Pro-aborts fume: New anti-Planned Parenthood tv ad campaign features Abby Johnson
Need proof that the ground game to defund Planned Parenthood is effective? Within hours after a pro-life coalition announced the launch yesterday of a $90,000 television ad campaign targeting PP, liberal Huffington Post published a rebuttal.
The ad campaign, cosponsored by American Values, Catholic Advocate, CatholicVote.org, and Susan B. Anthony List, will run in the DC market March 29 through April 7 and features former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson. Here ’tis:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgPqBQQeXh4[/youtube]
The ad directs viewers to ExposePlannedParenthood.net for more info.
HuffPo’s Laura Bassett complained:
PP spokesman Tait Sye called Johnson’s charge “entirely false and baseless.”…
Among the misleading statements in the SBA commercial, according to Sye, is the claim, made in voiceover, that “98 percent of [PP’s] services to pregnant women are abortions.”
“They’re discounting all of the preventative care we provide,” Sye said. “They’re looking at the number of abortions compared to adoption referrals to come up with that number.”
Note that Sye, yet another male PP spokesman I also note, didn’t dispute the fact that 98% of pregnant mothers who walk into PP walk out aborted.
Sye just wanted pro-lifers to tout a talking point even pro-aborts dispute: that pushing contraception prevents abortions. Guttmacher reported that a majority – 54% to be exact – of aborting mothers were using contraceptives the month they got pregnant.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
They’re fuming, alright.
Over 1,oo comments and counting on HuffPo.
Although, that’s probably slow by their standards.
GO ABBY GO! This is going to be interesting to say the least. Wow prolifers keep up the good work.
Great video! Concise and to the point and TRUE.
Ugh, why do I allow myself to read the comments on HuffPo?! They are so disturbing, so arrogant, and so FLAWED…..They use slogans, excuses, outright lies, double-speak, it’s just ridiculous. Abortion doesn’t help women. It hasn’t freed us. What is the matter with them? How ignorant can a person be?!
Oh MaryLee, NO! BAD! You will lose more brain cells more quickly reading comments in the combox section of ANY huge media outlet (CNN, Fox, HuffPo, Washington Post, etc.) Gotta stay away from them- avoid them like the plague!
I know! But maybe it’s because I gave up smoking and now I have to fill that void with another BAD BAD THING.
Honestly…..I find libs to be far, far more hateful than conservative. They’re foul-mouthed, arrogant, entitled, ignorant, misinformed…..It makes me sad that there are people who are that close-minded. Their view of pro-lifers is sick, and distorted.
I don’t like abortion, and I don’t like Planned Parenthood, but I would not classify ALL people who support abortion as morons or evil. What they SUPPORT is evil; and THEY are either ignorant or delusional, but my pro “choice” friends MEAN well. And we find that we both want to help women.
These pro-abort comments about how we don’t care about born children, how a “fetus” is NOT a baby, how it’s MY BODY and I can do what I choose, how all pro-lifers are religious fanatics….It’s horrible. It’s horrible. Then they bring out the “back alley” comments and the coat-hanger comments…..Instead of figuring out what drives women to seek abortions in the first place, pro-aborts ONLY WANT WOMEN TO ABORT. They claim pro “choice” isn’t pro-abortion, but they don’t understand; you cannot have it both ways, not when there is a baby involved.
I’m pro-choice regarding cosmetic surgery. I don’t think it’s a good idea. I think it’s stupid. But it’s not MY BODY. You wanna have your nose “refined”? Go ahead. It might be selfish and it might be stupid, and it might be a waste of money, but no child is killed. You want to use birth control? Go ahead, I don’t care. But when you have a baby, a beautiful, innocent little person who exists because of YOUR CHOICES, then you have ZERO RIGHT to kill them. Period. Their right to exist trumps a woman’s right to keep her boyfriend/buy shoes/get a promotion.
Pro-aborts are fine with the failure rates of contraception because if NONE of the mothers used it there would be MORE abortions.
Imagine if America’s supply of all contraception dried-up for six months. What would the promiscuous do … curb their sexual behavior, or just do it anyway and get an abortion when they want it?
