Not always. In some cases, a tiny but very loud minority knows they can't win the argument so they aggressively try to stop other people from hearing the other side. The examples listed above, along with most similar incidents on university campuses, fall squarely in the latter category.
I think that pro-choice people generally are afraid of the systematic injustices of our male normative economy. Abortion becomes a way to escape these injustices. But because it honestly troubles the advocates abd because everyone in the USA agrees with Locke on rights little real discussion is possible. One other thing I have seen is that as the issue is internationalized, rich white countries are looked at differently than poot Asian or African countries. So there is alsoa bit of hidden racism. My view is that one must solve the related injustices as part of the overall solution to this issue. The law is a blunt instrument especially where we believe in the system. So, how do we liberate women from the need for abortion?
Another question: You said the following, "Yes definetly . I can condemn a crime being committed but not the person doing the crime ( they may have mental health issues )" What is the difference between the crime and the person doing the crime? Also why would you take care to condemn the action only? I'm genuinely interested as to your perspective on this.
BTW I like your avatar, it's so colourful and cute with all the different types of pinks and reds and pretty young ladies my age behaving the way young women will - so bright and vibrant, so pink! I'm not trying to gush here, I just think it's delightful and sweet and I imagine you to be young myself.
I will ask the following then, to recap:
1) In what ways does the early stage embryo and foetus has some weight as a potential member of the human race? 2) Did you see the petition for the baby monkeys, at this link: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/six-ways-ive-seen-pro-choice-people-try-to-censor-pro-lifers/#comment-2418674368 3) Do you think the PL movement could benefit with a little animal-rights activism? 4) What do you think of the idea that pro-life = for life, and should include animals? 5) What do you think of PL vegans and PL vegetarians? 6) In regards to condemning the action versus condemning the person committing the action, how would you respond if someone said these to you, and why would you respond that way: a) You’re a fan of genocide, and I know you would side with the infanticide crowd if ever that became legal b) It’s because I respect you as a person and care enough to tell the truth that I’m willing to tell you that you are advocating for something morally wrong (unacceptable, reprehensible, whatever negative adjective you want to put in there), and rather than condemn you, I would like to explain why it is wrong so you understand better, if you are willing to hear what I have to say And last but not least, this comment here, which is too big to be condensed into one question: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/six-ways-ive-seen-pro-choice-people-try-to-censor-pro-lifers/#comment-2419016375 Also you mentioned this point: “I started reading a book Jim H recommended 'The True Believer' by Eric Hoffer which has some interesting insights into fanaticism. Worth downloading if your interested x” Where could I get it to buy or download for free, and what kind of fanaticism does it describe? Because I am aware there are different types – political, religious, etc. Thanks for offering to answer my questions!
Hi, it sounds interesting. I've wanted to comment on I fight bullies for a long time and couldn't because I'm a guest and don't have an official account. Would it be okay if I asked you to enable the guest commenting function so that guests can comment? Of course, if your present position does not allow for this I will understand; yet if you do I have every intention of being honest about my opinions and respectful of your rules at the same time.
Why are you afraid of opening a disqus account? You can set your account to private. You could try it and delete it if it creeps you out. I’m leery of letting guest accounts post because it opens the floodgates to abusive commenters. I trust you but not others out there. Sorry but I can’t change the settings for one person.
BTW I am sorry about your cold! Colds are nasty things, I know. Take plenty of lemon drinks and snuggle into warm wraps at night with your feet in lovely snug slippers!
Thanks you are sweet. I changed the setting and guests can post at the bullies blog. I'll see how it goes. If I get inundated with trolls I'll have to change it. But for now you can post here at the Winter Solstice thread, http://ifightbullies.blogspot.com/2015/12/happy-winter-solstice.html
Let's just say I have certain private circumstances in my life that require the utmost privacy and therefore it is because of them I can't create an account at the present time but I will when I can. Since I realise you've had a hard time on the Internet in the past I respect your decision. Would it suit you if we chatted on this site and SPL though? Because I would enjoy that a lot, partially as I appreciate having civil discussions on life issues and partially as I wonder about things like "ecofeminist" and "winter solstice".
Would you mind if I requested an answer to my comments, Jim? I realise you are busy but if you could make the time it would be greatly appreciated. BTW I appreciate your offer to consider starting our fanclub, LOL.
Are you referring to this? if she wants to comment on SPL (after replying to you) she can comment on this page: http://blog.secularprolife.org... I’d deeply appreciate her opinion on the issue; she might know how one way to answer the arguments that since unborn persons are presently unconscious, it won’t matter to them if they die or not, because I hear this one all the time and I’m not sure how to reply when I see it.
Absolutely that (BTW could you please send it to her if you wouldn't mind doing so), and this too: "If you wouldn't mind, could you please explain in what ways [Thomas] is being mean-spirited towards you, so I understand better? Also, do you believe that use of the term 'pro-abortion' (not pro-abort, pro-abortion) is mean-spirited, if the term 'pro-abortion' is used carefully to describe a person's position rather than as a derogatory fiery dart at an advocate for legal abortion? I ask because I have an opinion on that, but I will share it after I've heard what you have to say." I also shared a little testimony of some of my rough times online. Thank you for writing back, it is very kind of you to think of me! PS: Again, I can sympathise with people having a rough time and I see you seem to be going through a wild patch. My condolences and good luck, Jim.
I'd be happy to pass that on when I talk to her next. I don't really want to talk about Thomas, he is just not worth the effort. I don't believe that use of the term 'pro-abortion' (not pro-abort, pro-abortion) is mean-spirited, if the term 'pro-abortion' is used carefully to describe a person's position, but I think it is used too loosely and broadly. Generally I think it only fair to use that term to describe people who believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances, or most circumstances; i.e., they lean more in that direction they do in the pro-life direction. If that is the case, I think it is just being accurate and someone being called that shouldn't be offended. However, I think if you are seeking dialog you should probably call someone what they want to be called, which would be pro-choice. I meant to write back. I actually thought I had. Thanks for the kind words.
"I fear I'm expecting you to say that StanW called me an idiot by the end of it though." I did not mean that snarkily or cruelly; I was genuinely expecting that response because you said if any PLer told you abortion was murder you would tell them that StanW called them an idiot. If I have caused offence by stating this I humbly apologise.
No Stan was being hateful and stupid to me and babbling that I was an idiot for comparing the murder of a pregnant woman to an abortion. He made it a point to say abortion wasn't murder in his own nasty way. I think he was so busy trying to insult me he didn't consider the ramifications of what he was saying. He insulted a lot of people with that comment. I'll probably start pointing that out to his friends at LAN. A word of warning, he now follows me on discus. I don't think it is because he is a big fan, rather more for a creepy stalker. So, be warned. I'll let you know if he realizing how creepy that makes him seem and he stops it. You need to quit apologizing. You are one of the few really nice I get to converse with.
I know this is going to sound a strange request coming from me, but please don't insult StanW, Jim. The commenting policy will not allow for it and I don't want to see you being banned or having your comments deleted because of an argument and because you have a lot to contribute here and that is why I ask: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2/
You made a mind-numbingly stupid statement and I called you on it. Clearly you are too immature to deal with having your opinions challenged. Come back after you go through puberty.
So you are stalking my conversations. That's really mature approach isn't it Stan. Lets see how long you get away with your insults over here where you are expected to be a grown-up.
Why do trolls like you always think people are "stalking" you. You basically show up on practically every pro-life discussion. News item: It's not all about you.
Hey Crystal: Stan has said I was threatened with being banned here twice. I said I didn't think you would characterize what happened that way. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so how would you describe what happened?
I didn't threaten you, Jim. It's not my blog! You were talking to me about a concern I raised, then StanW came on because he didn't like what you were saying. I asked you not to insult him, and I asked Stan to stop insulting you. At first he didn't like it until I explained I was playing fair and had asked you not to do it as well. He was - or tried to be - respectful after that, and for that I give him credit. I hate to say it but you did respond in a very angry way after I asked you not too, and I had to ask you to stop it. So I asked you not to (this was the time I mentioned banning), then I asked you to stop. You weren't threatened with banning. I tried to remind you of the rules as gently as I could. The way you and Stand behave towards each other saddens me. Please, we've got to try to be civil and kind to each other! Last but not least I would encourage you to talk about anything I said with Josh, if indeed I did threaten anyone (which I didn't mean to do as I only intended to uphold the rules). PS: Please let PJ know I'm looking forwards to her typing in on that article I shared when she can as I would appreciate an answer to my question if that's okay with her. Thanks for coming and asking me.
I am happy to answer your questions and confirm anything that needs to be confirmed, anytime. But why would you think I threatened you? I am having a very mixed-up day at the moment. I feel like I'm being a little self-centered and rude here by asking why and how you believe I am sweet, in your opinion, because I want to relish the compliment(s) more - I read some of what you had to say about me and my heart went dancing with the stars :) I hope PJ does write in, and I think she needs to be given a gentle reminder because she means well but she forgets; I hope you will not find it amiss to give that gentle reminder in a couple days if she doesn't make it. I miss that awesome lady and would like to get to know her more. But I hope she is treating you well, with kindness. I won't be happy if she's not.
Crystal: This is the comment: StanW Jim H • 13 hours ago She warned you twice to stop your infantile insults that you throw around. That is why you ran back to LAN, so you could be a jerk again. Its no big deal. I think you are very kind hearted and look for the good in people. You have a very innocent lack of cynicism about people. I will try to give her a reminder in a couple days. Take care.
I see. I didn't mean to make Stan feel threatened and I am sorry for that. However I am not the one in charge, and I'm glad that Stan understood I was not making favourites to hurt him eventually. We've been having a lovely chat and I hope to resume it soon :) "I think you are very kind hearted and look for the good in people. You have a very innocent lack of cynicism about people." That is so lovely of you :) I was raised by very good parents and homeschooled in a generally stable environment, family-wise. Hence the innocence I believe. Some would call me naive. I am young too. "I will try to give her a reminder in a couple days. Take care." Please look after yourself, Jim. Again, I hope you don't mind if I inquire as to how she is treating you. You take care too, Jim. Since you seem to be having it so rough why not leave them for a while, come over to this site and discuss PL philosophy with me? I like thinking through things and it might be fun, especially as I don't feel the need to self-censor around you.
I provided a lot of information and said pretty much everything I have to say. If you truly wish to civilly discuss something I provided or commented on, I would be more than happy to do so.
Since you seem willing to have a civil conversation, I would be honoured to have civil conversations with you. Starting with this question, if you wouldn't mind answering: Do you think that legal abortion advocates censor prolifers, and if so, how? PS: I understand that people can be hurtful online and I don't think that is right, but please know that I personally have no intentions of hurting you.
I believe many pro-abortion advocates attempt to censor the pro-life message. Rarely is open and honest debate on abortion allowed on Left-leaning boards. That being said, I also believe many pro-life advocates allowed themselves to be censored by pro-abortion proponents. Debate and civility must go both ways for a conversation to occur.
"I believe many pro-abortion advocates attempt to censor the pro-life message. Rarely is open and honest debate on abortion allowed on Left-leaning boards." Firstly, could you describe in what ways this occurs generally, and has occurred in your experience? As for me, I have been to a left-leaning space where it was allowed although the majority opinion was pro-legal abortion; it got pretty rough at times but people respect me and I respect them. I tried it on another one and ugh, I got shut down pretty quick. "That being said, I also believe many pro-life advocates allowed themselves to be censored by pro-abortion proponents." How do you believe that PLers allow themselves to be censored by pro-abortion opponents? As for me, it is something I have to watch all the time; the self-censoring thing for fear of causing offence. They won't self-censor for us, so why should we self-censor for them? They say we snidely accuse them of murder and being pro-aborts, but then they snidely accuse us of being terrorists and forced birthers even after we ask them not to, of course that is a generalisation and there are exceptions to these rules. I have spoken to reasonable legal abortion advocates and unreasonable ones. How about you? BTW we shouldn't stop calling it out for the moral crime that it is even if that is offensive. I try not to although I fall into the trap sometimes. Do you think it is because they fear us so much that they ask us to self-censor? "Debate and civility must go both ways for a conversation to occur." I agree with that. That is the purpose of this website. Although I don't think it's really an issue for debate because life issues are so vital to the health of society. I look forwards to hearing from you again, Stan.
On most of the left-wing boards I have visited, any post outside of the Libersl orthodoxy du jour is cause for banning. Respect rarely plays into it. I had an instance where I took s pro-life position on a VERY liberal board. There were many insults, but I was have a few spirited conversations. One poster, seeing my Texas map, began poster about how everyone from Texas was a traitor and a pervert, that the government should invade the state and kill us all, and that he was personally going to come and do awful things to my wife and children, which he described in painful detail. I ignored him for a long time with him making vulgar threats to my every post. Finally, I posted to him "you really need to shut up". Immediately I got a message from a moderator, telling me that they would not tolerate such threats and then banned me. I agree that we should not allow the pro-aborts to silence us. I would also add to the list above. Pro-aborts try to censor the pro-life message with legality. They will claim that since abortion is legal, that the matter is settled and that we should all just shut up and stop opposing abortion. For the most part, pro-aborts cannot make a reasoned and logical argument for the slaughter of innocent children, so they demand we self-censor. I for one will not.
As for your experience on liberal websites, ugh! People shouldn't act like that. I guess the guy was mad at you because of the history of the Alamo. The one I visited where I was allowed to debate, as I said, it got rough a few times. Yet people are still generally fond of me and missed me when I went away for a few months. I like that group too; they have generally treated me well despite a few rough patches. "Pro-aborts try to censor the pro-life message with legality." How would they do that in your opinion? William Wilberforce faced the same when he tried to oppose it during a war England was having with another nation. The right and good cause won out eventually though. It is primarily because of his efforts that people throughout the British Empire never became slaves again. "They will claim that since abortion is legal, that the matter is settled and that we should all just shut up and stop opposing abortion." Could you give some insight as to how this could occur in your opinion? I can see that. They might even start calling PL speech hate speech, and claim that we incite terrorists because of the nutters among us who call for executions of abortion practitioners (repeatedly, and with glee to whip up the crowds, rather than just stating it gravely once or at the most twice as a general opinion). I've been asked if I think abortion is murder why I am associating with psychopaths. I wonder then if they believe PLers are terrorists why they are associating with psychopaths like us. SRSLY? I think some of the more ambitious PA leaders among them will use any incident of anti-abortion terrorism as an excuse to shut down the entire group; what say you? I remember Alice Paul in the Iron-Jawed Angels video being forced with her fellow suffragettes to take to the streets and continue the votes for women work even after WWI started. They went to prison but again, the right and good cause won out. "For the most part, pro-aborts cannot make a reasoned and logical argument for the slaughter of innocent children, so they demand we self-censor." I think the abortion issue is more analogous to slavery than nazism, so I try to bring that out. Yet it is a well-known fact that slavers used anti-abortion sentiments to serve themselves and punish their slaves when the slave women tried to illegally obtain abortions, and this is something that you need to expect to hear from their lips. The most "reasoned" argument is Thompson's Violinist and the trolley scenario; have you heard of those? Also, have you heard of McFall vs. Shrimp? Because all those are vital to know when speaking to a legal abortion advocate. "I for one will not." That's good, Stan. Grace is required when dealing with those we disagree with as we want to win as many people to the truth as possible, and be a light to all people. They are people too, and generally not monsters, but rather wrong on this very important issue. But condemning the practice is vital to the moral health of society! I hope you don't mind if I ask you if you personally consider abortion to be murder; I'm not doing this to start any fights but I'm honestly curious as to your opinion on the issue.
My opinion is that abortion is not murder. Murder is the illegal taking of life and abortion is currently legal. Abortion is homicide, as the death of the child is a deliberate act. Many pro-life advocates believe that abortion is or should be considered murder. And they have every right to that opinion.
So you say abortion is legal? Well in truth it was a court ruling meaning it's not but most people (myself included) never knew that for a long time. So technically it's not legal EXCEPT on request. Abortion being legal is taken for granted by many people. For me, request is when the mother's pregnancy puts in a high risk of death. Then I believe that it's the mother's choice to choose if she will continue to term anyway.
It's good to hear from you, Stan. I missed you. I had them in this comment here: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/six-ways-ive-seen-pro-choice-people-try-to-censor-pro-lifers/#comment-2447286149 How about we start with the first one on the list in that comment: "2) Oh, okay. I didn't realise that. I'm pretty aware that some folks screech "baby-killer" at women and escorts, and that's not the right way to handle the situation. Yet at the same time, saying "There is hope and I will be happy to help you" is not offensive in the least and I don't understand why anyone would say that it is." In other words, what I'm trying to ask is, in context of these laws that restrict speech on public property near abortion "clinics", do these legal abortion advocates have an objection to people who quietly and gently counsel women, especially unsure women, against having abortions (some of these are sidewalk counselers) as much as people who yell "baby-killer" at women and escorts and harass the terrified women going inside the buildings? Also, could you do me a favour and remind PJ about commenting on SPL so I can catch up with her? I have missed her a lot since she got banned.
I'm sorry, I misread your question. No, she didn't get banned from SPL but rather from the blog you're typing on now. She got into an argument with some pro-legal abortion people, which caused real problems as the man running this site wishes for this place to be an educational, respectful place for people on both sides of the fence to read and comment about abortion. Once again, I apologise for putting you wrong, and wish you to know that as long as you are respectful and contributing value to the forums (which you are certainly doing) you will always be welcome here.
Well, it´s good to hear that I´m welcome here. What you say about PJ does not surprise me, anyway. I know her behavior from LAN. What would surprise me would be if she had actually gotten banned at SPL, given that I´ve heard they have a "hands off" moderation policy there.
PJ got banned temporarily at LAN as well. Even though she came back after a couple of months, she does not post nearly as much as she used to. Sad, I too enjoyed her company. BTW, Val told me that you don´t want to post at LAN, why is that?
In regards to posting at LAN, it's a long story. I don't have an account yet for personal reasons but I'd like to get one and join in the conversations in the future, so please don't think I don't want to do it; I do but I can't yet if you know what I mean. If you see PJ again you might like to encourage her to come to SPL if she wants to see me again.
You don´t have a Disqus account, yet you can post on Disqus- how is that possible? Anyway, next time I encounter PJ, I will tell her to come over to SPL, since you miss her.
Guest commenting - you can click the button below which says "I want to post as a guest" without signing in. Not all sites have it but some of the ones that do, I use. Thanks.
Sadly, she did. I hope you stick around, though. I'm friends with Val, and I've seen your comments and would enjoy talking to you if you would like that as well.
It seems to me that you had a surprisingly civil conversation with Handsomemrtoad. Val has not had positive things to say about the guy, and he obviously has rather extreme views, but you obviously manage to have a civil discussion with the guy. As for this blog, I don´t hang here much. I´ve heard a lot of positive things about it though. So I have a largely positive opinion about it.
I don't just appreciate what you write on prolife issues, but I understand how hard it is to stand out from the crowd, especially where you live. The prolife movement is hated dreadfully in your country, would that be right? I also enjoy reading other topics that matter to liberal-minded people because I'm a liberal myself :) I would encourage you to stay around, because ERI was written for people who wish to know how to persuade pro-legal abortion individuals to genuinely become prolifers. I had a civil discussion with HandsomeMrToad because I seek to have civil discussions with everyone (although there are a few I have had to break contact with because they were so nasty to me, but that's rare, fortunately). I'm also the one who has written the piece Val is sharing with Jim H, in case you didn't know. Briefly then - what do you believe about animals, and how would that contrast with a less liberal mindset (IIRC your views on animals seem to be similar to Val's, would I be right?)? Also, what do you think of "personally prolife"?
