an answer to the questions if that's okay.
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/11/paternity.cases/index.html?eref=yahoo
What constitutes the line of unborn sentience, "real live people", etc continues to be challenged by increasingly more refined scientific and technological parameters. But I must commend you -- when you write "And the unborn do not have any greater rights than fully live and sentient people.", you recognise they have equal rights to life. Definitely not greater: I agree. Equal.
So they have a right to life, just as you and I do.
No double standard in pusillanimity; I am referring to you directly, not all those who espouse similar views. If we want to ripple out, my goal is equity; can a man terminate his lover's pregnancy with ease, unconstrained by law, because he contributed 50% genetic material? Does he own that foetus?
Finally, no class, gender, colour or creed is "Sovereign" in a Democracy. No one has complete autonomy within an ethical, non-Monarchical societal structure. Women do not have any greater rights than any others.
I can see clear to abortion as a last resort measure to preserve the life of the mother, under strict medical regulation; I can even see clear to therapeutic abortions for minors, as there is a precedent for children to be granted certain allowances under the law for killing (how can I rationally expect someone who is not legally permitted to drive or sign a contract to be held to adult standards in this?).
I cannot see clear to wholesale acceptance of abortion as a societal standard. And I have no doubt you're glad I'm not in charge; your pusillanimity would not be pandered to. I know the idea of being responsible and accountable can be terrifying to the weak.
There is no doubt in my mind that mental illness was a contributing factor so I agree with your view Mr Brahm.
The issue now is not to feed into the disparaging commentary of those whose only goal is to paint pro-lifers as violent. It is highly amusing IMO how desperate the militant pro-choicer has become to attempt to indict our entire movement.
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://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
What if, without encouraging violence, the pastor or the blogger had misrepresented their targets as being more unpleasant persons than they really were?
Misrepresentation is sure to be one of the charges that pro-choicers will make against the CMP. I hope that that charge will be baseless. But -- CMP denounced Planned Parenthood as a criminal enterprise
-- suppose PP was not technically criminal -- Violence was a completely unreasonable (not to mention completely evil) response to their messages . . .
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?
create a thought-experiment that forces me to bite the bullet and say
that maybe in a circumstance where X, Y and Z are true that it would be
morally permissible to start a civil war over abortion? Perhaps, but
that thought-experiment will by necessity look REALLY different than
America in 2013 does.
If I have understood your preceding argument correctly, you mean "REALLY different" in terms of only one variable -- the degree of despotism. I have understood your premise to be that as long as a society adheres to true democratic principles, it can NEVER produce a situation that would justify vigilante action. Have I misunderstood you?
I think "never" would be too strong a word. Democracy is the sneaking suspicion that more than half the people are right more than half of the time. And even "more than half of the time" is just a sneaking suspicion.
I think better arguments for not killing abortionists might be these:
I would like to say a few things, but I'm under a lot of time pressure right now, so you will be partially spared that word count. Here is what I can type (or copy and paste) in the time that I have:
- It seems to me that similarly to the way you can argue, "Scott Roeder . . . may have intended to do good, but he was absolutely wrong," I could argue, "The US has an impressive-seeming constitution and yes, it is theoretically possible to change unjust laws, but all the workings of power and money, and the molding of public opinion -- the 'manufacture of consent' -- are a much deeper subject, and those glittery democratic institutions are of little comfort to the babies."
- Under the earlier blog post you have linked to, I had commented --
As long as America is not [led] by a despot who changes our entire system of government, there are other ways to save lives and end abortion without using violence or other illegal or fear-inducing tactics like kidnapping. And that matters. If we can end abortion by non-violent means, then we are morally obligated to pursue those non-violent means."Thanks for your post.
"If many unborn lives could be saved without violence by the pro-life American states seceding from the Union, shouldn't they do that?"
-- and Josh Brahm had replied -- Interesting question. I would need to be convinced that the pro-life states seceding would actually save more lives. It seems to me that it would have been easier to end slavery without the Southern states seceding. That's partially why they seceded. I think it would be easier to abolish abortion without seceding, but I'm open to a good argument
-- and I had offered what seemed to me to be a good argument --
"I don't think of secession first and foremost in terms of lives saved in the short term. I think of it first and foremost in terms of moral integrity. If Kansans, for example, are pro-life and would be free to live, if they wished, under laws that protect unborn life, and opted not to do so, how much of their moral integrity on that issue would they preserve, and what message would they send to others?"
I might also have raised a question about the "without the Southern states seceding" analogy, since at that time it was the states with the institution we consider wrong (slavery) that seceded, whereas I was not proposing that in the present the states with the institution we consider wrong (abortion) should secede.
Anyway, I would still love a response about moral integrity.
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/4-reasons-pro-lifers-need-to-stop-doing-this/