“Imagine if America’s supply of all contraception dried-up for six months. What would the promiscuous do”
So it’s just the ”promiscuous” who have sex? What about married non Catholic couples (cuz we know that Catholics would never violate the Vatican rule about contraception, would they?) who use birth control? It’s appropriate that ”Cranky Catholic” equates sex with ”promiscuity” as this represents the twisted teachings on sex that I received from the Catholic church. And somehow, I don’t think it’s changed. Funny, as I’ve said, many Catholic girls had sex before they married. I guess they were “promiscuous.” Man, that is such an old school term. It sounds like something my grandmother would have said. (And she was a good Catholic who “had” to get married in 1920!)
And BTW, “Cranky Catholic,” if contraception dried up, women would still be able to douche after sex. That’s what my mother used during her fertile days. It’s not totally effective but it’s better than nothing!
So it’s just the ”promiscuous” who have sex?
No. The promiscuous probably bake cookies and go to the beach like everyone else; but having sex before marriage is promiscuous. And you don’t have to be Catholic to be guilty of an offense against God and marriage, namely, birth control.
I think the ad is really personable. It shows the compassion of people who develop and move away from prochoice position to prolife, like Abby (and me).
It’s also factual and to the point. For people who still associate PP with a vague idea of ‘services’, it makes the clear, substantiated case that PP is all about abortion. Desperate PP fans can’t dispute the numbers or testimony from a caring former PP director like Abby. So they will clutch at the bizarre…
Example #1, from this combox.
Notice a comment above uses the word ‘Catholic’ half a dozen times. It’s not related to the post and demonstrates an odd fixation. This person can’t dispute PP and its abortion focus, so they set up a straw man in response to another commenter, and throw out a red herring by going after beliefs of a religious group. Pointless and sad.
CC,
In a healthy monogamous relationship, a pregnancy is not generally seen as the end of one’s world. The positive pregnancy test is often viewed with trepidation, but is not the traumatic experience which it is painted by those who fear the commitment represented by a baby.
Being in a secure and healthy marriage can change your life, and save another.
“And you don’t have to be Catholic to be guilty of an offense against God and marriage, namely, birth control”
Uh,oh! There are a number of very religious, non Catholics, on this blog, who practice birth control. And tell me “Cranky Catholic,” where, in the Bible, is there a prohibition against birth control? Oh right, it’s a man made RC church commandment – something that other Christian faiths are not obligated to follow. But nice to know that you think that other religions, that approve birth control, are offending God. But as a “cranky Catholic,” you’re a member of that one, “true,” church! I know cuz that’s what I was taught.
“In a healthy monogamous relationship, a pregnancy is not generally seen as the end of one’s world”
If a couple just lost their house to foreclosure and they are both unemployed, the pregnancy ain’t exactly a bundle of joy!
Ya know, having a 2 year old (or a couple more kids, even) when your house is foreclosed and you’re unemployed probably wouldn’t be a picnic, either.
Guess we should off those kids. That would make it so much more joyful and easy for the parents, after all. Fewer mouths to feed.
The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it, right, CC? Ah, Sanger would be proud.
CC,
Let me tell you a story about a young couple who had just lost their only source of income and found themselves pregnant. Let me tell you a story about that young couple scrimping and saving and borrowing from family to make their rent. Let me tell you a story about a young pregnant woman running a paper delivery route with her husband just so that they could get by.
Thanks be to God, that young couple was able to make their way through until they found more profitable employment. Thanks be to God, that young couple chose life for their son. Thanks be to God that young couple now has a healthy 2 1/2 year old boy who fills their every day with JOY.
Thanks be to God the young man in that story STOOD UP and took responsibility. Thanks be to God that young woman knew better when her local Planned Parenthood pushed abortion instead of providing any prenatal care/references. Thanks be to God their local CPC helped them receive low-cost health insurance and maternity clothing.
Believe it or not, CC, I know exactly what it’s like to be in dire straits when that pregnancy test confirms the news you were scared to hear. I know precisely how hard it is for two unemployed people to find out that they are going to be welcoming a new addition in 9 short months (8, for me, actually). And it isn’t hopeless. Like I said, trepidation, and some fear, but not the life-shattering news some would have you think.