Yes, the pro-life movement is dreadfully hated here. Like in the US, the mainstream media portrays pro-lifers as über-religious, women-hating nutjobs, but the Swedish public swallows the message of the media to a much higher degree than the American public. Free and critical thinking are really not the strength of my countrymen. Those who oppose abortion here are largely scared into silence. I am open about my views with friends and family though. I might well start hanging more on ERI, who knows? Now that I have a regular to talk to:-) I really would value more skill in changing hearts. My view on animals are similar to Val´s, you´re right there. Even though I am not a vegetarian like her ( but I avoid meat that isn´t organic). Lots of conservative pro-lifers might care less about animals, I guess. Certainly not all though; not my dear friend Trixie on LAN for example, who is both a conservative pro-lifer and active in animal rescue. I think, given that humans are intelligent and powerful, we have a responsibility towards other animals, to be compassionate to them. We are the rulers; let us be good masters to our subjects, and treat them with the love they deserve. As for "personally pro-life", I think that is largely bull, honestly. Those who are personally pro-life do nothing to stop the human rights abuse of abortion on demand, it´s like being a bystander to any other human rights abuse, or cruelty to animals for that matter, and say "I don´t agree with that, but it´s not really my business." What are your thoughts?
I think conservative prolifers care less about animals because animals are not people. That is so sad, because life matters to me. Pro = for, life = life. When we treat animals badly today, we treat human beings badly tomorrow. It's really nice to talk to someone who shares my feelings on animals being treated well because it's not often I get to talk to someone who understands my passion on the subject :) "Certainly not all though; not my dear friend Trixie on LAN for example, who is both a conservative pro-lifer and active in animal rescue. I think, given that humans are intelligent and powerful, we have a responsibility towards other animals, to be compassionate to them. We are the rulers; let us be good masters to our subjects, and treat them with the love they deserve." I understand this might come as a slight shock, but I think animals need to be liberated from human control, because it is one major cause of suffering and death for the animal kingdom. That being said, I agree with this sentence: "I think, given that humans are intelligent and powerful, we have a responsibility towards other animals, to be compassionate to them." It's good that your friend Trixie is involved with animal rescue; I applaud her efforts and wish more conservatives would do the same. I would like to know, if you want to tell me, what led you to hold the views you do on animals, though. I agree completely with you on "personally prolife" and find that viewpoint to be cowardly. There are personally prolife people I respect, not because they are personally so but because they wish to really, really end abortion; they simply disagree that laws are the best way to do it. So there are two kinds of personally prolife - those who are concerned with laws not ending the problem but despise abortion with everything they have in them, and those that believe this way to be popular and liked with the pro-legal abortion crowd. Here is an example of the kind of personally prolife individual I do respect, because she is still willing to call out abortion as a sick, horrible act, and genuinely cares for both women and the unborn: http://sarahbessey.com/a-voice-for-the-voiceless/ Another guy who doesn't see much hope for laws but very much wishes for abortion to be stopped is Chandler Klebs; he hangs around here sometimes and I really enjoy his contributions. I want to make it clear, these two have won my respect because, despite their lack of hope in laws, they still hate abortion with all their hearts and I can appreciate that. The kind of "personally prolife" people I don't respect are, as I said before, those who cower in the face of public opinion, and beg to be treated differently by the pro-legal abortion crowd than "those nasty Rethuglican prolifers who want to ban abortion"; I think these people behave like cowards and want a pat on the head from the ruling powers, quite frankly. It's groveling and I completely despise it. The pro-legal abortion crowd will hate you if you take the name "prolife" so I believe I might as well live up to the label with everything I have in me. So if you want to know if you’re talking to a true prolifer if they claim to be "personally prolife", watch their attitude toward abortion. If they're grieved by it, want to see it stop, support other prolifers who might not agree with their stance like Feminists for Life or signing petitions to end abortion, I'd still call them prolife. If they show callousness, say we don't need to worry about it, care about the opinions and rage of pro-legal abortion people, etc, I’d call them pro-legal abortion under another name. You are absolutely right to say that it's doing nothing to stop the abuse of abortion on demand. I wonder what would happen if we had acted this way with slavery, or the Nazis? The atrocities would still be going on today. Yes, because of the courage of a few who chose to speak out, we are no longer "personally opposed" to slavery. It is outlawed, yes, outlawed and despised, and I thank God for that everyday. As for the other subject, being "personally against it but not judging" them (I couldn’t help cringing as I typed that sentence)? Yuck, please :( What do you think of the idea that you can't be prolife, and a feminist? Personally I find that incredibly insulting, especially considering they will accept almost anyone else! There's a lot more I'd like to say, but I'll leave it at that for now. I recommend you take copies of the links I gave you, because they will help you know how to change hearts.
I am not sure what led me to hold my views about animals. My family is very animal-friendly, and I guess I have gotten my views that way to a high degree. I used to be a lacto-ovo vegetarian, but that became harder when I entered senior high school and found that the food vegetarian students were served largely wheat-based. My parents cannot eat wheat, and I did not want to develop their food intolerance. So to eat less wheat-based food, I started to eat fish. Later, I started to eat game as well. I am not opposed to either the keeping of farm animals or hunting and fishing for food, and not to keeping pets either. I have an aquarium with some beautiful fish. However, we humans should always treat both farm animals, pets, and animals we hunt and fish as humanely as possible. This is my story, and these are my views; I do not know exactly how my views were shaped, except that they were shaped by the sentiment in the surroundings where I grew up, as well as by my from early on strong interest and insight in life in the animal kingdom. I loved watching nature documentaries as a kid. Hopefully this gives you sort of a clue to why I am where I am. I guess you do have a point on the "personally pro-life issue." Lots of people who don´t support laws against abortion still recognize abortion as an immoral and barbaric act. The people who hold these views are not the same as other "personally pro-life" people: Even though they don´t support laws against abortion, they are not into the "it´s none of my business" thinking. Those who think it´s none of their business are the real deplorables, I guess. Those who genuinely care about the unborn and try other ways to fight abortion deserve acknowledgement. You are completely right that, if all the bystanders had thought "It´s none of my business" about other human rights abuses", they would still be going on. Lots of people thought that way when the abuses were going on; thankfully all people were not like them. As Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Feminism and pro-life views are certainly compatible. In fact, the original feminists that fought for female voting rights were staunchly pro-life. There is no reason a pro-lifer today couldn´t be a feminist, just like they were. In my opinion, today´s pro-choice feminists are more like the Russian Bolsheviks, who supported abortion on demand, than like the original feminists ( it´s probably not a coincidence that the brutal, blood-thirsty ideology of Soviet Communism was the ideology that introduced abortion on demand). Thank you for the links. When I´ve posted this comment, I will put all the posts with links that you´ve made to me in my archive.
I know for a fact Mary Wollstonecraft, the Mother of Modern Feminism (who the Second-Wave Feminists believe in ardently) was opposed to it. Here is a quotation on page 173 of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Penguin Classics version: "To satisfy this genus of men, women are made systematically voluptuous, and though they may not all carry their libertinism to the same height, yet this heartless intercourse with the sex, which they allow themselves, depraves both sexes, because the taste of men is vitiated; and women, of all classes, naturally square their behaviour to gratify the taste by which they obtain pleasure and power. Women becoming, consequently, weaker, in mind and body, than they ought to be, were one of the grand ends of their being taken into the account, that of bearing and nursing children, have not sufficient strength to discharge the first duty of a mother; and sacrificing to lasciviousness the parental affection, that ennobles instinct, either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast it off when born. Nature in every thing demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity." I recommend you read the entire book; it’s really good. “In my opinion, today´s pro-choice feminists are more like the Russian Bolsheviks, who supported abortion on demand, than like the original feminists ( it´s probably not a coincidence that the brutal, blood-thirsty ideology of Soviet Communism was the ideology that introduced abortion on demand).” I’ve never heard that, and would like to know more about this, complete with sources. I could say more but will save it for later, except I do have a request to make - can we please shift this conversation somewhere else? I'm having a real problem uploading my answers onto this page, and I'd like to use one which will allow me to place them up, easily.
I'm sorry for not writing back earlier. I tried to post up one reply but it kept dropping out. Just placing up comments on this thread has been very hard for me because I often lost them. In regards to posting on SPL, I would like to carry on the conversation we are having somewhere other than SPL, if possible, so I am looking for a forum that suits my needs. That being said, there's an interesting conversation on SPL right now, on the top article so if you want to chat there as well I'd enjoy that too (I wrote some proof for life beginning at conception on that page). I'll try to respond to your comments properly on another thread that's far less full than this one. If I haven't been clear in what I've said, please let me know.
Thanks for sharing about your views on animals. I suppose I simply take it a lot further than you do! I would encourage you to look for ways you can be a vegan, or vegetarian without wheat-based food (if you don't have a problem with my suggesting such a thing). “I guess you do have a point on the ‘personally pro-life issue.’ Lots of people who don´t support laws against abortion still recognize abortion as an immoral and barbaric act.” Victoria Woodhull, American suffragist, was one of these. We do need to acknowledge all those who genuinely want to see abortion stopped, even if they disagree on the legality issue, provided they really do despise it and the apathetic notion that it’s “none of their business.” This apathy, if applied to other areas of life, could eventually destroy human rights as we know it, because people with such attitudes tend to be less motivated to want the betterment of humankind. There is such a thing as the tyranny of too much freedom! I love that quote, BTW. I agree that feminism and prolife are absolutely compatible! You see the article we’re commenting on? Well, I call this the SEVENTH way for pro-legal abortion people to censor prolifers – deny them their liberalism, feminism, etc, so that they can keep the stereotype of uber religious male nutters alive in the minds of the people, and hide the truth from the public. In other words, “guilt by association”, as Val calls it. The reason given is that bodily autonomy, choice, free agency, is a fundamental part of feminism, and to violate bodily autonomy by passing laws against abortion will kill women and babies. Can you give me a good rebuttal to that argument?
The argument that laws against abortion will kill women and babies is a flawed one. If one takes a closer look at the abortion deaths before abortion was legalized in America, one will see that what really made death rates shrink was not legalization in the 1960s-1970s, but the advent of antibiotics in the 1940s. In 1921, 144 women died from illegal abortions in New York City- in 1951, 260 women died in the whole country. After staying at this rate from 1951-1955, it continued to decrease, so that at in the early 1970s, 65 women a year died from illegal abortions. The death rate decreased after legalization, but not faster than it had done before it. You can read more in this article by Planned Parenthood president Mary S Calderone, from 1960: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373382/?page=2 And on this pro-life website: http://realchoice.blogspot.se/p/wouldnt-more-women-die-if-roe-fell.html Today, when women die after illegal abortions, they mainly die at places where there´s lack of access to emergency care, as well as antibiotics. On places where this is not the case, very few women die. In fact, Ireland with its strict laws against abortion actually has a lower maternal mortality rate than the UK, France, Germany and my country, even though abortion is legal in all these other countries. Actually, Ireland has the best maternal health and lowest maternal and infant mortality rate in the world, if I remember correctly. It does happen that women die from legal abortions too. If one wants to keep these deaths down, one should support access to emergency care, antibiotics, and reduction of abortions, not legal abortion; and one should worry a lot more about the overuse of antibiotics, leading to resistant bacteria, than about anti-abortion laws. Also, feminists who bring up the "bodily autonomy" argument should remember that women the majority of times have willingly chosen to have sex, even though they know that they might get pregnant. They could have abstained from sex if they absolutely not want to get pregnant. That a woman has bodily autonomy should mean that she can do whatever she wants with her own body; it should not mean that she can harm someone else´s body. Good point on "The seventh way", it is indeed the case that pro-legal-aborts and pro-aborts try to make pro-lifers feel that they cannot believe in anything they want, and herd us into the stereotypical corner. I have no problem with your suggestions, though I don´t think I´m inclined to return to vegetarianism. I do a lot of other things for animals instead. But, who knows what I´ll do in the future?
Please forgive my lateness; my job kept me from getting to this but I'm back. I'm sorry to hear Sweden is so against the prolife message, what gives? I read you say your mother likes the opinions of second wave feminists; I do too, but we disagree strongly on abortion! I will confess that I have been strongly influenced by all waves of feminism in some manner. You might like to read up on intersectionalism a bit; it has really helped me stand for minorities that the left and the right ignore, despite its being a leftist invention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality Intersectionality would help the prolife community speak up more. Its basic rules are to never be afraid to speak up for the oppressed, to never demand civility of the oppressed, and whether you're rude or civil to the oppressor be a good ally to the oppressed :) I think the prolife community's problem is that they are too nice. They have followed conservative thought with liberal minds and, while it works, I recommend every prolifer study intersectionalism briefly, as well, because liberals value a bit of rudeness sometimes. "I really would value more skill in changing hearts" Then this blog is the place for you. Please, look around. Take the courses he puts out (if you can) and listen to his podcasts; they'll teach you to argue well. Plus read his articles; I have found them to be very beneficial and they have really helped me in my interactions with pro-legal abortion people. Not just to be more respectful, but to really give them something to think about. The link I gave you to SPL contained my arguments, which HandsomeMrToad responded to; I would like to know your opinion on what I wrote about abortion being banned in my links, if you wish to share it (and yes, I think it should be illegal). In regards to your being a man, and prolife, I think it’s really hypocritical that they say that, because they only bring up your sex when you object to abortion. Plenty of men are abortion practitioners, and are even celebrated for standing with women when they support "a woman’s right to choose"! Here are a couple of articles to debunk that nonsense: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/responding-to-the-astute-observation-that-i-am-a-man/ http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/dialogue-tip-responding-youre-man-cant-get-pregnant/ Why shouldn’t you say something? It’s your baby as much as hers, and besides – if you acted this way over any other issue, you would rightly be labelled a coward!
It´s okay, I get that you have a life outside Disqus as well:-) Thank you for the link and info on intersectionality, I will definitely read up on the issue. Jim H would cringe if he read your statement that pro-lifers are too nice, but perhaps that is the case; I don´t know, you might be right. It´s good to hear you confirm the positive things I´ve read about this site, and I will definitely check around, and learn more. You ask me about my opinion on the arguments you gave for abortion being illegal in the links you posted to Handsomemrtoad. I think you did a great job debunking common pro-choice arguments. You have obviously done good research, showing that there are lots of studies that speak in favor of pro-life views. And, you point out how only adressing the root causes to abortion is inconsistent with how we otherwise adress human rights abuses. All in all, great arguments for the pro-life cause and the banning of abortion. Thank you for the links on being a man and opposing abortion, they were helpful. And it´s very true that lots of men support abortion, or even practice it (or for that matter pressure women into it). Myself, I start to think about my friend WorldGoneCrazy on Live Action News, who, when faced with the "A man like you shouldn´t have an opinion on abortion" argument, replies "Congrats, you just overturned RvW!" And he´s right, RvW was decided by men. The line of thinking abortion supporters display when they say that is like saying that humans shouldn´t be able to oppose cruelty to animals, or that white people shouldn´t have an opinion on racism towards non-whites. Or that non-pedophiles, who don´t know what it feels like to be a pedophile, shouldn´t have an opinion on child sexual abuse.
Your friend WGC is absolutely correct! How can RvW be feminist when guys passed the laws that they knew would clearly benefit them, and their short-term desires? IMO abortion encourages sexual coercion and men using women as objects before dumping them. Abortion can be either “beneficial” in that it allows a woman to escape abuse, or rather detrimental in that the abortion practitioners send her home without getting her out of the situation; how on earth is that pro-woman? You are right; to apply such thinking of “since it's not impacting you, it's not your business to care” in any other case, such as animal abuse, racism, sexual abuse, etc, is utter folly! I suppose, then, that for us white people to have an opinion on the way people conduct human rights in repressive regimes around the world is a form of racism, then. Shame on us for campaigning for the release of those rebelling against their dictators because said dictators are non-white! Of course, I fear the far left will go this way one day but anyone with a shred of common sense in them will know that we can’t afford to keep silent in the face of barbaric governments persecuting and punishing their citizens for exercising human rights such as free speech and freedom of thought! If it’s okay for white people to have a negative opinion on repressive regimes then why shouldn’t men have a negative opinion on abortion?
I appreciate your thoughts on my writing about abortion being illegal, Pere. I understand we can’t treat all cases as reasons for laws, but when it comes to killing or seriously exploiting someone we should, for the most part, have laws on the books to stop it, and these laws need to be enforced*! That being said, I have benefited greatly from talking with pro-legal abortion people, and discussing their concerns over abortion becoming illegal, because they also have valid points when it comes to the downsides of such laws which I feel *must be examined if abortion illegality is to succeed! Here is an article written by such a person, which I agree with; you might like to tell me what you think of it: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/11/what-obligations-accompany-an-abortion-ban.html I’m glad that my links on men and abortion were helpful. While bodily autonomy is a fundamental belief of feminism, reproductive objectification is not good, etc, men do and should exercise their right to speak up on behalf of their children. There’s a lot more I could say but I’ll leave it at this – I would like to expound on the topic of choice, the rights of both mother and child, and some of the best ways I think men can approach women over not aborting their children another time, because I definitely want to give you new things to think about – things you mightn’t have thought of before but are very important – so you can be a more effective prolifer than you are now. I will state – and I think you would agree – that men are only encouraged to express an opinion when it supports the right to choose, which we dummies all know is abortion on demand, and never, ever in any other context! Is it not coercive for a man to pressure a woman into an abortion when she has chosen not to do this? Indeed, it is, but guys who support “choice” are called “bro-choicers”; why do they give them this idiotic name if men are not allowed to have an opinion? It … boggles the mind :(
“Jim H would cringe if he read your statement that pro-lifers are too nice, but perhaps that is the case; I don´t know, you might be right.” Well, the people at LAN tend to be the exception. They have learned not to be too nice, but to the point of driving serious seekers away, which is not a good thing at all. I really like Jim H, and the commenters at LAN, and am sorry to see the strife between them! Yes, prolifers can get stressed out when arguing with a whole group of pro-legal abortion people alone, and they can get nasty, but I have seen so much weak language from prolifers it makes me sick. They call it a “poor choice” and “sin” and “wrong”; I think we need to be tougher than that! We should call it what it is – a human rights issue! Nothing to do with religion, everything to do with morality. IMO Christians don’t make the best prolifers, either (if you are a Christian I apologise, because I am speaking not of individual Christians but the religious, mainstream PL movement, modern Christianity, and the like), because they are more concerned with “grace” than “oppression”. And my comments are applied to myself as much as anyone else, because I have fallen into the trap of being too nice, and trying to appease, when I should have been speaking truth!! Would it not be better to condemn the action in the strongest of terms while showing grace to those who disagree on that action, pointing them to the truth and helping them understand why you think this way, defending your beliefs with good reasons, etc?? Both nastiness (ad homs, etc) and weakness are bad extremes that prolifers need to guard vigilantly against; they need to show love for the person they are speaking to while speaking out against the behaviour! “It´s good to hear you confirm the positive things I´ve read about this site, and I will definitely check around, and learn more.” Excellent! I look forward to that as well.
Thanks for understanding. “Thank you for the link and info on intersectionality, I will definitely read up on the issue.” For more reading, type “the basics of intersectionality” into the search engine. Just remember this – read with discernment. Intersectionality is all very good if used correctly but when used to silence free speech, it’s an abuse of power because minorities and their allies can oppress and do wicked things, like everyone else, and if they do they should be, as much as possible, treated exactly the same as any other person :( Another thing I need to state – intersectionalists tend to dislike people questioning the experiences of oppressed minorities. That would mean if someone like Gianna Jensen got up and shared her testimony, and someone questioned or sneered at that testimony, they would be called out for that, and she would be believed because she is a minority. I think at this point we need to be careful. Minority viewpoints are important, yes, but sometimes they do need to be more rigidly examined than they are, especially in certain cases! Basic explanation: How does oppression, class structure, apply in her case? She’s white, straight, cis, and Christian, which means she has some privilege; add to that that she is born now. But she’s also disabled, and a woman, which means she belongs to two oppressed classes. Furthermore she had someone attempt her life, because she also belongs to an oppressed class. Intersectionalism is basically an examination of how the different layers of oppression intertwine with each other; her mother oppressed her in her weakest status (in other words the attempted abortion occurred, of course, while she was unborn*), so she could escape oppression against her sex herself (I don’t know her reason for attempting on Gianna but this is strictly an intersectionalist critique of the situation), which is really sad. That being said Gianna Jensen, as a white disabled woman, would experience life differently from someone like Alveda King, who is a black, ablebodied straight Christian woman. So yes, abortion is the *perfect textbook example of intersectionalism playing out in someone’s life! One last thing – many intersectionalists like to exclude prolifers, so you will read papers on how intersectionality cannot be applied to critique abortion. Don’t get discouraged; we need more prolife intersectionalists out there, then we can send this whole house of cards crashing down.
While there are still some who shout and attempt to humiliate and shame women, that type of action is distasteful and wrong to me. I would never be a part of any group that called women baby-killers. I have had Pro-Aborts tell me that any protest against abortion should be forbidden by law. Some base it on an implied threat of violence, while some claim that abortion is legal so no one should be allowed to protest against it. PJ posts a lot on LAN, I will tell her you said hello.
"I have had Pro-Aborts tell me that any protest against abortion should be forbidden by law. Some base it on an implied threat of violence, while some claim that abortion is legal so no one should be allowed to protest against it." It would depend on the type of protest. I think as long as it is peaceful and nonviolent, and people are not shouting horrible things at women or hassling abortion practitioners out of town by threatening them and their families or making life hard for them (although I'm very much for signing petitions in a lawful, peaceful manner to get them removed from the premises) then abortion protests should be legal! I know of another movement in Korea that is struggling to get its message across - SaveKoreanDogs. From what I have heard not once have they advocated for the following:
1) killing dog slayers 2) hassling dog slayers out of town 3) bombing dog slayer facilities 4) screaming at dog slayers and calling them killers What they do do AFAIK:
1) shut them down legally, to the best of their ability, by making them sign documents (dog-eating is illegal in Korea so they can do this) 2) buy the dogs off the farmers 3) educate about the situation 4) holding cameras and posters up to show the violence 5) petitioning government leaders to stop the violence Although, once, one of the leaders did not exactly follow the law 100%; she got attacked by a dog-slaying farmer and she defended herself and she faced prison for that. Here is more of their work: https://www.facebook.com/savekoreandogs/ http://koreandogs.org/ I mention this not to go off-topic but because I think PL people could really learn from such an example. The dog-eating trade in Korea is horrible yet they are handling it right! I know many PL people do handle it right, but for those who don't I would urge them to reconsider their tactics. As for PJ, thank you, because I asked her to comment on SPL a few days ago and she seems to have forgotten about it. I am, however, very excited that she was able to persuade a young mother not to abort! Also I found out about Javelina Harker losing her friend. My heart goes out to her, please let her know that too. My fourth question is as follows: "4) That is true. I recognise that and use it. But my point was, that information about slaves and their oppressors is good to know, because anyone who knows about that will bring it up at every opportunity every time the word "slavery" is mentioned. It is worth acknowledging that people who would abuse PL thought and practice for their own benefit existed in times past and are alive and with us today, so that we might remove such unworthy persons from among us. So I don't fear hearing that information." Do you agree or disagree? Also, do you think it is distracting from the moral analogy PL people are trying to draw or do you think it is an objection worth answering? For my part, I believe that people can abuse PL thought and practice to suit themselves, yet not be PL. I know that slavery was anything but PL, especially considering they were not seen as persons under the law, and masters could kill them without legal punishment.
I was agreeing with you, Stan! And do agree that the protests should be protected by law, because it is a form of censorship, as discussed in the article we are commenting on. As Tim said, "I formally renounce all attempts pro-life people have ever made to censor pro-choice people. Let them speak. If the truth is on our side, what have we to fear?" Yet they fear truth and that is why they use the bad behaviour of some to silence all opposition; would you agree with that? Honestly I cannot understand how anyone could think that aborting this little creature is anything but unacceptable: http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-6-weeks As to my question on slavery, I am interested in your opinion on that; could you please answer it?
The only time I ever bring up slavery in relation to abortion is when a Pro-Abort tells me abortion is legal or "settled law", and that I have no right to oppose it. And while I do believe that Pro-Aborts dehumanize unborn children the same way slavers dehumanized their slaves, that is as far as I wish to carry that analogy.
First off, did you get my message about Javelina as well? Second, I can understand that. We do approach the issue slightly differently but I think we come to the same conclusion on it, overall; would you agree with that? Third, you said in response to one of my questions: "5) it has always been curious to me how a single lunatic shooting up an abortion clinic represents every pro-life advocate, yet the numerous abortion doctors that kill and maim their patients mean nothing. We on the pro-life side will win this battle in the hearts and minds of good people, not with the hate and the lies and violence of the Pro-Aborts." My response was as follows: "5) An excellent point, and one I had never considered. Oh, but pregnancy is far more dangerous than abortion, they tell us! Well, I am not one to downplay pregnancy. I admit that pregnancy can kill women, and in rare cases maim them. It can cause complications so pregnancy is more than an inconvenience. As for abortion, if done properly it would be seldom if ever physically dangerous - notice I said physically dangerous, because abortion is morally dangerous to society as a whole in so many ways - but it is always dangerous to the unborn person; very few if any unborn persons survive it. "We one the pro-life side will win this battle in the hearts and minds of good people, not with the hate and the lies and violence of the Pro-Aborts." I agree, and they accuse US of being violent. It is true, there are violent ones among us and they need to be sternly stopped. As for us being violent, what they do to unborn persons is violent, especially in the later stages, yet no one complains about that very much. I have spoken to a legal abortion advocate who told me that a 12-week old abortion was only a disconnection of the unborn person from its mother so that it dies on being disconnected from the womb, or some such similar act. Even if she was right, even that act is a homicide, and unjustifiable." My questions on that paragraph are as follows:
1) In regards to legalised abortion, they keep saying legalised abortion is safe and rare, and say that PL people who discuss women dying from abortions are great big liars, sometimes because their information is from "biased" or "suspect" sources; what is your response to that one? 2) Why do they keep saying abortion is safe when we know it nearly always kills and in rare cases severely injures unborn babies and sometimes can kill women? Also is abortion physically safe for women most of the time? 3) Why the hypocrisy when it comes to unborn persons dying; sometimes their deaths are violent, and no one cares about that; yet anti-abortion people like the Colorado shooter are violent people (and I agree, they are violent, disturbed people who need to be locked up!)? I would appreciate an answer to these questions when you can provide it. Thanks for talking to me so far!
That's a fair answer, Stan; thanks! You're right to call it homocide, because it is. I tend to think abortion is not legally murder at present, but is and always will be morally murder. Legality is important to differentiate when talking to a legal abortion advocate otherwise you just talk past each other and cause offence, yet it will cause offence when you call abortion murder in the moral sense, I think and that is an offence we can't be ashamed of. Would you mind if I asked you to look over my paragraph again as I did ask you a few questions therein. I am enjoying my conversation and I hope you are too.
Sorry if I missed your questions, Crystal. I am posting from a 'smart' phone and do not always get the full picture. I'll review your post this evening on a better system and answer you as best as I can.
Another point, Stan. Isn't the definition of murder being the illegal taking of life a faulty definition, because what Hitler did was technically "legal" in Germany at the time. Yet it was morally reprobate and it was from that perspective we call the Holocaust murder and slaughter. We don't worry about legality there!
Murder is a legal definition. An execution is a homicide, not a murder. Your example is a good one in relationship to abortion. While everyone, Liberals included, view what Hitler and the Nazi party did as abhorrent and without morals... everything they did was LEGAL!
Which is why I think we as a society need a more stable definition of murder than the temporary fleeting interests of the big community and what it decides to be just and unjust killing. These standards change from generation to generation. Therefore stating that we recognise the differences legally and morally might be helpful, and I'd be very interested to hear what you think of such an idea.
True, but it is morally so and we can't deny that either. The legality of something doesn't change its morality or lack thereof. It only affirms that the government supports it and people will not be punished for engaging in it.
I look forwards to it. My questions are as follows:
1) Do you know about the history of the Alamo as it relates to slavery as I think that is why the guy got mad at you 2) How do pro-abortion advocates censor the PL message in the legal sphere in your opinion 3) Have you ever heard of Thompson's Violinist, the trolley scenario, and McFall vs. Shrimp 4) Have you ever heard of the slavers and anti-abortion sentiments 5) My sentiments in response to your points Don't feel pressured, take your time! I would enjoy carrying over some of our conversations over to Secular Pro-Life Perspectives if you pop in one day; that would be fun!
1) Yes, I am aware of the slavery link to the Alamo. 2) As i stated before, they use the mantra of "It's legal, so shut up". There are also numerous Federal laws enacted to openly punish abortion protesters. 3) I know of the Violinists and the trolly, the court case I had to look up. 4) I am not familiar with this one. 5) I appreciate the conversation and am happy to continue with you.
2) "There are also numerous Federal laws enacted to openly punish abortion protesters." Please explain what these laws are and how they are enacted. 3) As for Thompson's Violinist, you do realise that pregnancy is a donation of the woman's bodily resources to the unborn person, don't you? So in that way, they have a point, but that point still doesn't justify the killing despite claims to the contrary. "the court case I had to look up" Well, what do you think now? You've got one of their legal "justifications" in writing that they can point to. They sure have made it difficult for us, haven't they? 4) My friend wrote this article: http://pro-abortion-rights.tumblr.com/post/132520683297/the-pro-life-slaveowners-of-the-caribbean and here's her source: https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=qLAiqMbmeaMC&printsec=frontcover&hl=ko&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Basically it points out that the slaveowners in America used anti-abortion as a means to control and oppress their female slaves and they punished their slaves for obtaining abortions. These are facts legal abortion advocates have no hesitation mentioning if you state that abortion is morally analogous to slavery. 5) Two things: I mentioned Wilberforce and Alice Paul in my examples to prove what I was saying, and expressed a few opinions of my own on the following points: a) I was concerned that people with the mind to do it would use terrorists as a way to shut down the entire PL movement b) I think abortion is more morally analogous to slavery than nazism c) I wonder why it is that, if we PL people are such wicked terrorists, that they are willing to debate with us and talk to us; I had the question posed me, that if people who had and promote abortions are murderers why are we willing to debate with them and talk to them? A bit of an odd question, would you agree or not? Yet in a way I get what the poser of the question is saying; PL people are way too soft on this subject for fear of causing offence. It is a pity we can't learn when to speak and when to keep silent I am happy to keep talking to you about this and appreciate our discussion so far!
2) I am speaking of laws that restrict or prohibit what a person can or cannot say on public property near an abortion clinic. 3) pregnancy is a willing donation. The child did not invade the woman's body or kidnap her. In nearly every case, she willingly performed a act that resulted in the pregnancy, rendering the violinist story moot. 4) the moral analogy to slavery is in the manner that the slave-owners justified their actions by dehumanizing the slaves, just as Pro-Aborts dehumanize the kill in a pathetic justification for killing that child. 5) it has always been curious to me how a single lunatic shooting up an abortion clinic represents every pro-life advocate, yet the numerous abortion doctors that kill and main their patients mean nothing. We one the pro-life side will win this battle in the hearts and minds of good people, not with the hate and the lies and violence of the Pro-Aborts.
2) Oh, okay. I didn't realise that. I'm pretty aware that some folks screech "baby-killer" at women and escorts, and that's not the right way to handle the situation. Yet at the same time, saying "There is hope and I will be happy to help you" is not offensive in the least and I don't understand why anyone would say that it is. 3) It is true that in more cases than not she willingly performed the act but what does that have to do with the worth of the unborn person? Zilch. 4) That is true. I recognise that and use it. But my point was, that information about slaves and their oppressors is good to know, because anyone who knows about that will bring it up at every opportunity every time the word "slavery" is mentioned. It is worth acknowledging that people who would abuse PL thought and practice for their own benefit existed in times past and are alive and with us today, so that we might remove such unworthy persons from among us. So I don't fear hearing that information. 5) An excellent point, and one I had never considered. Oh, but pregnancy is far more dangerous than abortion, they tell us! Well, I am not one to downplay pregnancy. I admit that pregnancy can kill women, and in rare cases maim them. It can cause complications so pregnancy is more than an inconvenience. As for abortion, if done properly it would be seldom if ever physically dangerous - notice I said physically dangerous, because abortion is morally dangerous to society as a whole in so many ways - but it is always dangerous to the unborn person; very few if any unborn persons survive it. "We one the pro-life side will win this battle in the hearts and minds of good people, not with the hate and the lies and violence of the Pro-Aborts." I agree, and they accuse US of being violent. It is true, there are violent ones among us and they need to be sternly stopped. As for us being violent, what they do to unborn persons is violent, especially in the later stages, yet no one complains about that very much. I have spoken to a legal abortion advocate who told me that a 12-week old abortion was only a disconnection of the unborn person from its mother so that it dies on being disconnected from the womb, or some such similar act. Even if she was right, even that act is a homicide, and unjustifiable.
Stan, I’m curious why you believe that the fact a woman may have ‘willingly performed the act’ that resulted in an unintended and unplanned pregnancy is relevant to the discussion of her right to bodily autonomy and to choose to terminate that pregnancy during early stages of gestation. Surely you wouldn’t argue that because a male had chosen to ‘willingly perform an act’ that resulted in his acquiring an STD he had voided his right to bodily autonomy and medical intervention to address that unintended and unplanned consequence? (“Hey, you chose to have sex and got syphilis—no penicillin for you!”) And the supposed ‘multiple doctors’ like Gosnell who harm the women coming to them to have their pregnancies terminated does mean something” it indicates a necessity for greater oversight of as well as much improved access to safe medical abortions so that woman aren’t forced to turn to incompetent/criminal providers out of desperation.
"Stan, I’m curious why you believe that the fact a woman may have ‘willingly performed the act’ that resulted in an unintended and unplanned pregnancy is relevant to the discussion of her right to bodily autonomy and to choose to terminate that pregnancy during early stages of gestation." Newsflash: it isn't relevant at all. In fact it has nothing to do with it, except in the fact that we do owe our offspring the responsibility to look after them and not to kill them as we created them.
You equate pregnancy to an STD? Do you not understand that pregnancy is a natural byproduct of the sex act? Go Gosnell and others like him are what you get when you militantly support abortion and refuse ANY over site.
I’m comparing one unintended and unwanted consequence following a decision to engage in sexual activity-an unplanned pregnancy—to another unintended and unwanted consequences following a decision to engage in sexual activity—STD infection. If the fact that the person made the choice to engage in sexual activity in and of itself means they cannot ethically seek medical treatment to address the unwanted consequence then I don’t see why it matters what that unintended consequence is. Note this wouldn’t apply only to sexual activity—skiers for example would ethically be prevented from seeking surgical repairs for a torn ACL because they chose to go skiing. And no, I don’t see pregnancy as a ‘natural byproduct’—while sexual intercourse is the most frequent means by which conceptions occur procreation is hardly the only (and indeed, not even the most frequent) reason couples engage in sexual intimacy. As for Gosnell, etc., who is it exactly you think is refusing ANY oversight of abortion providers? I’m not aware of any prochoice advocates who embrace the position that there should be no oversight whatsoever of the clinics/physicians which provide abortion services.
You did compare pregnancy to a disease, making your entire argument moot. And most Pro-Aborts fight against any restrictions and oversight to abortion.
I've compared one adverse consequence of choosing to engage in sexual intimacy to another adverse consequence of choosing to engage in sexual intimacy—by what rational argument is doing so invalid? And I’m afraid I’ll require a more specific identification than “most –Pro-Aborts” in support of your claim that pro-choice advocates oppose ANY oversight of the clinics/providers which provide abortion services. That was your original claim, you’ll recall, although your attempt to modify it to include advocates who oppose restrictions on the availability of abortions is noted and rejected.
StanW, may I please respectfully ask you to abide by the commenting policy while you type here: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2 My friend Josh Brahm, the moderator, does not take kindly to insults slung between commenters online. It is the sort of thing you could be banned for, so I am asking you to please stop it, or at least reword your statements so that they convey more charity.
I notice that Jim did not receive the same threat from you, even with his slander and lies. I will attempt to adhere to your posting requirements, while not allowing a morally bankrupt person like Jim to post lies. If at any time my posting style is not to the liking of the moderator, please let me know and I will take my comments elsewhere.
I did not threaten you, Stan. And yes, I asked Jim not to insult you as well. It works both ways here. I am not a moderator here, but I do stand in for Josh unofficially when I can. This is what I said to Jim: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/six-ways-ive-seen-pro-choice-people-try-to-censor-pro-lifers/#comment-2442984748 And I am sorry that the two of you are having such a rough time online together. I don't like insults when slung from either side and I realise that everyone has the capability to be rude. So I am trying to be kind to everyone while not being involved in fights online and taking sides.
Yes you did, thank you. It will be best if I simply ignore Jim and his whines. He is an unworthy debate opponent. Thank you for your kindness, Crystal. I will do my best to behave while I am a guest in your space.
It's not my space. It's Josh's space. I simply don't want to see the banhammer come down too much. And yes, Josh could ban me if he didn't like something I said. I think you and Jim ignoring each other on this particular page would be for the best. I believe you have much to contribute here and I don't want to see that spoiled because either one of you were banned for fighting.
I appreciate all people - StanW and yourself included - and I'm sorry there is such strife between you two. I think StanW didn't like what you were saying because if he said the murder of a pregnant person was the same he might admit that God was wrong to slaughter the Canaanites and I think he felt cornered into that admission, hence his strong lashing out. Because you were asking about the Canaanites in context if I remember correctly. I don't mind StanW seeing my words. I have nothing to hide. I do think he shouldn't stalk you though. I'm afraid apologising is a reflex reaction for me yet I think in a way you are right; I do have to try to overcome it a little more. Thanks for explaining.
Stan has already stalked me and responded to what I said to him. I think you have hit the nail on the head. He is in a bind. Either God was wrong to slaughter the Canaanites, or such a slaughter is not wrong. He does feel cornered, but he won't admit to either, so he is strong lashing out. I appreciate your recognition of that. Over at LAN there isn't much objectivity and Stan is one of the gang and I'm not. I think you are right apologising does seem to be a reflex reaction for you, but it is only because you are a sensitive person who cares about other people and you try to protect other people's feelings. You just need to remember that you are a very worthy person and you need to protect that person's (your) feelings as well.
"Either God was wrong to slaughter the Canaanites, or such a slaughter is not wrong." Many Christian prolifers feel obligated to defend their religious values at all costs, even to the point of sacrificing unborn persons on the altars of abstinence-only, their Bible, and other such sentiments. I wonder if they're going to act like that why bother being PL at all? Because God said to and it's not something worth thinking through? I'm not saying any of that to condemn Stan but rather to remark on a common attitude I've seen among Christian PL people. Abstinence and the slaughter of Canaanites comes first, before anything else. Abortion is secondary. I would have thought that since it was murder it would have been the other way about. Personally I think Christians defend Canaanite slaughter by saying that the Canaanites were doing human sacrifice, etc, and God had decreed that this was His judgment on a wicked and perverse generation; therefore He was using the Israelites to carry out His will. ???? As for your last paragraph, thank you for the kind thoughts, Jim. It is hard to remember to protect my feelings because I am so anxious to set it right and stop arguing. I wish I could take a stronger stance. How do you recommend I do that?