@CC:
I usually avoid getting in the middle of these little internet slap-fights, but please leave non-Catholic religious folk out of it. Speak for yourself, not for people you don’t know. For example, as a Protestant who is okay with contraception, I’m not in the least offended by the Catholic viewpoint that it’s wrong, or their belief that they are the one true church. I admire their conviction. Definitely keeps things orderly.
Whatever our disagreements, devout Catholics are deserving of respect as far as I’m concerned. . .so, again, please don’t use the broad brushstroke of “non-Catholic, Religious people” to take shots at Catholics. It just makes you look rude and overly presumptive.
Beyond that, if you’re actually interested in why the Catholic church teaches what it teaches, I suggest doing your research and asking politely at places like http://www.catholic.com Religious tolerance begins with understanding.
The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it, right, CC?
Depending on the circumstances of the family – yes, an abortion would be preferable. As a former child welfare worker, I saw plenty of abused children whose mothers should have opted for abortion. And if a fetus is seriously medically compromised then it’s fair more merciful to abort. What is criminal is for society to force women to have a child when, for whatever reason, the woman is unable to care for it. And please don’t tell me that there are countless pro-life folks who are dying to adopt a disabled child. While there are some, the need, at present, is barely met and that’s why the government has medical centers which house many of these children. If abortion is criminalized there will be more of these kids. Oh, let’s go back to the happy days of orphanages. That’s a plan. Not every parent of a Down’s Syndrome child has the money and the support systems that Sarah Palin does. The important thing is that she had the choice to continue the pregnancy.
And BTW, Sanger was being being sarcastic when she talke about “killing the child.” If you examine the context, she was talking about poor families, whom she had contact with when she did social work, who had too many children. The consequences for those families, at that time, were dire. She realized that if families wanted to get out of poverty, they needed to control their fertility. The same obtains today.
“but please leave non-Catholic religious folk out of it”
Cranky Catholic said that non-Catholics, who practice birth control, are offending God. I don’t think that reflects religious tolerance and understanding. But if you’re cool with that – whatever!
Mary Rose
Not every story, such as the one you told, has a happy ending. People and circumstances are different.
CC,
I’ve told you before and I’ll tell you again. MaryRose, not Mary Rose.
I understand that my story is different, but it’s different because we put our faith and trust in God, and we worked through the hard times with the knowledge that the death of our child would be infinitely more scarring and evil.
And BTW, Sanger was being being sarcastic when she talke about “killing the child.” If you examine the context, she was talking about poor families, whom she had contact with when she did social work, who had too many children. The consequences for those families, at that time, were dire. She realized that if families wanted to get out of poverty, they needed to control their fertility. The same obtains today.
Sorry, but you’ve confirmed exactly what I said, and it’s obvious from your comment here that she was quite serious, not sarcastic, when she made these remarks.
Oh, let’s go back to the happy days of orphanages. That’s a plan.
Better off dead than poor, right?
I know, instead of having Christian missionaries build orphanages in third-world countries, we need to just “enlighten” those folks with abortion, right?
Those kids will never amount to anything anyway, right, CC? Because we all know impoverished orphans are just a bunch of undesirable drains on society. Right, CC?
Yeah, that’s true. So since not every pregnancy is “happy” let’s just kill the kids and be done with it. That’ll fix it, for sure. Abortion was supposed to be the panacea for our societal ills and the cure for poverty. What those minority communities need is MORE abortion, right, CC? That way we can get their abortion numbers up from 60% to, say, 90%. Then everybody’s happy. Right, CC?
@CC:
Cranky Catholic is entitled to his own beliefs. He’s only speaking what he honestly believes to be the truth. If I were to deny him that right, how could I then say that “Jesus is the only way.” Many religious beliefs are fairly exclusive. I’m not a child. I can handle the idea that not everyone agrees with me. After all, that’s the point of religious tolerance: To tolerate even the beliefs with which we disagree.
Anyway, thanks for understanding.
MaryLee,
You’re comment at 10:17 a.m., especially the last two paragraphs, deserves to be a quote of the day! Brava!
How ignorant can a person be?!
Good question. I wonder that every time I read a post by Robert Berger.
All persons practicing birth control are committing an offense to God. It doesn’t matter if you’re Christian, Jew, or Hindu, married or unmarried.
Bravo, Cranky. You’re absolutely right. Thank you for saying it without apology. The road to abortion begins with birth control. The road to birth control begins with promiscuity. The road to promiscuity begins without God. Anything that begins without God ends in death.
All persons practicing birth control are committing an offense to God. It doesn’t matter if you’re Christian, Jew, or Hindu, married or unmarried
Once again, there should be no question as to why, among the reality based community, the pro-life movement are considered a bunch of narrow minded, religious (and very Catholic) zealots!
And Jennifer, I guess you’re saying that married couples, who practice birth control, are sexual deviants? BTW, without birth control, there are more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions. Your god doesn’t have anything to do with this.
BTW, I just finished reading Abby’s book “Unplanned” while sitting at the local Family Christian Bookstore (Hubby got a picture of me at my best, reading :D ) It’s a powerful testimony, similar in some aspects to Norma McCorvey’s conversion (the sidewalk counselors reaching out to her and slowly winning her heart & trust) and showing the great lengths PP’s employees ensure clients choose abortion over other options & the reality of how employees delude themselves into thinking they’re really helping women, I’ll give it that, but I still have my hesitations and doubts as whether or not her story is presenting an accurate full picture of the events leading up to & what occurred on the day of her conversion.
So if a “promiscuous” woman has sex and does what god wants and has the baby, the baby is a gift from god. Is the woman still considered “promiscuous” – i.e. a slut? (Which is what my maternal grandmother must have been when she gave birth to my mother, without sacrament of marriage and without sperm donor, in 1920!)
BTW, when the Model T was created, the zealots said that the car would pave the way for promiscuous behavior!
Many college kids have sex. Guess they’re just “promiscuous.” Oh well….
Abby Johnson, prior to her conversion, said that she was threatened by those on the other side. That doesn’t get much play, now that she’s a “handmaiden”….
And Jennifer, I guess you’re saying that married couples, who practice birth control, are sexual deviants?
No, CC, I did not say married couples using birth control are sexual deviants. I said birth control is wrong, even if you’re married. Birth control mentality paves the way for abortion mentality. When sex becomes only about physical pleasure and satisfaction and not procreation, then it is a misuse of the gift of sexual intimacy. That is an offense against God.
Hans! Thank you so much, you’re very kind.
I am trying to NOT READ HuffPo at all, even for the movie gossip (I love movie gossip!)…..
Cranky Catholic wrote:
“…but having sex before marriage is promiscuous. And you don’t have to be Catholic to be guilty of an offense against God and marriage, namely, birth control.”
Cranky, at the age of 18, I was in a healthy, consensual, monogamous relationship with my then boyfriend (now spouse) & I was not “promiscuous”. Looking back, I do regret the decision & have had enough guilt and shame to contend with, without having to hear such slut shaming as above. Fortuantly, now I’m at a point in my life where I’ve become stronger and it didn’t really affect me. But how many troubled or hurting girls are going to be further hurt or will turn away from such a message? What if there is such a person here, lurking & reading, who might not decide to reach out for help after all, for fear of being judged. I caution you to speak with kindness & forgiveness than condemnation & judgement.
Am I not supposed to point out sin when I see it?
Rachael,
At the age of 18 I was also in a committed monogamous sexual relationship with my now-husband, but then-boyfriend. I now realize that the behavior in which I was engaging was dangerous, sinful and promiscuous. I take no offense to Cranky’s comments because they are not judgmental of ME but of the SIN. I sinned against God by engaging in sex before marriage and I will never be able to accept Christ’s payment for those sins if I never recognize them for dangerous and sinful behaviors.
For the record, you’re the one who brought up the s-word. I never, even during the course of my relationship prior to marriage, felt that the very traditional Catholics around me were “slut-shaming” me. Rather, even then I was able to recognize their concern and love.
As a former child welfare worker, I saw plenty of abused children whose mothers should have opted for abortion.