In regards to your opinion on the term pro-abortion I agree with you, except on one point. While I understand your desire for consideration and respect in regards to use of calling a person what they want to be called, I believe I should respectfully state that abortion is not a choice - at least not morally. Therefore to call it a choice is legitimising the practice, and this I cannot do. I don't believe in causing unnecessary offence over my terminology so I try to be respectful when making my points, which is primarily why I abandoned the use of the term "pro-abort". Yet sometimes the truth can be offensive and I am not afraid of that offence when it is necessary. "I'd be happy to pass that on when I talk to her next." Did you get to talk to her yet and if so what did she say? "I don't really want to talk about Thomas, he is just not worth the effort." I can sympathise with that. "I meant to write back. I actually thought I had." That's okay, this is not a homework assignment. "Thanks for the kind words." You're welcome, and I look forwards to having more civil discussions with you on this topic. I'm afraid I couldn't help but read a spirited debate between you and StanW when StanW called you an idiot for asking the question about the pregnant woman and the unborn person. I'll explain my views on that. I fear I'm expecting you to say that StanW called me an idiot by the end of it though. Legally, abortion isn't murder. However, morally, it is. Our laws grow out of our morals, or our lack of morals, rather than the other way around. Simply depending on the legal definition of things doesn't answer the question, "Is this action morally right or not?" However, when talking with legal abortion advocates it is important to make the distinction between legality and morality because oftentimes they are thinking of the legal question - the unlawful homicide of a human being - when they think of the term murder; whereas prolifers are thinking of the moral one, the one where abortion isn't seen as murder now but should be seen as such because it takes an innocent human life. Also, simply depending on the legal definition as your moral compass is actually harmful. The murder of the Jews in Germany was legal. Yet it was not moral and certainly abominable! Yes, I am concerned with the consequences that "abortion is murder" laws would do to women if they got passed. That doesn't mean I don't believe in making abortion illegal. It simply means that I am concerned about abuses and downsides to these laws so that if such laws ever got passed that they would also address downsides rather than conveniently ignoring them. If you want my opinion, legally the killing of the pregnant person and the killing of the unborn person are not the same. Yet morally they are.
Don't worry about the spelling mistakes, it's the message that counts. You take care too. Would you mind if I did give you a little nudge to answer those questions I left you on this site, because I would love to pick up this discussion where it left off. I've also seen that sometimes you comment at a site called I fight bullies. What's that about?
"I know its not easy but just try to ignore any negative comments, and please don't take stuff to heart. Remember its just th einternet, people say stuff on line they would never say IRL. Take care Crystal and have fab Christmas x" Thanks for your kind and helpful words, I only just saw this recently. I did have a fab Christmas, and hope you had the same. I didn't want to respond on that page because I didn't want any more problems on my hands. I hope you've had a Happy New Year too and that we will resume this conversation soon :)
Yeah! I know what it is to be abused horribly for being prolife. I doubt that, if I were half as obnoxious as some of the nasty treatment I received in the past from others on the opposing side of the fence, that anyone would listen to me. So I try to be nice. I think that something I say will be more likely to stick if I'm kind and pleasant, even if the only person I convince happens to be a lurker rather than a fellow commenter.
Thanks, Jim. I see some PLers have not been treating you the best. On their behalf, I apologise. I believe in being reasonable. The trashy way some abortion "advocates" have treated me has strengthened that conviction. In memory of this treatment I am seriously considering taking a stricter policy of no-contact with people who are horribly rude to me unless they apologise; what do you think? I also see you chat with PJ4 sometimes. Since she's been banned here, could you please let her know that I miss her a lot, and wish her a Happy New Year - belatedly, I'm afraid? I will be happy to see her at SPL next time she writes in!
I don't quite know how to say it, as I don't want to misrepresent her. I think what happened is she came on a little too strong in some of her positions, although I will admit her opponents were really rubbing it in and annoying her as well. I think you should ask her to make sure I've got that right. What's your opinion on no-contact to people who have been unrepentantly rude to you? Oh, and thanks for passing that on! Personally I consider PJ4 to be a special person, one I would love to have many conversations with in the future.
Thank you! I find such compliments delightful, although I DO wish I was more spirited; I believe I need to start developing a back-bone towards abusive @sshats online as well as placating so I can use the best weapon, depending on the situation. I hate hurting anyone and I find it hard to even say "Go away and leave me alone" even if someone is being cruel :(
Yeah, me too. But I've been reading a lot about narcissists and psychopaths, and had a nasty experience with someone online recently which really shook me up. This is where I've been reading: http://masksofsanity.blogspot.de/ My research is part of the reason I've been considering this. Have you ever heard of Secular Pro-Life Perspectives (SPL)? It's a fun place to comment IMO.
I think I read something about wrote about that. My first thought was I'd like to kick his @ss. Like I said I have a hard time not responding in kind. I'll take a look at your link. Yes, I have been at SPL.
"I think I read something about wrote about that. My first thought was I'd like to kick his @ss." Can you please explain what you're referring to here, if you wouldn't mind? Not trying to be dumb, just not completely understanding what you mean. "I'll take a look at your link." Thanks! It is truly shocking! You just might be spending hours reading there, like I did. I bet it will leave you mad. "Yes, I have been at SPL." I hope you go there again then, it would be fun to chat with you there! I also hope you were treated fairly well there while you did comment. Have you heard of The Friendly Atheist? I've made a lot of pleasant acquaintanceships with the general TFA commenting populace and generally hold them in high regard. I comment there sometimes too.
I read somewhere that you had been conversing with somebody and you struck up a friendship, but they became demeaning to you. Although I usually don't actually do it, I tend to want to respond physically when people are nasty to someone who doesn't deserve it. Yes, I'm familiar with the Friendly Atheist, but I haven't been there in a while. I don't think of myself as an atheist. I don't really care that much about the question of God's existence. I'm part of the fastest growing religious category in America. It is among those people who list their religious preference as "none".
No problem. Just so you know, I recently told Thomas that I lost what little respect I had for him after his hissy fit over you calling him Tom and then accusing you of patronizing him.
I saw what you said to him. It was pretty scathing, yet please know I appreciate your defending me. Thomas did apologise, though, so I don't hold it against him. In regards to PJ, did you get to talk to her yet and if so what did she say?
I hold it against him. There is no call for him to treat people the way he does. He is just mean spirited and he brings out the same in me. I've asked him to just go away. He won't and keeps antagonizing me. He deserves everything I give him and more. PJ4's exact words were: Aaaw, tell her I miss her too!! Wish her back for me please! I might make an appearance over at SPL if I have any time
It appears that Tommy-Tutu aka: Thomas has given up on following me around and trying to antagonize me and adopted you as his favorite whipping boy. I kept catching him in lies and posting screen shots to prove it. That seemed to really peeve him. I'm glad to see that you're also quite accomplished in giving his bully nose a good bloodying.
"I hold it against him." Although I have forgiven him, I can understand that. "There is no call for him to treat people the way he does. He is just mean spirited and he brings out the same in me." If you wouldn't mind, could you please explain in what ways he is being mean-spirited towards you, so I understand better? Also, do you believe that use of the term "pro-abortion" (not pro-abort, pro-abortion) is mean-spirited, if the term "pro-abortion" is used carefully to describe a person's position rather than as a derogatory fiery dart at an advocate for legal abortion? I ask because I have an opinion on that, but I will share it after I've heard what you have to say. I am sorry that Thomas is not being kind to you, and I am sorry other PLers have not been kind. It doesn't do much for our testimony, I'm afraid. If you've asked to be left alone your wishes ought to be respected. I know what it is to have talked to a couple of mean-spirited legal abortion advocates. One drained the life out of me emotionally and got others to gang up on me as well despite my best efforts to placate without compromising what I believe, because she didn't like something I posted on another site and she felt I was being derogatory towards my commenting base by what I said, despite my true intentions in posting my comment and despite the fact I hold the regular commenters at said commenting base in high esteem! I am very hurt and angry over what she did to me and I don't know how to handle it because she and I are presently on fairly friendly speaking terms. She has never willingly apologised for her ugly treatment of me, except once. I don't hate her; she has generally been very nice to me but two occasions of severe online battering is too much IMO. It feels mean to talk about her this way but it hurt, it really did. As for the other person, you'll find out once you read the links to our conversation. Please let PJ know I deeply appreciate her sentiments and if she wants to comment on SPL (after replying to you) she can comment on this page: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2016/01/what-babies-dont-know-cant-hurt-them.html I’d deeply appreciate her opinion on the issue; she might know how one way to answer the arguments that since unborn persons are presently unconscious, it won’t matter to them if they die or not, because I hear this one all the time and I’m not sure how to reply when I see it. "I might make an appearance over at SPL if I have any time" Yes please, if you can! And you can comment on the page I showed you too. You will get an opportunity to talk to other nice PLers like Blu and DarkCougar, who I deeply appreciate.
One day I will post on pagan sites! I love posting on secular and atheist and Christian sites. It's fun, hearing all those different views swirling around. I was raised conservative Christian but have since departed because it was a self-righteous, condescending religion. I hate it for that very reason and so many more. I have been accused of being self-righteous because I am deeply health-conscious (teetotaler, etc) and not presently interested in being a sex kitten, which really hurts because I have no desire to be self-righteous.
I hope you and Crystal both pick this discussion up at some point. You both seem like really reasonable, and just plain nice, people. Your dialog stays quite civil and cordial, even friendly. That is so incredibly rare with this issue, but so badly needed. Kudos to you both. Please pass that on.
If somehow my arguments against abortion were defeated and a stronger argument for abortion was presented to me, then I would change my mind. I may have to respectfully disagree with this statement. I think there are good reasons why we should not become pro-choice even if there's an argument against the pro-life position we cannot counter: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/abortion-images-a-case-for-disagreement-without-division/#comment-2259654055 To add to that, let's look at a comment made by presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson. In an October interview, he told Chuck Todd that "I’m a reasonable person. And if people can come up with a reasonable explanation of why they would like to kill a baby, I’ll listen." http://www.lifenews.com/2015/10/26/ben-carson-i-oppose-killing-a-baby-in-abortions-in-cases-of-rape-or-incest/ On the face of it, his statement sounds ridiculous. Try reading it out loud. Imagine if instead of "babies", he said "Jews" or "homosexuals". Absurd. But aren't pro-life advocates literally saying the exact same thing when they say they would become pro-choice if presented with the right argument?
I agree completely with your comment, Guest. It is BECAUSE I am reasonable that I don't see myself changing my mind anytime. I don't care if I'm called a bad person for it. That's just the way it is. Why this tolerance, this compromise with evil? This weakens us so that more unborn persons will die. It's just plain wrong, is what it is. If we're going to win this battle we CANNOT afford to back down. Containing the evil will only cause it to spread out worse. Eliminating the evil is what is truly required.
Censorship or consequences to speech? Is it censorship if they can still see it? Is it censorship if there is a distraction? Oh no, someone didn't want to shake your hand? Must be censorship. These are individuals reacting to your speech. They aren't a state or a college forcing you to shut down. Also "truth seeking" isn't really what you all are about, if you can't even be bothered to google "Why can't white people experience reverse racism?" or "Why can't POC be racist against white people". There are answers waiting for you.
Is it censorship if they can still see it? Is it censorship if there is a distraction? It's censorship if you try to silence people that disagree with you, or stop others from being exposed to their ideas. Oh no, someone didn't want to shake your hand? Must be censorship. These are individuals reacting to your speech. He didn't say that not shaking someone's hand is censorship. This, however, is:
Then she did her very best to shut down my productive conversation by interjecting every couple of minutes to rant about how racist and sexist I was simply for being a white male in America. They aren't a state or a college forcing you to shut down. Google "mob censorship". Also, there are countless examples of universities directly attempting to silence pro-life advocates. There are answers waiting for you. Googling the second phrase takes me to an SJW site, the kind that will accuse you of sexist/racist oppression if you comment on a woman's tattoos or wear dreadlocks if you aren't black. I rest my case.
"At the moment we just demonise each other . Its a shame" Agreed. The demonising wastes precious time that could have been spent on caring for pregnant persons and saving unborn persons. Furthermore it drives people away from seriously considering PL thought and practice as a moral option. So it harms more than it helps. That being said, I have a question for you: In your opinion, is there a difference between condemning an action and condemning a person committing an action?
My thought is that the compromises should be made on the bodily autonomy level rather than the abortion level, for so many reasons. AFAIK people are genuinely concerned for bodily autonomy and that is part of the reason they permit abortion. If bodily autonomy the way the advocate for legal abortion understands it became a bigger focus in PL thought and practice yet unborn persons were seen as far more deeply worthy of life than they currently are now then I think something could be done about this deeply controversial issue.* *In light of that I mentioned the high techs and you stated you appreciated the fact I cared about foetal rights rather than punishing pregnant persons. PS: I try not to demonise people. My criticisms are generally of the act itself rather than the person committing the act, and I think that is important to emphasise when dealing with those on the opposite side of the fence.
If it's okay, may I ask in what ways the early stage embryo and foetus has some weight as a potential member of the human race? I'm curious as to your reasoning here.
That's great! I appreciate the fact you're thinking through this. Talking to advocates for legal abortion has made me think through things too, especially the status that women would have in a society where abortion was not legal. And I agree with your conclusion that sex ed and contraceptives should be freely available. I am tired of these ideas being seen as promiscuity when they are simply measures to reduce the "desire" for abortions.
BTW I agree 100% with your comment. It breaks my heart when other PLrs ridicule me for elevating animals to the level of humans because I express concern for their welfare and their freedom. But I feel the PL movement could benefit with a little animal-rights activism at times.
Unfortunately not yet, Hypatia. But as a prolifer I consider it my duty to see it when I can. For me, being prolife means pro = for, and life = life, which includes the political definition of anti-abortion by default but for me embraces all life. It is the literal meaning of the word if you take it apart syllable by syllable, and I am going on that, not politics. So when you hear me talk about animal rights you'll know where I'm coming from.
Lol I did. Does it work a bit differently? I just post as guest as usual, I made an account some time ago, but honestly I don't want to deal with the hassle of logging in and stuff. Is it really easier to see my comments on my account rather as guest, I still use the same name..If it is I will log in.
Eh tbh I'm not really worried about him per se for me, I'm more worried about him when its concerning you. I knew the risks I was taking by starting to become involve online and I always told myself if someone is acting creepy towards me I have a back up plan where they won't track me. I never use my real name, even if he somehow (idk how) gets access to our email address I'm not worry because those accounts aren't tracked to the real me.
Cool! I don't have an account at all, due to personal circumstances I don't feel comfortable getting into online. I suppose those circumstances are a blessing in disguise in a way, or he could be making my life more miserable than it is now!
True. I just use a bunch of email accounts. Due to certain situation I just can't use my original email. I made god knows how many email accounts as a way to be safe online while also making new friends. I meet some good people while chatting online and so its a good way to keep up with them. Of course I get a few creeps, but fortunately and unfortunately the people I meet eventually stop replying. I mean I get sad at first, but then I just enjoy our time together and just make new friends. So the creeps don't last long either.
I guess that's my lot. I am sad about that man. But in a way I learned something from it. And I don't want to create a whole string of threads about him, just heal and get it over with and forgive him. Oops, we're off-topic! Gotta respect the rules. Any comments about this situation will be made on the new place not here.
Ok. and hey its nice to get off topic at times, its a distraction, and some distractions can be helpful. Have you replied back at the new place.? I'm just worried whether you will see my message or not.
I think this article is better than most on such a subject, but I think it is somewhat one sided. While this site encourages dialog and actually demands civility of its participants, in my experience that is rare for pro-life sites, or for conservative sites who discuss abortion. It certainly isn't the case at Live Action News, where I have the most experience. It is not uncommon on such sites for the conservative/prolife participants to try to shut down people with contrary opinions. Name calling and ganging up is quite commonplace. It often isn't even limited to abortion opinions, but extends to political party affiliations. This tendency is no doubt quite obvious to Josh who has to put out the effort to moderate such comments. The problem with this debate, in my opinion, is that both sides resort to stereotyping and caricaturizing people and their positions. Although this site does that less than others even the title of this piece; i.e., "Six Ways I’ve Seen Pro-Choice People Try to Censor Pro-Lifers". Shows a subtle tendency towards just that. Rather than discuss each of Timothy's points, which I'm not sure anyone is interested in me doing, I'll just address the first one. If anyone is interested in further discussion they can let me know and I would be happy to comply. Timothy first point states that: "If you really think abortion is justified, you shouldn’t be afraid of true images of what abortion does to babies. You don’t have to like looking at them, but if you’re so confident that your view is right, you shouldn’t try to prevent people from being able to consider all of the evidence about abortion." I think that assumes way too much about people's motivations. People are sometimes offended by gross pictures simply because they are gross and upsetting. If I don't want to see pictures of emaciated starving disease ridden prisoners of war, or bodies being thrown into mass graves, does that mean I support Nazi ideals? If I don't care to see people with their limbs rotting off, or huge tumors sticking out of their bodies, does that make me pro-leprosy or pro-cancer? I assume most pro-life people extend their beliefs to only protecting human life. Would that means we should expect them to look at photos and films from factory farms and slaughterhouses? Would preventing PETA sidewalk counselors outside McDonalds showing picture of cows throughout the slaughter process be censorship? I look forward to any comments anyone might have.
I am prolife for people and animals. I have been rebuked for animal rights activism but I keep going because it's the truth! Personally, I think that part of the reason some people - not all, some - react to abortion images is out of guilt, because they know instinctively abortion is morally reprehensible yet choose to participate in and/or support it anyway. However, I would be careful of abortion images and only show them to those who wanted to see them. I hate abortion images myself, because I am prolife and I find them gross. "Rather than discuss each of Timothy's points, which I'm not sure anyone is interested in me doing, I'll just address the first one." Please, address all of them. "Although this site does that less than others even the title of this piece; i.e., "Six Ways I’ve Seen Pro-Choice People Try to Censor Pro-Lifers". Shows a subtle tendency towards just that." Well, the truth is both conservatives and liberals try to censor things they don't agree with. It's human nature. And yes, advocates for legal abortion do try to censor PL beliefs and facts in so many ways it's unbelievable. Not that PLrs don't do the same, but it is a strong pattern for advocates for legal abortion to do this.
It's not just that though. Some of those graphics might be a harrowing reminder for people who very much wanted to bring a child into the world but had a miscarriage.
"Well, the truth is both conservatives and liberals try to censor things they don't agree with. It's human nature. And yes, advocates for legal abortion do try to censor PL beliefs and facts in so many ways it's unbelievable. Not that PLrs don't do the same, but it is a strong pattern for advocates for legal abortion to do this." I would say that censoring things you don't agree with is not so much human nature, it is more that those who take extreme positions see little value in other opinions and see little or no positive benefit in its expression. I think this is true whether you are a hardcore liberal/conservative, hardcore pro-choice/pro-life, or hardcore whatever else. In that regard Crystal, I would ask you consider this; Timothy's first sentence is; "Abortion is not merely immoral, it is obviously immoral." and later he says: "That abortion is obviously immoral is also why I’m open-minded." He began his discussion with a statement that his position is obviously the right one, while claiming to be open minded. He followed that up by essentially saying that he can afford to have an open mind, because his position is obviously the right one. He also said: "If somehow my arguments against abortion were defeated and a stronger argument for abortion was presented to me, then I would change my mind." I don't see how that is possible that he, or the vast majority of pro-lifers, could honestly say that. Consider that, whether they admit it or not, most pro-lifers' beliefs are largely religious (if not totally) and, consequently, are actually faith based, rather than rationally based. There is no rational argument that can change a belief that is not based on reason to begin with. Think about this: Josh's bio says he leads worship at Free Grace http://Church.in Clovis, California, a church whose core belief is that that the Bible is their ultimate authority. Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action is a convert to Catholicism and admits that religion is a driving force for her mission. The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1967, as the Right to Life League to coordinate its state campaigns under the auspices of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. American United for Life was founded in 1971, The organization's first chairman of the board was Unitarian minister and then-Hollis Professor of Divinity as Harvard Divinity School, George Huntston Williams. Its current president and CEO Charmaine Yoest joined the organization in 2008. Prior to this she worked as vice president of communications at the Family Research Council ( a Christian public policy ministry) and as an adviser to Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign. Pro-Life America identifies itself as a Christian group that argues against abortion and premarital sex.
In regards to censoring, I never thought of it quite that way before. Yet I still think it is human nature because nearly every person on earth has a bias of some kind. “He began his discussion with a statement that his position is obviously the right one, while claiming to be open minded. He followed that up by essentially saying that he can afford to have an open mind, because his position is obviously the right one.” Could you please explain what you mean by this statement? Are you saying that Tim is speaking in circular reasoning? Because I would have interpreted that comment as meaning that because he has the truth on his side (pregnancy information, ultrasounds and other technology, and science confirm it as such) then he has every reason to be openminded because he will be proved right. “He also said: "If somehow my arguments against abortion were defeated and a stronger argument for abortion was presented to me, then I would change my mind." I don't see how that is possible that he, or the vast majority of pro-lifers, could honestly say that.” I agree with you. I perceive it to be a tactic to win more people over to the PL viewpoint. However I also think of it as compromise because how can people be open-minded about something that hurts a born person, or an animal? Also, if people wouldn’t be open-minded towards hurting born people or animals why the hell (excuse my language but I find this kind of thing really infuriating) should they be open-minded towards hurting unborn persons? Also, is there reason for such open-mindedness in all reality? That’s how I see it; feel free to disagree with me and stretch my mind. Not trying to be offensive in this paragraph but I feel passionately about this topic; I hope you can understand. “Consider that, whether they admit it or not, most pro-lifers' beliefs are largely religious (if not totally) and, consequently, are actually faith based, rather than rationally based. There is no rational argument that can change a belief that is not based on reason to begin with.” Please explain what you mean when you say that “there is no rational argument that can change a belief that is not based on reason to begin with” as I would appreciate your explanation very much on what you are trying to say. Below is my perspective: Well, actually, PL thought and practice IS based on science and reason, as well as faith. In regards to such teachings as souls and the inherent value of human life, I completely understand where you are coming from there because those beliefs are not secular but rather spiritual. However, you could argue that for the sake of survival of the human race, you should reject abortion as a BC technique, which would be a secular argument. Also I will repeat the words of two pro-abortion people on the subject (Peter Singer is pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia yet animal-rights too, and David Boonin is defending abortion in his paragraph): “It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens.’ Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.” (Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp.85-86.) “Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, Homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development.” (David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003, p. 20.) I need to make one thing clear, this is NOT to pop off at you, as I see you’ve had enough of that recently! In fact I am glad we agree that life begins at conception. I am simply stating my opinion, that PL thought and practice can be supported by science and reason, and seeking to back it up with evidence. Feel free to disagree with my views if you like, but please explain why you do if you wish to reply back. In regards to the religious side of PL thought and practice as applying to mainstream leaders, I have two perspectives on that. The first is this: many of the abolitionists were also religious. Yet that did not detract from the rightness of their cause. PL thought and practice, when weighed carefully with reality and morality, don’t tend to need religion to be their sole support. On this level, I don’t believe it matters that many PL people are religious. Wilberforce and his group were religious yet they CHANGED THE WORLD. So I don’t see why PL people can’t change the world in this generation even if they are religious. What matters is whether they are campaigning for something morally right and reasonable, and my personal PL belief does not depend on Christianity as its final authority. On the other side of the coin, I completely share your concern. Since many PL people are religious, their religious viewpoint will also colour other aspects of their worldview in regards to why people have abortions, etc. Many of them do support abstinence-only (a belief I deplore due to its fantasy-oriented, pie-in-the-sky Orwellian focus) and anti-gay (another belief I deplore for the same reason) practice and philosophy. I make sure not to. The downside to its being a primarily religious-run movement is their inability to perceive anything outside of a religious box or context IMO. Also, other downsides: religion hurts women, religion restricts female sexuality, religion is inconsistent in the matter of the Canaanites, religion does not care for the animals. Also religion will make them make bad policies for pregnant and unborn persons, due to their inability to think critically outside a pre-prescribed set of beliefs, and I don’t like that either (although I don’t think making abortion illegal is a bad policy). I believe I grok your point; there are a LOT of problems with it being a religious-run movement on these levels. This topic is a topic I love to expound on so please write back more and I'd appreciate being able to share my heart on this matter with someone, if you wouldn't mind doing so. I stated before that my personal PL belief doesn’t depend on Christianity; I think that is why it is so strict and strong. The PL believers who are Christian tend to be weak, to compromise, to only believe because their God demanded it of them and because abstinence matters rather than believe and know, with all their hearts and minds, that innocent human beings are permitted to die legally due to the choices of others. I honestly hope I am treating you with respect, disagreeing with you in a healthy way, and listening to your viewpoints in an open-minded fashion rather than just shouting over the top of you with my own. Please respond back as soon as you can, for I would deeply appreciate some healthy debate on the points I have raised, plus further explanation to the points you brought forth.
Martin Luther King Jr. and Willie Parker are both very religious. Are their respective positions on humans being equal regardless of race and abortion being a good thing for women also not rationally based, or is religion only bad when Lila Rose and Josh Brahm do it?
Please show me where I called religion bad. Besides, you miss the point, which was about whether a rationally based argument will change a religiously based one. "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" -Anonymous
You didn't explicitly say religion is bad. You only said that a pro-life religious person is unlikely to change their views, regardless of how flawed or unreasonable they come out to be. This seems like something you would consider to be undesirable (feel free to correct me if that's not your view). What is unclear is whether you think this holds for all religious activists, or only the ones that oppose abortion. Hence my previous comment.
I consider it undesirable when a religious person is unlikely to change their views, regardless of how flawed or unreasonable they come out to be. However, I believe an individual has a right to believe whatever goofy, irrational thing they want as long as (as Jefferson put it) "it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg"; i.e., it doesn't effect anyone else. As far as public policy/legislation is concerned I would oppose all religious activists who push a purely religious, or faith based agenda, regardless of the issue if their goofy irrational personal beliefs are pushed on others.
So that would seem to condemn people like Martin Luther King Jr. I think it makes more sense to look at how good a person's ideas are than at how religious that person is.
"So that would seem to condemn people like Martin Luther King Jr." How so? "I think it makes more sense to look at how good a person's ideas are than at how religious that person is." Do you think I contend otherwise?
Of everything I wrote that is the only thing you choose to comment on? However, since you've shown an interest, did you know that, at last count, seven states have passed laws making filming inside a slaughterhouse a crime?
I'm put in mind of South Korea's cat and dog trade, and the fact they don't want people to know the truth about that. Here's a website about it, and what can be done to fight it: http://koreandogs.org/what-you-can-do/call-for-action/ http://koreandogs.org/petitions/ It's evil, I tell you. As a prolifer I feel it my duty to stand for animal life as well as human life, because it's morally right and because we're all interrelated as God's and nature's children. So I don't raise my voice against it DESPITE my prolife beliefs; I raise my voice against this barbarism BECAUSE of my prolife beliefs - because I believe so strongly in the sanctity of life for every living, breathing creature, and for me, that includes every creature yet to be born.
Crystal, I agree with everything you say about animal suffering and pro-life. I'm glad to see someone else pro-animal and pro-life! I'm planning to start my own vegan pro life website because I get so annoyed by the treatment of animal advocates by many pro-life people. They often treat us in the same way that abortion advocates treat the pro-life. I also think that vegans need a space to be freely pro-life. It is a separate issue, and vegans are no more likely to be abortion advocates than anyone else, but the media and society pigeonhole us as "left-wing" along with all the beliefs that "side" is supposed to have, including supporting abortion. Consequently, abortion-advocate vegans feel like they are in the majority, politically correct side for once (as vegans are used to being a minority and in the "side" that deserves to be ridiculed) and consequently are emboldened and overly forceful with their beliefs, and the pro-life among us get sidelined. And then we get alienated by mainstream pro-life sites constantly sneering at animal welfare, and wrongly assuming that all those who support it are somehow automatically enamoured with abortion! I think both the pro-life and vegan movements ought to embrace diversity of opinions amongst themselves and not allow ourselves to be homogenised, especially on issues that aren't even relevant. If the pro-life movement allows society to dictate to us that we are all super-religious Christian right wingers who think animals are zoobots, by those who do fit that stereotype being allowed to perpetuate it by unintentionally marginalising left wing, non-Christians, gays, and vegans etc, so that we feel we do not belong in your movement. (Similarly, left-wing vegans could do with not assuming that all vegans have exactly the same beliefs as them, and making right wingers think that we won't fit in! The bottom line is, to attract as many people as possible, you need diversity!) With regards to the censorship, the abortion advocates are emboldened by the mainstream media, who stereotype, ridicule and no-platform us. Vegans suffer the same thing; notice how Hypatia felt the need to pre-emptively proclaim that she "doesn't preach" about being veggie, even though she was not preaching at all. She was anticipating being ridiculed. Abortion advocates and meat eaters dont fear being ridiculed, so they feel no need to self-censor Signed, a non-religious, right wing, nationalist, pro-life vegan :) Vicky
I once had a person tell me my opinion didn't count because I work in a grocery store. It makes no sense but people will use anything in an attempt to censor. Usually though they just tell me to shut up for being a man. It often happens when I'm sharing something written by a woman!
Ive been told that opposing abortion is considered "hate speech". So saying "All lives are precious" is hate speech... I guess its because all pro lifers hate women and want to stop them having sex, but also force them to be pregnant. How we can achieve both of those I just don't know.
One other thing I have seen is that as the issue is internationalized, rich white countries are looked at differently than poot Asian or African countries. So there is alsoa bit of hidden racism.
My view is that one must solve the related injustices as part of the overall solution to this issue. The law is a blunt instrument especially where we believe in the system.
So, how do we liberate women from the need for abortion?
You said the following, "Yes definetly . I can condemn a crime being committed but not the person doing the crime ( they may have mental health issues )"
What is the difference between the crime and the person doing the crime? Also why would you take care to condemn the action only? I'm genuinely interested as to your perspective on this.
2) Did you see the petition for the baby monkeys, at this link: http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/six-ways-ive-seen-pro-choice-people-try-to-censor-pro-lifers/#comment-2418674368
3) Do you think the PL movement could benefit with a little animal-rights activism?
4) What do you think of the idea that pro-life = for life, and should include animals?
5) What do you think of PL vegans and PL vegetarians?
6) In regards to condemning the action versus condemning the person committing the action, how would you respond if someone said these to you, and why would you respond that way:
a) You’re a fan of genocide, and I know you would side with the infanticide crowd if ever that became legal
b) It’s because I respect you as a person and care enough to tell the truth that I’m willing to tell you that you are advocating for something morally wrong (unacceptable, reprehensible, whatever negative adjective you want to put in there), and rather than condemn you, I would like to explain why it is wrong so you understand better, if you
are willing to hear what I have to say
And last but not least, this comment here, which is too big to be condensed into one question:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/six-ways-ive-seen-pro-choice-people-try-to-censor-pro-lifers/#comment-2419016375
Also you mentioned this point:
“I started reading a book Jim H recommended 'The True Believer' by Eric Hoffer which has some interesting insights into fanaticism. Worth downloading if your interested x”
Where could I get it to buy or download for free, and what
kind of fanaticism does it describe? Because I am aware there are different types – political, religious, etc.
Thanks for offering to answer my questions!
I’m leery of letting guest accounts post because it opens the floodgates to abusive commenters. I trust you but not others out there. Sorry but I can’t change the settings for one person.
Again, thank you; I was not expecting this.
Since I realise you've had a hard time on the Internet in the past I respect your decision. Would it suit you if we chatted on this site and SPL though? Because I would enjoy that a lot, partially as I appreciate having civil discussions on life issues and partially as I wonder about things like "ecofeminist" and "winter solstice".
BTW I appreciate your offer to consider starting our fanclub, LOL.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/joshbrahm/six_ways_i8217ve_seen_pro_choice_people_try_to_censor_pro_lifers/#comment-2440159988
if she wants to comment on SPL (after replying to you) she can comment on this page:
http://blog.secularprolife.org...
I’d deeply appreciate her opinion on the issue; she might know how one way to answer the arguments that since unborn persons are
presently unconscious, it won’t matter to them if they die or not, because I hear this one all the time and I’m not sure how to reply when I see it.
"If you wouldn't mind, could you please explain in what ways [Thomas] is being mean-spirited towards you, so I understand better? Also, do you believe that use of the term 'pro-abortion' (not pro-abort, pro-abortion) is mean-spirited, if the term 'pro-abortion' is used carefully to describe a person's position rather than as a derogatory fiery dart at an advocate for legal abortion? I ask because I have an opinion on that, but I will share it after I've heard what you have to say."
I also shared a little testimony of some of my rough times online.
Thank you for writing back, it is very kind of you to think of me!
PS: Again, I can sympathise with people having a rough time and I see you seem to be going through a wild patch. My condolences and good luck, Jim.
I don't really want to talk about Thomas, he is just not worth the effort.
I don't believe that use of the term 'pro-abortion' (not pro-abort, pro-abortion) is mean-spirited, if the term 'pro-abortion' is used carefully to describe a person's position, but I think it is used too loosely and broadly. Generally I think it only fair to use that term to describe people who believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances, or most circumstances; i.e., they lean more in that direction they do in the pro-life direction. If that is the case, I think it is just being accurate and someone being called that shouldn't be offended. However, I think if you are seeking dialog you should probably call someone what they want to be called, which would be pro-choice.
I meant to write back. I actually thought I had.
Thanks for the kind words.
I did not mean that snarkily or cruelly; I was genuinely expecting that response because you said if any PLer told you abortion was murder you would tell them that StanW called them an idiot. If I have caused offence by stating this I humbly apologise.
A word of warning, he now follows me on discus. I don't think it is because he is a big fan, rather more for a creepy stalker. So, be warned. I'll let you know if he realizing how creepy that makes him seem and he stops it.
You need to quit apologizing. You are one of the few really nice I get to converse with.
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2/
Thank you for understanding.
Stan has said I was threatened with being banned here twice. I said I didn't think you would characterize what happened that way. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so how would you describe what happened?
You were talking to me about a concern I raised, then StanW came on because he didn't like what you were saying. I asked you not to insult him, and I asked Stan to stop insulting you. At first he didn't like it until I explained I was playing fair and had asked you not to do it as well. He was - or tried to be - respectful after that, and for that I give him credit. I hate to say it but you did respond in a very angry way after I asked you not too, and I had to ask you to stop it. So I asked you not to (this was the time I mentioned banning), then I asked you to stop. You weren't threatened with banning. I tried to remind you of the rules as gently as I could.
The way you and Stand behave towards each other saddens me. Please, we've got to try to be civil and kind to each other!
Last but not least I would encourage you to talk about anything I said with Josh, if indeed I did threaten anyone (which I didn't mean to do as I only intended to uphold the rules).
PS: Please let PJ know I'm looking forwards to her typing in on that article I shared when she can as I would appreciate an answer to my question if that's okay with her.
Thanks for coming and asking me.
PJ had said she would comment "if she had time"
I am having a very mixed-up day at the moment. I feel like I'm being a little self-centered and rude here by asking why and how you believe I am sweet, in your opinion, because I want to relish the compliment(s) more - I read some of what you had to say about me and my heart went dancing with the stars :)
I hope PJ does write in, and I think she needs to be given a gentle reminder because she means well but she forgets; I hope you will not find it amiss to give that gentle reminder in a couple days if she doesn't make it. I miss that awesome lady and would like to get to know her more. But I hope she is treating you well, with kindness. I won't be happy if she's not.
This is the comment:
StanW Jim H • 13 hours ago
She warned you twice to stop your infantile insults that you throw around. That is why you ran back to LAN, so you could be a jerk again.
Its no big deal.
I think you are very kind hearted and look for the good in people. You have a very innocent lack of cynicism about people.
I will try to give her a reminder in a couple days.
Take care.
"I think you are very kind hearted and look for the good in people. You have a very innocent lack of cynicism about people."
That is so lovely of you :)
I was raised by very good parents and homeschooled in a generally stable environment, family-wise. Hence the innocence I believe. Some would call me naive. I am young too.
"I will try to give her a reminder in a couple days.
Take care."
Please look after yourself, Jim. Again, I hope you don't mind if I inquire as to how she is treating you. You take care too, Jim. Since you seem to be having it so rough why not leave them for a while, come over to this site and discuss PL philosophy with me? I like thinking through things and it might be fun, especially as I don't feel the need to self-censor around you.
I'm willing to have a civil conversation, but the ball is in YOUR court!
Starting with this question, if you wouldn't mind answering:
Do you think that legal abortion advocates censor prolifers, and if so, how?
PS: I understand that people can be hurtful online and I don't think that is right, but please know that I personally have no intentions of hurting you.
message. Rarely is open and honest debate on abortion allowed on
Left-leaning boards."
Firstly, could you describe in what ways this occurs generally, and has occurred in your experience?
As for me, I have been to a left-leaning space where it was allowed although the majority opinion was pro-legal abortion; it got pretty rough at times but people respect me and I respect them. I tried it on another one and ugh, I got shut down pretty quick.
"That being said, I also believe many pro-life advocates allowed themselves to be censored by pro-abortion proponents."
How do you believe that PLers allow themselves to be censored by pro-abortion opponents?
As for me, it is something I have to watch all the time; the self-censoring thing for fear of causing offence. They won't self-censor for us, so why should we self-censor for them? They say we snidely accuse them of murder and being pro-aborts, but then they snidely accuse us of being terrorists and forced birthers even after we ask them not to, of course that is a generalisation and there are exceptions to these rules. I have spoken to reasonable legal abortion advocates and unreasonable ones. How about you?
BTW we shouldn't stop calling it out for the moral crime that it is even if that is offensive. I try not to although I fall into the trap sometimes. Do you think it is because they fear us so much that they ask us to self-censor?
"Debate and civility must go both ways for a conversation to occur."
I agree with that. That is the purpose of this website. Although I don't think it's really an issue for debate because life issues are so vital to the health of society.
I look forwards to hearing from you again, Stan.
I agree that we should not allow the pro-aborts to silence us. I would also add to the list above. Pro-aborts try to censor the pro-life message with legality. They will claim that since abortion is legal, that the matter is settled and that we should all just shut up and stop opposing abortion.
For the most part, pro-aborts cannot make a reasoned and logical argument for the slaughter of innocent children, so they demand we self-censor. I for one will not.
The one I visited where I was allowed to debate, as I said, it got rough a few times. Yet people are still generally fond of me and missed me when I went away for a few months. I like that group too; they have generally treated me well despite a few rough patches.
"Pro-aborts try to censor the pro-life message with legality."
How would they do that in your opinion?
William Wilberforce faced the same when he tried to oppose it during a war England was having with another nation. The right and good cause won out eventually though. It is primarily because of his efforts that people throughout the British Empire never became slaves again.
"They will claim that since abortion is legal, that the matter is settled
and that we should all just shut up and stop opposing abortion."
Could you give some insight as to how this could occur in your opinion?
I can see that. They might even start calling PL speech hate speech, and claim that we incite terrorists because of the nutters among us who call for executions of abortion practitioners (repeatedly, and with glee to whip up the crowds, rather than just stating it gravely once or at the most twice as a general opinion). I've been asked if I think abortion is murder why I am associating with psychopaths. I wonder then if they believe PLers are terrorists why they are associating with psychopaths like us. SRSLY? I think some of the more ambitious PA leaders among them will use any incident of anti-abortion terrorism as an excuse to shut down the entire group; what say you?
I remember Alice Paul in the Iron-Jawed Angels video being forced with her fellow suffragettes to take to the streets and continue the votes for women work even after WWI started. They went to prison but again, the right and good cause won out.
"For the most part, pro-aborts cannot make a reasoned and logical
argument for the slaughter of innocent children, so they demand we
self-censor."
I think the abortion issue is more analogous to slavery than nazism, so I try to bring that out. Yet it is a well-known fact that slavers used anti-abortion sentiments to serve themselves and punish their slaves when the slave women tried to illegally obtain abortions, and this is something that you need to expect to hear from their lips.
The most "reasoned" argument is Thompson's Violinist and the trolley scenario; have you heard of those? Also, have you heard of McFall vs. Shrimp? Because all those are vital to know when speaking to a legal abortion advocate.
"I for one will not."
That's good, Stan. Grace is required when dealing with those we disagree with as we want to win as many people to the truth as possible, and be a light to all people. They are people too, and generally not monsters, but rather wrong on this very important issue. But condemning the practice is vital to the moral health of society!