What an unbelievably offensive statement but I really should not be shocked. I work with abused children and my children and I were once abused as well. Would you tell us to our faces that the world would be better off without us in it?
We have overcome abuse but we still have more joy in our little pinkies than you do in your whole body. What an angry, bitter, human you are.
The passage against contraception, specifically c.interruptus, is in the Jewish Bible, commonly called The Old Testament by Christians. It’s not only Catholic, but also Orthodox both Christian orthodox and Jewish.
CC,
My grandparents were poor, and they had 14 children. They always said that every child was a blessing. God always made it so that the children never starved, because in those days, people actually looked out for one another, and shared what they had with those who had less. There was no lack of love in that house. Let me tell you something: As long as you have love, and you truly believe that you will make it through, you can and will live.
All 14 children grew up to make a huge difference in this world. We would not have the technology or medical standards that we do today without them, guaranteed. For you to dismiss the fact that every person makes a difference, and to insist that large, poor families should not exist is extremely insulting.
One thing about large families is that there is always so much love. When the older children grow, they get jobs. Then they can buy what they need for themselves, and often share with the rest of the family. The older siblings look out for their younger siblings. They don’t just go away and forget everyone back home. That’s not how it works. Everyone looks out for everyone else because of the amount of love in a large family. Furthermore, others see that love, and they become part of the family, and contribute to what the family has. Everyone in the family works toward the good of the family, because a family is a community, a community of love.
Therefore, to mercilessly kill one of those family members, just because you might be worried about what might or might not be, is a sad state of affairs, and counters, nay, destroys the love that might have been.
Every child is a gift, a blessing from God.
In response to Cranky Catholic at 6:04pm:”Am I not supposed to point out sin when I see it?”
Not necessarily. Christians from any denomination, including Catholics, recognize that God is the sole being that judges humanity, Mother Teresa of Calcutta said, “If you judge people, you have no time to love them.” Be cautious when casting sin on others. At times it can be appropriate, but oftentimes it is not.
CC has valid points when calling out the use of the word “promiscuous.” As a young adult woman, I am pro-life because I want to support women (same motivation as “pro-choice” or “pro-aborts,” despite what you may think). Placing my judgment on another woman, including pro-choice or pro-abort women, does not offer support or empowerment.
Back in January when Abby Johnson released her book Unplanned, I listened in on the webcast. Her words of advice to pro-lifers was to “Be peaceful. Be prayerful. Be compassionate.” Calling women “promiscuous,” whether they are atheist or Catholic, a teenager or adult, does not coincide with being compassionate or prayerful.
I read a few of the comments on HuffPo, but gave it a miss when I came across a few too many claiming that Susan B. Anthony would’ve been for the killing of unborn children in the name of empowering women, or giving PP money, or something…
I hear ya Praxedes,
A lot of pro-choicers just assume that an abused child would be better off aborted. As terrible as it is to say, that view is actually consistent for pro-choicers. I mean if abortion really is better than to grow up an orphan/abused, pro-choicers would say an orphan would be better off not born. I mean sometimes I wonder, shouldn’t pro-choicers who make that argument advocate for orphans and abused children to be killed as well? According to them that is a better fate.
It seems like a cognitive dissonance with abortion supporters, it is merciful to kill the unborn so they won’t have a terrible life but not when the child is born?
A,
You shall not hate in your heart anyone of your kin; you shall reprove your neighbor, or you will incur guilt yourself. -Leviticus 19:17
Whoever rebukes a person will afterward find more favor
than one who flatters with the tongue. -Proverbs 28:23
Shout out, do not hold back! Lift up your voice like a trumpet! Announce to my people their rebellion, to the house of Jacob their sins. Yet day after day they seek me and delight to know my ways, as if they were a nation that practiced righteousness and did not forsake the ordinance of their God; they ask of me righteous judgments, they delight to draw near to God. -Isaiah 58:1,2
[T]hey loved human glory more than the glory that comes from God. -John 12:43
Should we be cruel to those who sin? Of course not! Should we, as Rachael says, “Slut-shame” them? No! But should we blind their eyes to their sins? Should we fail to acknowledge that certain behaviors are sins against our nature and against our God? To do so would be an equally hateful thing to do. To lie, to deceive, and to distort the true purpose of sex would be clearly wrong.