I hope you don't mind if I ask you if you personally consider abortion to be murder; I'm not doing this to start any fights but I'm honestly curious as to your opinion on the issue.
Many pro-life advocates believe that abortion is or should be considered murder. And they have every right to that opinion.
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/six-ways-ive-seen-pro-choice-people-try-to-censor-pro-lifers/#comment-2447286149
Can you be more specific and tell me what question you would like me to answer.
I had them in this comment here:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/six-ways-ive-seen-pro-choice-people-try-to-censor-pro-lifers/#comment-2447286149
How about we start with the first one on the list in that comment:
"2) Oh, okay. I didn't realise that. I'm pretty aware that some folks screech "baby-killer" at women and escorts, and that's not the right way to handle the situation. Yet at the same time, saying "There is hope and I will be happy to help you" is not offensive in the least and I don't understand why anyone would say that it is."
In other words, what I'm trying to ask is, in context of these laws that restrict speech on public property near abortion "clinics", do these legal abortion advocates have an objection to people who quietly and gently counsel women, especially unsure women, against having abortions (some of these are sidewalk counselers) as much as people who yell "baby-killer" at women and escorts and harass the terrified women going inside the buildings?
Also, could you do me a favour and remind PJ about commenting on SPL so I can catch up with her? I have missed her a lot since she got banned.
PJ got banned at SPL? I´m a LAN regular and know her from there, so that you know.
What you say about PJ does not surprise me, anyway. I know her behavior from LAN. What would surprise me would be if she had actually gotten banned at SPL, given that I´ve heard they have a "hands off" moderation policy there.
BTW, Val told me that you don´t want to post at LAN, why is that?
If you see PJ again you might like to encourage her to come to SPL if she wants to see me again.
Anyway, next time I encounter PJ, I will tell her to come over to SPL, since you miss her.
Thanks.
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2017/03/the-pro-life-movement-exists-to-save.html#comment-3230908932
Also, what do you think of this blog you're commenting on?
As for this blog, I don´t hang here much. I´ve heard a lot of positive things about it though. So I have a largely positive opinion about it.
I would encourage you to stay around, because ERI was written for people who wish to know how to persuade pro-legal abortion individuals to genuinely become prolifers.
I had a civil discussion with HandsomeMrToad because I seek to have civil discussions with everyone (although there are a few I have had to break contact with because they were so nasty to me, but that's rare, fortunately).
I'm also the one who has written the piece Val is sharing with Jim H, in case you didn't know.
Briefly then - what do you believe about animals, and how would that contrast with a less liberal mindset (IIRC your views on animals seem to be similar to Val's, would I be right?)?
Also, what do you think of "personally prolife"?
I might well start hanging more on ERI, who knows? Now that I have a regular to talk to:-) I really would value more skill in changing hearts.
My view on animals are similar to Val´s, you´re right there. Even though I am not a vegetarian like her ( but I avoid meat that isn´t organic). Lots of conservative pro-lifers might care less about animals, I guess. Certainly not all though; not my dear friend Trixie on LAN for example, who is both a conservative pro-lifer and active in animal rescue. I think, given that humans are intelligent and powerful, we have a responsibility towards other animals, to be compassionate to them. We are the rulers; let us be good masters to our subjects, and treat them with the love they deserve.
As for "personally pro-life", I think that is largely bull, honestly. Those who are personally pro-life do nothing to stop the human rights abuse of abortion on demand, it´s like being a bystander to any other human rights abuse, or cruelty to animals for that matter, and say "I don´t agree with that, but it´s not really my business."
What are your thoughts?
animals are not people. That is so sad, because life matters to me. Pro =
for, life = life. When we treat animals badly today, we treat human
beings badly tomorrow. It's really nice to talk to someone who shares my
feelings on animals being treated well because it's not often I get to
talk to someone who understands my passion
on the subject :)
"Certainly not all though; not my dear friend Trixie on LAN for
example,
who is both a conservative pro-lifer and active in animal rescue. I
think, given that humans are intelligent and powerful, we have a
responsibility towards other animals, to be compassionate to them. We
are the rulers; let us be good masters to our subjects, and treat them
with the love they deserve."
I understand this might come as a
slight shock, but I think animals need to be liberated from human
control, because it is one major cause of suffering and death for the
animal kingdom. That being said, I agree with this sentence: "I think,
given that humans are intelligent and powerful, we have a responsibility
towards other animals, to be compassionate to them." It's good that
your friend Trixie is involved with animal rescue; I applaud her efforts
and wish more conservatives would do the same. I would like to know, if
you want to tell me, what led you to hold the views you do on animals, though.
I agree completely with you on "personally prolife" and find that
viewpoint
to be cowardly. There are personally prolife people I respect, not
because they are personally so but because they wish to really, really
end abortion; they simply disagree that laws are the best way to do it.
So there are two kinds of personally prolife -
those who are
concerned with laws not ending the problem but despise abortion with
everything they have in them, and those that believe this way to be
popular and liked with the pro-legal abortion crowd. Here is an example
of the kind of personally prolife individual I do respect, because she
is still willing to call out abortion as a sick, horrible act, and
genuinely cares for both women and the unborn:
http://sarahbessey.com/a-voice-for-the-voiceless/
Another
guy who doesn't see much hope for laws but very much wishes for
abortion to be stopped is Chandler Klebs; he hangs around here sometimes
and I really enjoy his contributions. I want to make it clear, these
two have won my respect because, despite their lack of hope in laws,
they still hate abortion with all their hearts and I can appreciate
that.
The kind of "personally prolife" people I don't respect are, as
I
said before, those who cower in the face of public opinion, and beg to
be treated differently by the pro-legal abortion crowd than "those nasty
Rethuglican prolifers who want to ban abortion"; I think these people
behave like cowards and want a pat on the head from the ruling powers,
quite frankly. It's groveling and I completely despise it. The pro-legal
abortion crowd will hate you if you take the name "prolife" so I
believe I might as well live up to the label with everything I have in
me. So if you want to know if you’re talking to a true prolifer if they
claim to be "personally prolife", watch their attitude toward abortion.
If they're grieved by it, want to see it stop, support other prolifers
who might not agree with their stance like Feminists for Life or signing
petitions to end abortion, I'd still
call them prolife. If they show
callousness, say we don't need to worry about it, care about the
opinions and rage of pro-legal abortion people, etc, I’d call them
pro-legal abortion under another name.
You are absolutely
right to say that it's doing nothing to stop the abuse of abortion on
demand. I wonder what would happen if we had acted this way with
slavery, or the Nazis? The atrocities would still be going on today.
Yes, because of the courage of a few who chose to speak out, we are no
longer "personally opposed" to slavery. It is outlawed, yes, outlawed
and despised, and I thank God for that everyday. As for the other
subject, being "personally against it but not judging" them (I couldn’t
help cringing as I typed that sentence)? Yuck, please :(
What do
you think of the idea that you can't be prolife, and a feminist?
Personally I find that incredibly insulting, especially considering they
will accept almost anyone else! There's a lot more I'd like to say, but
I'll leave it at that for now.
I recommend you take copies of the links I gave you, because they will help you know how to change hearts.
I guess you do have a point on the "personally pro-life issue." Lots of people who don´t support laws against abortion still recognize abortion as an immoral and barbaric act. The people who hold these views are not the same as other "personally pro-life" people: Even though they don´t support laws against abortion, they are not into the "it´s none of my business" thinking. Those who think it´s none of their business are the real deplorables, I guess. Those who genuinely care about the unborn and try other ways to fight abortion deserve acknowledgement.
You are completely right that, if all the bystanders had thought "It´s none of my business" about other human rights abuses", they would still be going on. Lots of people thought that way when the abuses were going on; thankfully all people were not like them. As Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Feminism and pro-life views are certainly compatible. In fact, the original feminists that fought for female voting rights were staunchly pro-life. There is no reason a pro-lifer today couldn´t be a feminist, just like they were. In my opinion, today´s pro-choice feminists are more like the Russian Bolsheviks, who supported abortion on demand, than like the original feminists ( it´s probably not a coincidence that the brutal, blood-thirsty ideology of Soviet Communism was the ideology that introduced abortion on demand).
Thank you for the links. When I´ve posted this comment, I will put all the posts with links that you´ve made to me in my archive.
Here is a quotation on page 173 of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Penguin Classics version:
"To satisfy this genus of men, women are made systematically voluptuous, and though they may not all carry their libertinism to the same height, yet this heartless intercourse with the sex, which they allow themselves, depraves both sexes, because the taste of men is vitiated; and women, of all classes, naturally square their behaviour to gratify the taste by which they obtain pleasure and power. Women becoming, consequently, weaker, in mind and body,
than they ought to be, were one of the grand ends of their being
taken into the account, that of bearing and nursing children, have not sufficient strength to discharge the first duty of a mother; and sacrificing to lasciviousness the parental affection, that ennobles instinct, either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast it off when born. Nature in every thing demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity."
I recommend you read the entire book; it’s really good.
“In my opinion, today´s pro-choice feminists are more like the Russian Bolsheviks, who supported abortion on demand, than like the original feminists ( it´s probably not a coincidence that the brutal, blood-thirsty ideology of Soviet Communism was the ideology that introduced abortion on demand).”
I’ve never heard that, and would like to know more about this, complete with sources.
I could say more but will save it for later, except I do have a request to make - can we please shift this conversation somewhere else? I'm having a real problem uploading my answers onto this page, and I'd like to use one which will allow me to place them up, easily.
On Bolsheviks and abortion, you can read this article by eugenicist Henry Harris from the 1930s:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984843/pdf/eugenrev002940026.pdf
Here is a Soviet-friendly and abortion-friendly source of a later date:
http://spartacist.org/english/esp/59/emancipation.html
Here´s two pro-life containing info on the subject:
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/11/25/putin-signs-law-banning-abortion-ads-as-it-decimates-russias-population/
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/12/23/russia-considers-banning-abortions-as-abortion-decimates-its-population/
Thank you for the book tip. I´ve read about Mary Wollstonecraft earlier, and have read short excerpts from what she´s written. My mom likes her.
“I guess you do have a point on the ‘personally pro-life issue.’ Lots of people who don´t support laws against abortion still recognize abortion as an immoral and barbaric act.”
Victoria Woodhull, American suffragist, was one of these. We do need to acknowledge all those who genuinely want to see abortion stopped, even if they disagree on the legality issue, provided they really do despise it and the apathetic notion that it’s “none of their business.” This apathy, if applied to other areas of life, could eventually destroy human rights as we know it, because people with such attitudes tend to be less motivated to want the betterment of humankind. There is such a thing as the tyranny of too much
freedom! I love that quote, BTW.
I agree that feminism and prolife are absolutely compatible! You see the article we’re commenting on? Well, I call this the SEVENTH way for pro-legal abortion people to censor prolifers – deny them their liberalism, feminism, etc, so that they can keep the stereotype of uber religious male nutters alive in the minds of the people, and hide the truth from the public. In other words, “guilt by association”, as Val calls it.
The reason given is that bodily autonomy, choice, free agency, is a
fundamental part of feminism, and to violate bodily autonomy by passing laws against abortion will kill women and babies. Can you give me a good rebuttal to that argument?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373382/?page=2
And on this pro-life website:
http://realchoice.blogspot.se/p/wouldnt-more-women-die-if-roe-fell.html
Today, when women die after illegal abortions, they mainly die at places where there´s lack of access to emergency care, as well as antibiotics. On places where this is not the case, very few women die. In fact, Ireland with its strict laws against abortion actually has a lower maternal mortality rate than the UK, France, Germany and my country, even though abortion is legal in all these other countries. Actually, Ireland has the best maternal health and lowest maternal and infant mortality rate in the world, if I remember correctly. It does happen that women die from legal abortions too. If one wants to keep these deaths down, one should support access to emergency care, antibiotics, and reduction of abortions, not legal abortion; and one should worry a lot more about the overuse of antibiotics, leading to resistant bacteria, than about anti-abortion laws.
Also, feminists who bring up the "bodily autonomy" argument should remember that women the majority of times have willingly chosen to have sex, even though they know that they might get pregnant. They could have abstained from sex if they absolutely not want to get pregnant.
That a woman has bodily autonomy should mean that she can do whatever she wants with her own body; it should not mean that she can harm someone else´s body.
Good point on "The seventh way", it is indeed the case that pro-legal-aborts and pro-aborts try to make pro-lifers feel that they cannot believe in anything they want, and herd us into the stereotypical corner.
I have no problem with your suggestions, though I don´t think I´m inclined to return to vegetarianism. I do a lot of other things for animals instead. But, who knows what I´ll do in the future?
I'm sorry to hear Sweden is so against the prolife message, what gives? I read you say your mother likes the opinions of second wave feminists; I do too, but we disagree strongly on abortion! I will confess that I have been strongly influenced by all waves of feminism in some manner. You might like to read up on intersectionalism a bit; it has really helped me stand for minorities that the left and the right ignore, despite its being a leftist invention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
Intersectionality would help the prolife community speak up more. Its basic rules are to never be afraid to speak up for the oppressed, to never demand civility of the oppressed, and whether you're rude or civil to the oppressor be a good ally to the oppressed :)
I think the prolife community's problem is that they are too nice. They have followed conservative thought with liberal minds and, while it works, I recommend every prolifer study intersectionalism briefly, as well, because liberals value a bit of rudeness sometimes.
"I really would value more skill in changing hearts"
Then this blog is the place for you. Please, look around. Take the courses he puts out (if you can) and listen to his podcasts; they'll teach you to argue well. Plus read his articles; I have found them to be very beneficial and they have really helped me in my interactions with pro-legal abortion people. Not just to be more respectful, but to really give them something to think about. The link I gave you to SPL contained my arguments, which HandsomeMrToad responded to; I would like to know your opinion on what I wrote about abortion being banned in my links, if you wish to share it (and yes, I think it should be illegal).
In regards to your being a man, and prolife, I think it’s really
hypocritical that they say that, because they only bring up your sex when you object to abortion. Plenty of men are abortion
practitioners, and are even celebrated for standing with women when they support "a woman’s right to choose"!
Here are a couple of articles to debunk that nonsense:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/responding-to-the-astute-observation-that-i-am-a-man/
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/dialogue-tip-responding-youre-man-cant-get-pregnant/
Why shouldn’t you say something? It’s your baby as much as hers, and besides – if you acted this way over any other issue, you would rightly be labelled a coward!
It´s good to hear you confirm the positive things I´ve read about this site, and I will definitely check around, and learn more.
You ask me about my opinion on the arguments you gave for abortion being illegal in the links you posted to Handsomemrtoad. I think you did a great job debunking common pro-choice arguments. You have obviously done good research, showing that there are lots of studies that speak in favor of pro-life views. And, you point out how only adressing the root causes to abortion is inconsistent with how we otherwise adress human rights abuses. All in all, great arguments for the pro-life cause and the banning of abortion.
Thank you for the links on being a man and opposing abortion, they were helpful. And it´s very true that lots of men support abortion, or even practice it (or for that matter pressure women into it). Myself, I start to think about my friend WorldGoneCrazy on Live Action News, who, when faced with the "A man like you shouldn´t have an opinion on abortion" argument, replies "Congrats, you just overturned RvW!" And he´s right, RvW was decided by men. The line of thinking abortion supporters display when they say that is like saying that humans shouldn´t be able to oppose cruelty to animals, or that white people shouldn´t have an opinion on racism towards non-whites. Or that non-pedophiles, who don´t know what it feels like to be a pedophile, shouldn´t have an opinion on child sexual abuse.
how on earth is that pro-woman?
You are right; to apply such thinking of “since it's not impacting you, it's not your business to care” in any other case, such as animal abuse, racism, sexual abuse, etc, is utter folly!
I suppose, then, that for us white people to have an opinion on the way people conduct human rights in repressive regimes around the world is a form of racism, then. Shame on us for campaigning for the release of those rebelling against their dictators because
said dictators are non-white! Of course, I fear the far left will go this way one day but anyone with a shred of common sense in them will know that we can’t afford to keep silent in the face of barbaric governments persecuting and punishing their citizens for exercising human rights such as free speech and freedom of thought! If it’s okay for white people to have a negative opinion on repressive regimes then why shouldn’t men have a negative opinion on abortion?
have valid points when it comes to the downsides of such laws which I feel *must be examined if abortion illegality is to succeed!
Here is an article written by such a person, which I agree with; you might like to tell me what you think of it:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/11/what-obligations-accompany-an-abortion-ban.html
I’m glad that my links on men and abortion were helpful. While bodily autonomy is a fundamental belief of feminism, reproductive objectification is not good, etc, men do and should exercise their right to speak up on behalf of their children. There’s a lot more I could say but I’ll leave it at this – I would like to expound on the topic of choice, the rights of both mother and child, and some of the best ways I think men can approach women over not aborting their children another time, because I definitely want to give you new things to think about – things you mightn’t have thought of before but are very important – so you can be a more effective prolifer than you are now.
I will state – and I think you would agree – that men are only encouraged to express an opinion when it supports the right to choose, which we dummies all know is abortion on demand, and never, ever in any other context! Is it not coercive for a man to pressure a woman into an abortion when she has chosen not to do this? Indeed, it is, but guys who support “choice” are called “bro-choicers”; why do they give them this idiotic name if men are not allowed to have an opinion? It … boggles the mind :(
Well, the people at LAN tend to be the exception. They have learned not to be too nice, but to the point of driving serious seekers away, which is not a good thing at all. I really like Jim H, and the commenters at LAN, and am sorry to see the strife between them! Yes, prolifers can get stressed out when arguing with a whole group of pro-legal abortion people alone, and they can get nasty, but I have seen so much weak language from prolifers it makes me
sick. They call it a “poor choice” and “sin” and “wrong”; I think we need to be tougher than that! We should call it what it is – a human rights issue! Nothing to do with religion, everything to do with morality. IMO Christians don’t make the best prolifers, either (if you are a Christian I apologise, because I am speaking not of individual Christians but the religious, mainstream PL movement,
modern Christianity, and the like), because they are more concerned with “grace” than “oppression”. And my comments are
applied to myself as much as anyone else, because I have fallen into the trap of being too nice, and trying to appease, when I should have been speaking truth!! Would it not be better to condemn the action in the strongest of terms while showing grace to those who disagree on that action, pointing them to the truth and helping them understand why you think this way, defending your beliefs with good reasons, etc?? Both nastiness (ad homs, etc) and weakness are bad extremes that prolifers need to guard vigilantly against; they need to show love for the person they are speaking to while speaking out against the behaviour!
“It´s good to hear you confirm the positive things I´ve read about this site, and I will definitely check around, and learn more.”
Excellent! I look forward to that as well.
“Thank you for the link and info on intersectionality, I will definitely
read up on the issue.”
For more reading, type “the basics of intersectionality” into the search engine. Just remember this – read with discernment. Intersectionality is all very good if used correctly but when used to silence free speech, it’s an abuse of power because minorities and their allies can oppress and do wicked things, like everyone else, and if they do they should be, as much as possible, treated exactly the same as any other person :(
Another thing I need to state – intersectionalists tend to dislike people questioning the experiences of oppressed minorities. That would mean if someone like Gianna Jensen got up and shared her testimony, and someone questioned or sneered at that testimony, they would be called out for that, and she would be believed because she is a minority. I think at this point we need to be careful. Minority viewpoints are important, yes, but sometimes they do need to be more rigidly examined than they are, especially in certain cases!
Basic explanation: How does oppression, class structure, apply in her case? She’s white, straight, cis, and Christian, which means she has some privilege; add to that that she is born now. But she’s also disabled, and a woman, which means she belongs to two
oppressed classes. Furthermore she had someone attempt her life, because she also belongs to an oppressed class. Intersectionalism is basically an examination of how the different layers of oppression intertwine with each other; her mother oppressed her in her weakest status (in other words the attempted abortion occurred, of course, while she was unborn*), so she could escape oppression against her sex herself (I don’t know her reason for attempting on
Gianna but this is strictly an intersectionalist critique of the situation), which is really sad. That being said Gianna Jensen, as a white disabled woman, would experience life differently from someone like Alveda King, who is a black, ablebodied straight Christian woman. So yes, abortion is the *perfect textbook example of intersectionalism playing out in someone’s life!
One last thing – many intersectionalists like to exclude prolifers, so you will read papers on how intersectionality cannot be applied to critique abortion. Don’t get discouraged; we need more prolife intersectionalists out there, then we can send this whole house of
cards crashing down.
I have had Pro-Aborts tell me that any protest against abortion should be forbidden by law. Some base it on an implied threat of violence, while some claim that abortion is legal so no one should be allowed to protest against it.
PJ posts a lot on LAN, I will tell her you said hello.
be forbidden by law. Some base it on an implied threat of violence,
while some claim that abortion is legal so no one should be allowed to
protest against it."
It would depend on the type of protest. I think as long as it is peaceful and nonviolent, and people are not shouting horrible things at women or hassling abortion practitioners out of town by threatening them and their families or making life hard for them (although I'm very much for signing petitions in a lawful, peaceful manner to get them removed from the premises) then abortion protests should be legal!
I know of another movement in Korea that is struggling to get its message across - SaveKoreanDogs. From what I have heard not once have they advocated for the following: 1) killing dog slayers
2) hassling dog slayers out of town
3) bombing dog slayer facilities
4) screaming at dog slayers and calling them killers
What they do do AFAIK: 1) shut them down legally, to the best of their ability, by making them sign documents (dog-eating is illegal in Korea so they can do this)
2) buy the dogs off the farmers
3) educate about the situation
4) holding cameras and posters up to show the violence
5) petitioning government leaders to stop the violence
Although, once, one of the leaders did not exactly follow the law 100%; she got attacked by a dog-slaying farmer and she defended herself and she faced prison for that.
Here is more of their work:
https://www.facebook.com/savekoreandogs/
http://koreandogs.org/
I mention this not to go off-topic but because I think PL people could really learn from such an example. The dog-eating trade in Korea is horrible yet they are handling it right! I know many PL people do handle it right, but for those who don't I would urge them to reconsider their tactics.
As for PJ, thank you, because I asked her to comment on SPL a few days ago and she seems to have forgotten about it. I am, however, very excited that she was able to persuade a young mother not to abort! Also I found out about Javelina Harker losing her friend. My heart goes out to her, please let her know that too.
My fourth question is as follows:
"4) That is true. I recognise that and use it. But my point was, that information about slaves and their oppressors is good to know, because anyone who knows about that will bring it up at every opportunity every time the word "slavery" is mentioned. It is worth acknowledging that people who would abuse PL thought and practice for their own benefit
existed in times past and are alive and with us today, so that we might remove such unworthy persons from among us. So I don't fear hearing that information."
Do you agree or disagree? Also, do you think it is distracting from the moral analogy PL people are trying to draw or do you think it is an objection worth answering? For my part, I believe that people can abuse PL thought and practice to suit themselves, yet not be PL. I know that slavery was anything but PL, especially considering they were not seen as persons under the law, and masters could kill them without legal punishment.
pro-life people have ever made to censor pro-choice people. Let them
speak. If the truth is on our side, what have we to fear?"
Yet they fear truth and that is why they use the bad behaviour of some to silence all opposition; would you agree with that?
Honestly I cannot understand how anyone could think that aborting this little creature is anything but unacceptable:
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-6-weeks
As to my question on slavery, I am interested in your opinion on that; could you please answer it?
And while I do believe that Pro-Aborts dehumanize unborn children the same way slavers dehumanized their slaves, that is as far as I wish to carry that analogy.
Second, I can understand that. We do approach the issue slightly differently but I think we come to the same conclusion on it, overall; would you agree with that?
Third, you said in response to one of my questions:
"5) it has always been curious to me how a single lunatic shooting up an abortion clinic represents every pro-life advocate, yet the numerous abortion doctors that kill and maim their patients mean nothing. We on the pro-life side will win this battle in the hearts and minds of good people, not with the hate and the lies and violence of the Pro-Aborts."
My response was as follows:
"5) An excellent point, and one I had never considered. Oh, but pregnancy is far more dangerous than abortion, they tell us! Well, I am not one to downplay pregnancy. I admit that pregnancy can kill women, and in rare cases maim them. It can cause complications so pregnancy is more than an inconvenience. As for abortion, if done properly it would
be seldom if ever physically dangerous - notice I said physically dangerous, because abortion is morally dangerous to society as a whole in so many ways - but it is always dangerous to the unborn person; very few if any unborn persons survive it.
"We one the pro-life side will win this battle in the hearts and minds of good people, not with the hate and the lies and violence of the Pro-Aborts."
I agree, and they accuse US of being violent. It is true, there are violent ones among us and they need to be sternly stopped. As for us being violent, what they do to unborn persons is violent, especially in the later stages, yet no one complains about that very much. I have spoken to a legal abortion advocate who told me that a 12-week old
abortion was only a disconnection of the unborn person from its mother so that it dies on being disconnected from the womb, or some such similar act. Even if she was right, even that act is a homicide, and unjustifiable."
My questions on that paragraph are as follows: 1) In regards to legalised abortion, they keep saying legalised abortion is safe and rare, and say that PL people who discuss women dying from abortions are great big liars, sometimes because their information is from "biased" or "suspect" sources; what is your response to that one?
2) Why do they keep saying abortion is safe when we know it nearly always kills and in rare cases severely injures unborn babies and sometimes can kill women? Also is abortion physically safe for women most of the time?
3) Why the hypocrisy when it comes to unborn persons dying; sometimes their deaths are violent, and no one cares about that; yet anti-abortion people like the Colorado shooter are violent people (and I agree, they are violent, disturbed people who need to be locked up!)?
I would appreciate an answer to these questions when you can provide it. Thanks for talking to me so far!
You're right to call it homocide, because it is. I tend to think abortion is not legally murder at present, but is and always will be morally murder. Legality is important to differentiate when talking to a legal abortion advocate otherwise you just talk past each other and cause offence, yet it will cause offence when you call abortion murder in the moral sense, I think and that is an offence we can't be ashamed of.
Would you mind if I asked you to look over my paragraph again as I did ask you a few questions therein. I am enjoying my conversation and I hope you are too.
Isn't the definition of murder being the illegal taking of life a faulty definition, because what Hitler did was technically "legal" in Germany at the time. Yet it was morally reprobate and it was from that perspective we call the Holocaust murder and slaughter. We don't worry about legality there!
Your example is a good one in relationship to abortion. While everyone, Liberals included, view what Hitler and the Nazi party did as abhorrent and without morals... everything they did was LEGAL!
Therefore stating that we recognise the differences legally and morally might be helpful, and I'd be very interested to hear what you think of such an idea.
My questions are as follows: 1) Do you know about the history of the Alamo as it relates to slavery as I think that is why the guy got mad at you
2) How do pro-abortion advocates censor the PL message in the legal sphere in your opinion
3) Have you ever heard of Thompson's Violinist, the trolley scenario, and McFall vs. Shrimp
4) Have you ever heard of the slavers and anti-abortion sentiments
5) My sentiments in response to your points
Don't feel pressured, take your time!
I would enjoy carrying over some of our conversations over to Secular Pro-Life Perspectives if you pop in one day; that would be fun!
2) As i stated before, they use the mantra of "It's legal, so shut up". There are also numerous Federal laws enacted to openly punish abortion protesters.
3) I know of the Violinists and the trolly, the court case I had to look up.
4) I am not familiar with this one.
5) I appreciate the conversation and am happy to continue with you.
Please explain what these laws are and how they are enacted.
3) As for Thompson's Violinist, you do realise that pregnancy is a donation of the woman's bodily resources to the unborn person, don't you? So in that way, they have a point, but that point still doesn't justify the killing despite claims to the contrary.
"the court case I had to look up"
Well, what do you think now? You've got one of their legal "justifications" in writing that they can point to. They sure have made it difficult for us, haven't they?
4) My friend wrote this article:
http://pro-abortion-rights.tumblr.com/post/132520683297/the-pro-life-slaveowners-of-the-caribbean
and here's her source:
https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=qLAiqMbmeaMC&printsec=frontcover&hl=ko&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Basically it points out that the slaveowners in America used anti-abortion as a means to control and oppress their female slaves and they punished their slaves for obtaining abortions. These are facts legal abortion advocates have no hesitation mentioning if you state that abortion is morally analogous to slavery.
5) Two things:
I mentioned Wilberforce and Alice Paul in my examples to prove what I was saying, and expressed a few opinions of my own on the following points:
a) I was concerned that people with the mind to do it would use terrorists as a way to shut down the entire PL movement
b) I think abortion is more morally analogous to slavery than nazism
c) I wonder why it is that, if we PL people are such wicked terrorists, that they are willing to debate with us and talk to us; I had the question posed me, that if people who had and promote abortions are murderers why are we willing to debate with them and talk to them? A bit of an odd question, would you agree or not? Yet in a way I get what the poser of the question is saying; PL people are way too soft on this subject for fear of causing offence. It is a pity we can't learn when to speak and when to keep silent
I am happy to keep talking to you about this and appreciate our discussion so far!
3) pregnancy is a willing donation. The child did not invade the woman's body or kidnap her. In nearly every case, she willingly performed a act that resulted in the pregnancy, rendering the violinist story moot.
4) the moral analogy to slavery is in the manner that the slave-owners justified their actions by dehumanizing the slaves, just as Pro-Aborts dehumanize the kill in a pathetic justification for killing that child.
5) it has always been curious to me how a single lunatic shooting up an abortion clinic represents every pro-life advocate, yet the numerous abortion doctors that kill and main their patients mean nothing. We one the pro-life side will win this battle in the hearts and minds of good people, not with the hate and the lies and violence of the Pro-Aborts.
3) It is true that in more cases than not she willingly performed the act but what does that have to do with the worth of the unborn person? Zilch.
4) That is true. I recognise that and use it. But my point was, that information about slaves and their oppressors is good to know, because anyone who knows about that will bring it up at every opportunity every time the word "slavery" is mentioned. It is worth acknowledging that people who would abuse PL thought and practice for their own benefit existed in times past and are alive and with us today, so that we might remove such unworthy persons from among us. So I don't fear hearing that information.
5) An excellent point, and one I had never considered. Oh, but pregnancy is far more dangerous than abortion, they tell us! Well, I am not one to downplay pregnancy. I admit that pregnancy can kill women, and in rare cases maim them. It can cause complications so pregnancy is more than an inconvenience. As for abortion, if done properly it would be seldom if ever physically dangerous - notice I said physically dangerous, because abortion is morally dangerous to society as a whole in so many ways - but it is always dangerous to the unborn person; very few if any unborn persons survive it.
"We one the pro-life side will win this battle in the hearts and minds of
good people, not with the hate and the lies and violence of the
Pro-Aborts."
I agree, and they accuse US of being violent. It is true, there are violent ones among us and they need to be sternly stopped. As for us being violent, what they do to unborn persons is violent, especially in the later stages, yet no one complains about that very much. I have spoken to a legal abortion advocate who told me that a 12-week old abortion was only a disconnection of the unborn person from its mother so that it dies on being disconnected from the womb, or some such similar act. Even if she was right, even that act is a homicide, and unjustifiable.
have ‘willingly performed the act’ that resulted in an unintended and unplanned
pregnancy is relevant to the discussion of her right to bodily autonomy and to
choose to terminate that pregnancy during early stages of gestation.
Surely you wouldn’t argue that because a male had chosen to ‘willingly
perform an act’ that resulted in his acquiring an STD he had voided his right
to bodily autonomy and medical intervention to address that unintended and
unplanned consequence? (“Hey, you chose to have sex and got syphilis—no penicillin
for you!”)
And the supposed ‘multiple doctors’ like Gosnell who harm
the women coming to them to have their pregnancies terminated does mean
something” it indicates a necessity for greater oversight of as well as much
improved access to safe medical abortions so that woman aren’t forced to turn to incompetent/criminal providers out of desperation.
have ‘willingly performed the act’ that resulted in an unintended and unplanned pregnancy is relevant to the discussion of her right to bodily autonomy and to choose to terminate that pregnancy during early stages of gestation."
Newsflash: it isn't relevant at all. In fact it has nothing to do with it, except in the fact that we do owe our offspring the responsibility to look after them and not to kill them as we created them.
Go Gosnell and others like him are what you get when you militantly support abortion and refuse ANY over site.
activity—STD infection. If the fact that the person made the choice to engage in sexual activity in and of itself means they cannot ethically seek medical treatment to address the unwanted consequence then I don’t see why it matters what that unintended consequence is.
Note this wouldn’t apply only to sexual activity—skiers for example would
ethically be prevented from seeking surgical repairs for a torn ACL because
they chose to go skiing.
And no, I don’t see pregnancy as a ‘natural byproduct’—while sexual intercourse is the most frequent means by which conceptions occur procreation is hardly the only (and indeed, not even the most frequent) reason couples engage in sexual intimacy.
As for Gosnell, etc., who is it exactly you think is refusing ANY oversight of abortion providers? I’m not aware of any prochoice advocates who embrace the position that there should be no oversight whatsoever of the clinics/physicians which provide abortion services.
And most Pro-Aborts fight against any restrictions and oversight to abortion.
And I’m afraid I’ll require a more specific identification than “most –Pro-Aborts” in support of your claim that pro-choice advocates oppose ANY oversight of the clinics/providers which provide abortion services. That was your original claim, you’ll recall, although your attempt to modify it to include advocates who oppose restrictions on the availability of abortions is noted and rejected.
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2
My friend Josh Brahm, the moderator, does not take kindly to insults slung between commenters online. It is the sort of thing you could be banned for, so I am asking you to please stop it, or at least reword your statements so that they convey more charity.
I will attempt to adhere to your posting requirements, while not allowing a morally bankrupt person like Jim to post lies. If at any time my posting style is not to the liking of the moderator, please let me know and I will take my comments elsewhere.
I am not a moderator here, but I do stand in for Josh unofficially when I can.
This is what I said to Jim:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/six-ways-ive-seen-pro-choice-people-try-to-censor-pro-lifers/#comment-2442984748
And I am sorry that the two of you are having such a rough time online together. I don't like insults when slung from either side and I realise that everyone has the capability to be rude. So I am trying to be kind to everyone while not being involved in fights online and taking sides.
It will be best if I simply ignore Jim and his whines. He is an unworthy debate opponent.
Thank you for your kindness, Crystal. I will do my best to behave while I am a guest in your space.
I think you and Jim ignoring each other on this particular page would be for the best. I believe you have much to contribute here and I don't want to see that spoiled because either one of you were banned for fighting.
I think StanW didn't like what you were saying because if he said the murder of a pregnant person was the same he might admit that God was wrong to slaughter the Canaanites and I think he felt cornered into that admission, hence his strong lashing out. Because you were asking about the Canaanites in context if I remember correctly.
I don't mind StanW seeing my words. I have nothing to hide. I do think he shouldn't stalk you though.
I'm afraid apologising is a reflex reaction for me yet I think in a way you are right; I do have to try to overcome it a little more. Thanks for explaining.
He is in a bind. Either God was wrong to slaughter the Canaanites, or such a slaughter is not wrong. He does feel cornered, but he won't admit to either, so he is strong lashing out.
I appreciate your recognition of that. Over at LAN there isn't much objectivity and Stan is one of the gang and I'm not.
I think you are right apologising does seem to be a reflex reaction for you, but it is only because you are a sensitive person who cares about other people and you try to protect other people's feelings. You just need to remember that you are a very worthy person and you need to protect that person's (your) feelings as well.
Many Christian prolifers feel obligated to defend their religious values at all costs, even to the point of sacrificing unborn persons on the altars of abstinence-only, their Bible, and other such sentiments. I wonder if they're going to act like that why bother being PL at all? Because God said to and it's not something worth thinking through?
I'm not saying any of that to condemn Stan but rather to remark on a common attitude I've seen among Christian PL people. Abstinence and the slaughter of Canaanites comes first, before anything else. Abortion is secondary. I would have thought that since it was murder it would have been the other way about.
Personally I think Christians defend Canaanite slaughter by saying that the Canaanites were doing human sacrifice, etc, and God had decreed that this was His judgment on a wicked and perverse generation; therefore He was using the Israelites to carry out His will.
????
As for your last paragraph, thank you for the kind thoughts, Jim. It is hard to remember to protect my feelings because I am so anxious to set it right and stop arguing. I wish I could take a stronger stance. How do you recommend I do that?
"I'd be happy to pass that on when I talk to her next."
Did you get to talk to her yet and if so what did she say?
"I don't really want to talk about Thomas, he is just not worth the effort."
I can sympathise with that.
"I meant to write back. I actually thought I had."
That's okay, this is not a homework assignment.
"Thanks for the kind words."
You're welcome, and I look forwards to having more civil discussions with you on this topic.
I'm afraid I couldn't help but read a spirited debate between you and StanW when StanW called you an idiot for asking the question about the pregnant woman and the unborn person. I'll explain my views on that. I fear I'm expecting you to say that StanW called me an idiot by the end of it though.
Legally, abortion isn't murder. However, morally, it is. Our laws grow out of our morals, or our lack of morals, rather than the other way around. Simply depending on the legal definition of things doesn't answer the question, "Is this action morally right or not?" However, when talking with legal abortion advocates it is important to make the distinction between legality and morality because oftentimes they are thinking of the legal question - the unlawful homicide of a human being - when they think of the term murder; whereas prolifers are thinking of the moral one, the one where abortion isn't seen as murder now but should be seen as such because it takes an innocent human life. Also, simply depending on the legal definition as your moral compass is actually harmful. The murder of the Jews in Germany was legal. Yet it was not moral and certainly abominable!
Yes, I am concerned with the consequences that "abortion is murder" laws would do to women if they got passed. That doesn't mean I don't believe in making abortion illegal. It simply means that I am concerned about abuses and downsides to these laws so that if such laws ever got passed that they would also address downsides rather than conveniently ignoring them.
If you want my opinion, legally the killing of the pregnant person and the killing of the unborn person are not the same. Yet morally they are.
You take care too.
Would you mind if I did give you a little nudge to answer those questions I left you on this site, because I would love to pick up this discussion where it left off.
I've also seen that sometimes you comment at a site called I fight bullies. What's that about?
please don't take stuff to heart. Remember its just th einternet, people
say stuff on line they would never say IRL. Take care Crystal and have
fab Christmas x"
Thanks for your kind and helpful words, I only just saw this recently. I did have a fab Christmas, and hope you had the same. I didn't want to respond on that page because I didn't want any more problems on my hands. I hope you've had a Happy New Year too and that we will resume this conversation soon :)
I know what it is to be abused horribly for being prolife. I doubt that, if I were half as obnoxious as some of the nasty treatment I received in the past from others on the opposing side of the fence, that anyone would listen to me.
So I try to be nice. I think that something I say will be more likely to stick if I'm kind and pleasant, even if the only person I convince happens to be a lurker rather than a fellow commenter.
I believe in being reasonable. The trashy way some abortion "advocates" have treated me has strengthened that conviction. In memory of this treatment I am seriously considering taking a stricter policy of no-contact with people who are horribly rude to me unless they apologise; what do you think?
I also see you chat with PJ4 sometimes. Since she's been banned here, could you please let her know that I miss her a lot, and wish her a Happy New Year - belatedly, I'm afraid? I will be happy to see her at SPL next time she writes in!
What's your opinion on no-contact to people who have been unrepentantly rude to you?
Oh, and thanks for passing that on! Personally I consider PJ4 to be a special person, one I would love to have many conversations with in the future.
I hate hurting anyone and I find it hard to even say "Go away and leave me alone" even if someone is being cruel :(
But I've been reading a lot about narcissists and psychopaths, and had a nasty experience with someone online recently which really shook me up.