I suppose Jesus should have shown more tolerance to the Samaritan woman instead of pointing out her living with a man who was not her husband.
CC
As a former child welfare worker, I saw plenty of abused children whose mothers should have opted for abortion…
At your time as a former child welfare worker, did you also see plenty of abused children whose mothers should have opted for infanticide? Because I dont understand how more deliberate injury to a child (this time deliberately fatal) already abused by their parents leads to a freer society? I would have thought that the fatal injury would have compounded and added to the lifetime of abuse that that child received. And it would not be in the child’s welfare at all to look at the bruises and injuries on the child and say to the mother ‘y’know, you could be more merciful and end their abuse, hit them straight in the skull with a sledgehammer whilst they are sleeping.’ I would have thought that if you were a child welfare worker then you would say something along the lines of ‘you want this abuse to stop happening, CHANGE YOUR BEHAVIOR.’
I dont see how two wrongs to a child make a right
Hey, did anyone else read the HuffPo comments? They are claiming we have no right to use Susan B Anthony’s name, that her abortion quote is taken out of context, and that she was really “pro-choice.” They claim she didn’t LIKE abortion but would have been on the pro “choice” side. I can’t understand why pro-aborts. Won’t help women NOT abort……that seems to be the ONLY choice for them. The choice of life actually ANGERS them. (See Pam Tebow….)
(*sputter*) Okay, y’all had to go and talk about moral imperatives, and drag me back from my “Lenten Lurk-dom”…
As a few commenters have already noted: we need to be very careful about how we use the Biblical injunction, “Do Not Judge!” That has a specific meaning… and it does NOT mean that we are forbidden to point out sin when it happens. It means that we are obligated, under pain of serious sin, to distinguish the sin from the sinner–to condemn the former, and not condemn the latter. Even a few seconds’ clear thought can show that the idea of “don’t judge what people do” is ridiculous, and it’d reduce all of Christianity to utter nonsense if it were ever followed. Repentance is impossible if sin is not recognized and taken seriously; without repentance, there’s no Heaven, no salvation, no escape from Hell. This really isn’t something to take lightly, or to treat casually (i.e. without serious thought). Christianity is truth-based, not sentimentality-based.
Jeff Cavins, a Catholic speaker (who was a non-Catholic minister for many years, after he fell away from the Church), put it this way: “We’re not called to judge people–i.e. to say whether any particular person is going to Hell, or not; we are, however, called to judge the fruits that people produce (cf. Matthew 7:16, etc.). We’re not judges of souls; we’re “fruit inspectors“. :) That does, however, include identification of wrong actions. For example: it’s quite licit, within a true Christian framework, to say that a particular behaviour is “promiscuous”, or even that a given person has acted “promiscuously” (though the timing and venue of such sayings would need to be weighed carefully); it would not, however, be morally licit to “pigeon-hole” someone as “that promiscuous person” in the sense that the sin somehow “defines” them as a person (which is nonsense).
Anyway… I didn’t want to make this a long aside, but this issue is so badly misunderstood in our culture that we, as people of Faith, need to have these issues clear and solid in our own minds, before trying to implement them. (And please don’t think that I’m flawless at “distinguishing the sin from the sinner”! I am, when I’m calm and when everything is going my way; when I’m angry or outraged or hurt… no so much. God has a great deal of work to do in me, I fear. Speaking of which: back to Lenten Lurk-dom, for me! See you at Easter!)
@CC: Cranky Catholic said that non-Catholics, who practice birth control, are offending God. I don’t think that reflects religious tolerance and understanding. But if you’re cool with that – whatever!
You have fundamentally misunderstood the concept of “tolerance” (and that of “understanding”) and are now trying to require everyone else in the world to agree with your flawed and incorrect view. And just to be clear, in case you missed it, yes. I’m also telling you that you are wrong about something.