This is where I've been reading:
http://masksofsanity.blogspot.de/
My research is part of the reason I've been considering this.
Have you ever heard of Secular Pro-Life Perspectives (SPL)? It's a fun place to comment IMO.
I'll take a look at your link.
Yes, I have been at SPL.
Can you please explain what you're referring to here, if you wouldn't mind? Not trying to be dumb, just not completely understanding what you mean.
"I'll take a look at your link."
Thanks! It is truly shocking! You just might be spending hours reading there, like I did. I bet it will leave you mad.
"Yes, I have been at SPL."
I hope you go there again then, it would be fun to chat with you there! I also hope you were treated fairly well there while you did comment.
Have you heard of The Friendly Atheist? I've made a lot of pleasant acquaintanceships with the general TFA commenting populace and generally hold them in high regard. I comment there sometimes too.
Yes, I'm familiar with the Friendly Atheist, but I haven't been there in a while. I don't think of myself as an atheist. I don't really care that much about the question of God's existence. I'm part of the fastest growing religious category in America. It is among those people who list their religious preference as "none".
please know I appreciate your defending me. Thomas did apologise, though, so I don't hold it against him.
In regards to PJ, did you get to talk to her yet and if so what did she say?
PJ4's exact words were:
Aaaw, tell her I miss her too!!
Wish her back for me please!
I might make an appearance over at SPL if I have any time
Although I have forgiven him, I can understand that.
"There is no call for him to treat people the way he does. He is just mean spirited and he brings out the same in me."
If you wouldn't mind, could you please explain in what ways he is being mean-spirited towards you, so I understand better? Also, do you believe that use of the term "pro-abortion" (not pro-abort, pro-abortion) is mean-spirited, if the term "pro-abortion" is used carefully to describe a person's position rather than as a derogatory fiery dart at an advocate for legal abortion? I ask because I have an opinion on that, but I will share it after I've heard what you have to say.
I am sorry that Thomas is not being kind to you, and I am sorry other PLers have not been kind. It doesn't do much for our testimony, I'm afraid. If you've asked to be left alone your wishes ought to be respected.
I know what it is to have talked to a couple of mean-spirited legal abortion advocates. One drained the life out of me emotionally and got others to gang up on me as well despite my best efforts to placate without compromising what I believe, because she didn't like something I posted on another site and she felt I was being derogatory towards my commenting base by what I said, despite my true intentions in posting my comment and despite the fact I hold the regular commenters at said commenting base in high esteem! I am very hurt and angry over what she did to me and I don't know how to handle it because she and I are presently on fairly friendly speaking terms. She has never willingly apologised for her ugly treatment of me, except once. I don't hate her; she has generally been very nice to me but two occasions of severe online battering is too much IMO. It feels mean to talk about her this way but it hurt, it really did. As for the other person, you'll find out once you read the links to our conversation.
Please let PJ know I deeply appreciate her sentiments and if she wants to comment on SPL (after replying to you) she can comment on this page:
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2016/01/what-babies-dont-know-cant-hurt-them.html
I’d deeply appreciate her opinion on the issue; she might know how one way to answer the arguments that since unborn persons are
presently unconscious, it won’t matter to them if they die or not, because I hear this one all the time and I’m not sure how to reply when I see it.
"I might make an appearance over at SPL if I have any time"
Yes please, if you can! And you can comment on the page I showed you too. You will get an opportunity to talk to other nice PLers like Blu and DarkCougar, who I deeply appreciate.
I love posting on secular and atheist and Christian sites. It's fun, hearing all those different views swirling around. I was raised conservative Christian but have since departed because it was a self-righteous, condescending religion. I hate it for that very reason and so many more. I have been accused of being self-righteous because I am deeply health-conscious (teetotaler, etc) and not presently interested in being a sex kitten, which really hurts because I have no desire to be self-righteous.
Tis true, tis true! Here are the links to prove it:*
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html (to find this, go to the "Newest" section and scroll down)
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/donald-trump-is-disaster-waiting-to.html
*He was even pulling this nonsense on the Josh Brahm site.
"Yes, I'm familiar with the Friendly Atheist, but I haven't been there in a while."
If you ever want to comment there I'll give you a shout-out.
As for the other issue, I doubt you will like what you read :(
Kudos to you both. Please pass that on.
were defeated and a stronger argument for abortion was presented to me,
then I would change my mind.
I may have to respectfully disagree with this statement. I think there are good reasons why we should not become pro-choice even if there's an argument against the pro-life position we cannot counter:
http://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/abortion-images-a-case-for-disagreement-without-division/#comment-2259654055
To add to that, let's look at a comment made by presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson. In an October interview, he told Chuck Todd that "I’m a reasonable person. And if people can come up with a reasonable
explanation of why they would like to kill a baby, I’ll listen."
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/10/26/ben-carson-i-oppose-killing-a-baby-in-abortions-in-cases-of-rape-or-incest/
On the face of it, his statement sounds ridiculous. Try reading it out loud. Imagine if instead of "babies", he said "Jews" or "homosexuals". Absurd. But aren't pro-life advocates literally saying the exact same thing when they say they would become pro-choice if presented with the right argument?
is a distraction?
It's censorship if you try to silence people that disagree with you, or stop others from being exposed to their ideas.
Oh no, someone didn't want to shake your hand? Must
be censorship. These are individuals reacting to your speech.
He didn't say that not shaking someone's hand is censorship. This, however, is: Then she did her very best to shut down
my productive conversation by interjecting every couple of minutes to
rant about how racist and sexist I was simply for being a white male in
America.
They
aren't a state or a college forcing you to shut down.
Google "mob censorship". Also, there are countless examples of universities directly attempting to silence pro-life advocates.
There are answers waiting for you.
Googling the second phrase takes me to an SJW site, the kind that will accuse you of sexist/racist oppression if you comment on a woman's tattoos or wear dreadlocks if you aren't black. I rest my case.
Agreed. The demonising wastes precious time that could have been spent on caring for pregnant persons and saving unborn persons. Furthermore it drives people away from seriously considering PL thought and practice as a moral option. So it harms more than it helps.
That being said, I have a question for you:
In your opinion, is there a difference between condemning an action and condemning a person committing an action?
AFAIK people are genuinely concerned for bodily autonomy and that is part of the reason they permit abortion. If bodily autonomy the way the advocate for legal abortion understands it became a bigger focus in PL thought and practice yet unborn persons were seen as far more deeply worthy of life than they currently are now then I think something could be done about this deeply controversial issue.*
*In light of that I mentioned the high techs and you stated you appreciated the fact I cared about foetal rights rather than punishing pregnant persons.
PS: I try not to demonise people. My criticisms are generally of the act itself rather than the person committing the act, and I think that is important to emphasise when dealing with those on the opposite side of the fence.
https://www.change.org/p/university-of-wisconsin-cancel-the-unethical-torture-and-killing-of-baby-monkeys/
I did.
I get annoyed and sometimes very angry with these PLrs who keep saying "People are more important than animals" and keep downplaying the very real suffering of non-human neighbours.
Talking to advocates for legal abortion has made me think through things too, especially the status that women would have in a society where abortion was not legal.
And I agree with your conclusion that sex ed and contraceptives should be freely available. I am tired of these ideas being seen as promiscuity when they are simply measures to reduce the "desire" for abortions.
It breaks my heart when other PLrs ridicule me for elevating animals to the level of humans because I express concern for their welfare and their freedom. But I feel the PL movement could benefit with a little animal-rights activism at times.
So when you hear me talk about animal rights you'll know where I'm coming from.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/friendlyatheist1/nine_dead_in_charleston_church_shooting/#comment-2404505825
Let's start from there.
BTW would it be intruding on your privacy if I requested you use your account when you comment there, not because they don't allow guests (they do) but because LJ made her account private and I can't access her threads quite the same as I once did.
Could you place a comment underneath that link then? Thanks so much!
I don't have an account at all, due to personal circumstances I don't feel comfortable getting into online. I suppose those circumstances are a blessing in disguise in a way, or he could be making my life more miserable than it is now!
Oops, we're off-topic! Gotta respect the rules. Any comments about this situation will be made on the new place not here.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/friendlyatheist1/nine_dead_in_charleston_church_shooting/#comment-2421143738
Thanks for keeping me safe!
It is not uncommon on such sites for the conservative/prolife participants to try to shut down people with contrary opinions. Name calling and ganging up is quite commonplace. It often isn't even limited to abortion opinions, but extends to political party affiliations. This tendency is no doubt quite obvious to Josh who has to put out the effort to moderate such comments.
The problem with this debate, in my opinion, is that both sides resort to stereotyping and caricaturizing people and their positions. Although this site does that less than others even the title of this piece; i.e., "Six Ways I’ve Seen Pro-Choice People Try to Censor Pro-Lifers". Shows a subtle tendency towards just that. Rather than discuss each of Timothy's points, which I'm not sure anyone is interested in me doing, I'll just address the first one. If anyone is interested in further discussion they can let me know and I would be happy to comply.
Timothy first point states that:
"If you really think abortion is justified, you shouldn’t be afraid of true images of what abortion does to babies. You don’t have to like looking at them, but if you’re so confident that your view is right, you shouldn’t try to prevent people from being able to consider all of the evidence about abortion."
I think that assumes way too much about people's motivations. People are sometimes offended by gross pictures simply because they are gross and upsetting. If I don't want to see pictures of emaciated starving disease ridden prisoners of war, or bodies being thrown into mass graves, does that mean I support Nazi ideals? If I don't care to see people with their limbs rotting off, or huge tumors sticking out of their bodies, does that make me pro-leprosy or pro-cancer?
I assume most pro-life people extend their beliefs to only protecting human life. Would that means we should expect them to look at photos and films from factory farms and slaughterhouses? Would preventing PETA sidewalk counselors outside McDonalds showing picture of cows throughout the slaughter process be censorship?
I look forward to any comments anyone might have.
Personally, I think that part of the reason some people - not all, some - react to abortion images is out of guilt, because they know instinctively abortion is morally reprehensible yet choose to participate in and/or support it anyway. However, I would be careful of abortion images and only show them to those who wanted to see them. I hate abortion images myself, because I am prolife and I find them gross.
"Rather than discuss each of Timothy's points, which I'm not sure anyone
is interested in me doing, I'll just address the first one."
Please, address all of them.
"Although this site does that less than others even the title of this
piece; i.e., "Six Ways I’ve Seen Pro-Choice People Try to Censor
Pro-Lifers". Shows a subtle tendency towards just that."
Well, the truth is both conservatives and liberals try to censor things they don't agree with. It's human nature. And yes, advocates for legal abortion do try to censor PL beliefs and facts in so many ways it's unbelievable. Not that PLrs don't do the same, but it is a strong pattern for advocates for legal abortion to do this.
I would say that censoring things you don't agree with is not so much human nature, it is more that those who take extreme positions see little value in other opinions and see little or no positive benefit in its expression. I think this is true whether you are a hardcore liberal/conservative, hardcore pro-choice/pro-life, or hardcore whatever else.
In that regard Crystal, I would ask you consider this;
Timothy's first sentence is; "Abortion is not merely immoral, it is obviously immoral." and later he says: "That abortion is obviously immoral is also why I’m open-minded."
He began his discussion with a statement that his position is obviously the right one, while claiming to be open minded. He followed that up by essentially saying that he can afford to have an open mind, because his position is obviously the right one.
He also said: "If somehow my arguments against abortion were defeated and a stronger argument for abortion was presented to me, then I would change my mind."
I don't see how that is possible that he, or the vast majority of pro-lifers, could honestly say that.
Consider that, whether they admit it or not, most pro-lifers' beliefs are largely religious (if not totally) and, consequently, are actually faith based, rather than rationally based. There is no rational argument that can change a belief that is not based on reason to begin with.
Think about this:
Josh's bio says he leads worship at Free Grace http://Church.in Clovis, California, a church whose core belief is that that the Bible is their ultimate authority.
Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action is a convert to Catholicism and admits that religion is a driving force for her mission.
The National Right to Life Committee was founded in 1967, as the Right to Life League to coordinate its state campaigns under the auspices of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.
American United for Life was founded in 1971, The organization's first chairman of the board was Unitarian minister and then-Hollis Professor of Divinity as Harvard Divinity School, George Huntston Williams. Its current president and CEO Charmaine Yoest joined the organization in 2008. Prior to this she worked as vice president of communications at the Family Research Council ( a Christian public policy ministry) and as an adviser to Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign.
Pro-Life America identifies itself as a Christian group that argues against abortion and premarital sex.
“He began his discussion with a statement that his position is obviously the right one, while claiming to be open minded. He followed that up by essentially saying that he can afford to have an open mind, because his position is obviously the right one.”
Could you please explain what you mean by this statement? Are you saying that Tim is speaking in circular reasoning? Because I would have interpreted that comment as meaning that because he has the truth on his side (pregnancy information, ultrasounds and other technology, and science confirm it as such) then he has every reason to be openminded because he will be proved right.
“He also said: "If somehow my arguments against abortion were defeated and a stronger argument for abortion was presented to me, then I would change my mind." I don't see how that is possible that he, or the vast majority of pro-lifers, could honestly say that.”
I agree with you. I perceive it to be a tactic to win more people over to the PL viewpoint. However I also think of it as compromise because how can people be open-minded about something that hurts a born person, or an animal?
Also, if people wouldn’t be open-minded towards hurting born people or animals why the hell (excuse my language but I find this kind of thing really infuriating) should they be open-minded towards hurting unborn persons? Also, is there
reason for such open-mindedness in all reality? That’s how I see it; feel free to disagree with me and stretch my mind. Not trying to be offensive in this paragraph but I feel passionately about this topic; I hope you can understand.
“Consider that, whether they admit it or not, most pro-lifers' beliefs are largely religious (if not totally) and, consequently, are actually faith based, rather than rationally based. There is no rational argument that can change a belief that is not based on reason to begin with.”
Please explain what you mean when you say that “there is no rational argument that can change a belief that is not based on reason to begin with” as I would appreciate your explanation very much on what you are trying to say.
Below is my perspective:
Well, actually, PL thought and practice IS based on science and reason, as well as faith. In regards to such teachings as souls and the inherent value of human life, I completely understand where you are coming from there because
those beliefs are not secular but rather spiritual. However, you could argue that for the sake of survival of the human race, you should reject abortion as a BC technique, which would be a secular argument. Also I will repeat the words
of two pro-abortion people on the subject (Peter Singer is pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia yet animal-rights too, and David Boonin is defending abortion in his paragraph):
“It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens.’ Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an
examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.” (Peter
Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp.85-86.)
“Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other
is this: All are living members of the same species, Homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development.” (David
Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2003, p. 20.)
I need to make one thing clear, this is NOT to pop off at you, as I see you’ve had enough of that recently! In fact I am glad we agree that life begins at conception. I am simply stating my opinion, that PL thought and practice can be supported by science and reason, and seeking to back it up with evidence. Feel free to disagree with my views if you like, but please explain why you do if you wish to reply back.
In regards to the religious side of PL thought and practice as applying to mainstream leaders, I have two perspectives on that. The first is this: many of the abolitionists were also religious. Yet that did not detract from the rightness of their cause. PL thought and practice, when weighed carefully with reality and morality, don’t tend to need religion to be their sole support. On this level, I don’t believe it matters that many PL people are religious. Wilberforce and his group were religious yet they CHANGED THE WORLD. So I don’t see why PL people can’t change the world in this generation even if they are religious. What matters is whether they are campaigning for something morally right and reasonable, and my personal PL belief does not depend on Christianity as its final authority.
On the other side of the coin, I completely share your concern. Since many PL people are religious, their religious viewpoint will also colour other aspects of their worldview in regards to why people have abortions, etc. Many of them do support abstinence-only (a belief I deplore due to its fantasy-oriented, pie-in-the-sky Orwellian focus) and anti-gay (another belief I deplore for the same reason) practice and philosophy. I make sure not to. The downside to its being a primarily religious-run movement is their inability to perceive anything outside of a religious box or context IMO. Also, other downsides: religion hurts women, religion restricts female sexuality, religion is inconsistent in the matter of the Canaanites, religion does not care for the
animals. Also religion will make them make bad policies for pregnant and unborn persons, due to their inability to think critically outside a pre-prescribed set of beliefs, and I don’t like that either (although I don’t think making abortion illegal is a bad policy). I believe I grok your point; there are a LOT
of problems with it being a religious-run movement on these levels. This topic is a topic I love to expound on so please write back more and I'd appreciate being able to share my heart on this matter with someone, if you wouldn't mind doing so.
I stated before that my personal PL belief doesn’t depend on Christianity; I think that is why it is so strict and strong. The PL believers who are Christian tend to be weak, to compromise, to only believe because their God demanded it of them and because abstinence matters rather than believe and know, with all their hearts and minds, that innocent human beings are permitted to die legally due to the choices of others.
I honestly hope I am treating you with respect, disagreeing with you in a healthy way, and listening to your viewpoints in an open-minded fashion rather than just shouting over the top of you with my own. Please respond back as soon as you can, for I would deeply appreciate some healthy debate on the points I have raised, plus further explanation to the points you brought forth.
Besides, you miss the point, which was about whether a rationally based argument will change a religiously based one.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
-Anonymous
I think it makes more sense to look at how good a person's ideas are than at how religious that person is.
How so?
"I think it makes more sense to look at how good a person's ideas are than at how religious that person is."
Do you think I contend otherwise?
How sick and horrible! Because they don't want the truth getting out, and they want their money, that's why.
That's disgusting.
Here's a website about it, and what can be done to fight it:
http://koreandogs.org/what-you-can-do/call-for-action/
http://koreandogs.org/petitions/
It's evil, I tell you. As a prolifer I feel it my duty to stand for animal life as well as human life, because it's morally right and because we're all interrelated as God's and nature's children. So I don't raise my voice against it DESPITE my prolife beliefs; I raise my voice against this barbarism BECAUSE of my prolife beliefs - because I believe so strongly in the sanctity of life for every living, breathing creature, and for me, that includes every creature yet to be born.
I'm planning to start my own vegan pro life website because I get so annoyed by the treatment of animal advocates by many pro-life people. They often treat us in the same way that abortion advocates treat the pro-life.
I also think that vegans need a space to be freely pro-life. It is a separate issue, and vegans are no more likely to be abortion advocates than anyone else, but the media and society pigeonhole us as "left-wing" along with all the beliefs that "side" is supposed to have, including supporting abortion. Consequently, abortion-advocate vegans feel like they are in the majority, politically correct side for once (as vegans are used to being a minority and in the "side" that deserves to be ridiculed) and consequently are emboldened and overly forceful with their beliefs, and the pro-life among us get sidelined.
And then we get alienated by mainstream pro-life sites constantly sneering at animal welfare, and wrongly assuming that all those who support it are somehow automatically enamoured with abortion!
I think both the pro-life and vegan movements ought to embrace diversity of opinions amongst themselves and not allow ourselves to be homogenised, especially on issues that aren't even relevant. If the pro-life movement allows society to dictate to us that we are all super-religious Christian right wingers who think animals are zoobots, by those who do fit that stereotype being allowed to perpetuate it by unintentionally marginalising left wing, non-Christians, gays,
and vegans etc, so that we feel we do not belong in your movement.
(Similarly, left-wing vegans could do with not assuming that all vegans have exactly the same beliefs as them, and making right wingers think that we won't fit in! The bottom line is, to attract as many people as possible, you need diversity!)
With regards to the censorship, the abortion advocates are emboldened by the mainstream media, who stereotype, ridicule and no-platform us. Vegans suffer the same thing; notice how Hypatia felt the need to pre-emptively proclaim that she "doesn't preach" about being veggie, even though she was not preaching at all. She was anticipating being ridiculed.
Abortion advocates and meat eaters dont fear being ridiculed, so they feel no need to self-censor
Signed, a non-religious, right wing, nationalist, pro-life vegan :)
Vicky
I guess its because all pro lifers hate women and want to stop them having sex, but also force them to be pregnant. How we can achieve both of those I just don't know.