The thing about tolerance is that it isn’t necessary unless there is something about another person that I do not like. Something to tolerate. Something about which I think the other person is wrong. Not “wrong for me” like when we’re talking about favorite flavors of ice cream, but objectively wrong. As in, there is a standard somewhere and they don’t meet it. Understanding is much the same way, at least in the context you’re trying to use it. If I already have a particular concept in my mind, and agree with it, there’s no need for me to try to understand it. The only things I would need to work on coming to an understanding of are things I do not already agree with or believe. In this case, as with tolerance, the word assumes that two parties do not agree on something.
Neither tolerance nor understanding, religious or otherwise, requires that you believe all religious positions are equally valid or correct. That very concept undermines both the need for tolerance (because no one really would disagree with anybody else) and the possibility of any truth at all! No atheist anywhere is going to believe I, being an Evangelical Protestant, am objectively correct on the matter of God. If you asked them, they would say so. That’s not intolerance. They just think I’m wrong. And it’s okay, because I think they’re just as wrong right back. I think Cranky is wrong on the subject of birth control. That’s not intolerance. We just each think the other is wrong. And we can sort out who was right when we get to Heaven, presuming we still even care by then. ;)
But I don’t need to have everyone agree with me. No one does. Tolerance does not mean that everyone thinks nothing you do is wrong. In fact tolerance means that people do think some of what you do is wrong. It doesn’t even mean people don’t say they think you’re wrong in exactly so many words. It means that when those views don’t hurt anyone (so, abortion wouldn’t apply in any way at all), then for all your disagreements, you put up with the other person anyway. That is how you tolerate. It does not mean “I’m okay, you’re okay, we’re all okay together.” Anyone who thinks it does… Well, I can tolerate the fact that they are wrong.
Very well said Alice. Brilliant.
So, anyone have any thoughts about that Susan B. Anthony theory? My last comment was incoherent because I was writing it on my phone while my cat was chewing on my hair.
I’m so intolerant of sin that when I am guilty of committing my own, I am contrite, I confess it to a priest, and do penance for it.
If I don’t tolerate my own sins, why should I tolerate the sins of others?
Thanks Paladin, for your post.
People who have no understanding of the concept love the throw the ‘don’t judge’ phrase around to try and make us more “tolerant.” They have a funny way of picking and choosing what to be tolerant of themselves. Some commenters can’t get through the day without a Catholic bash. Addicted to hate, anyone??
Susan B. Anthony believed that our society (and men) had failed women miserably if women were seeking out abortions.
She’s probably rolling in her grave now that so many women are claiming abortion “empowers” them. She would not have supported abortion on demand.
Thanks, Kel! See, that’s what I thought. The HuffPo commenters said, “She’d want women to have a choice”….also, ironically, they believe she’s rolling over in her grave because of the pro-life movement.
But the thing is, if women are seeking abortions, then something is wrong; women have been failed time and time again. It is not EMPOWERING, it is defeminizing. Why do I have to become some sort of oversexed, non-reproductive masculine figure to compete in this world? What IS that? How in the heck is abortion empowering? How can anything that destroys someone else, that destroys the most beautiful and innocent of all of us—how can that ever, ever be good?
You’re right, Mary Lee. And how can we be “feminists” if we despise our own fertility and the fact that we get the PRIVILEGE of bearing and raising the next generation?
I mentioned this on another thread the other day, but it seems like more and more, we really do hate just being women. We hate our own biology – our periods (take this Pill and you’ll only bleed 4 times a year, YAY!), the fact that we can bear children, and on and on. We hate it unless we can somehow suppress it to make ourselves more like men.
I don’t get it and I never will.
Hey, I like that I have an excuse to eat chocolate and cheeseburgers every month. (My pescatarianism has waned…..Um, I am aware of my hypocrisy–my husband is a pro-life vegetarian!) I like that I am a woman; I feel honored that I can bear children. Equal doesn’t mean SAMENESS, it means we are of the same value though we are different.
I don’t know how any destructive, bloody procedure could ever be “empowering.” I’ve been trying really hard to understand the pro-choice mindset (again….I used to be pro-choice, for superficial, uninformed reasons)….and while I understand the silly arguments by people who like the sexiness of the pro-choice side, I am more worried about those whose chosen vocation is to kill the unborn, and to promote the killing of the unborn, and to celebrate the killing of the unborn. Bleah.
*shudders*